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

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

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

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

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

A discussion on revenue enhancement ideas was postponed.

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan

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

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

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

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

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

AGEP: Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGEP: History and Data

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

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

AGEP: “Beyond Diversity” Training

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

AGEP: Equity Plan Rubric

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

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

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

AGEP: Accountability

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

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

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

AGEP: Board Response and Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comment: Class Size – Preschool, Special Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Intervention and Support Services Review

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

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

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

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

SISS Review: Goals and Accomplishments

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

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

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

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

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

SISS Review: Compliance

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

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

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

SISS Review: Medicaid

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

SISS Review: Peer-to-Peer Mentoring

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

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

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

SISS Review: Assistive Technology

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

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

SISS Review: Transition Services

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

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

SISS Review: Board Discussion

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

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

Several trustees suggested that SISS engage better with parents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board and Superintendent Evaluations

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

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

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

The board agreed to retake the survey.

Agenda Planning – Balanced Calendar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

School bus operated for Ann Arbor Public Schools headed north on State Street on Jan 27, 2012. Changes to the way AAPS provides transportation services was a major theme of the AAPS board's Jan. 25 committee meeting.

That led to a vigorous discussion of the district’s immediate and longer-term options to continue to function in a challenging fiscal and political environment beyond 2012-13. “Everything has to be on the table … Education is not going to be the same,” said trustee Susan Baskett.

Mexicotte agreed, saying the time for incremental change has passed, and that the district “might need to make some bold moves.”

As options to consider for the following year, trustees listed the following: redistricting; eliminating 7th hour high school classes; closing schools; sharing principals; passing a countywide enhancement millage; changing high school start times; moving more athletics extracurricular activities to a “club sports” model; increasing the number of online class offerings; changing state law; working with the University of Michigan to allow AAPS students to earn credit hours there at a reduced rate; and moving to a balanced calendar district-wide.

In some detail, the board also evaluated its options for busing – in light of news that the Ypsilanti and Willow Run public schools are considering pulling out of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s transportation consortium. That would leave Ann Arbor as the sole participant in the consortium.

Trustees directed administration to examine and make a recommendation on the following transportation options: improving busing within the current framework of the WISD; consolidating busing with Ypsilanti and Willow Run outside the WISD consolidation; bringing busing back into the AAPS budget with bus drivers remaining public employees; bringing busing back into the AAPS budget but privatizing bus drivers; eliminating busing entirely; or collaborating with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) to transport AAPS students.

Several trustees also made plugs for protecting classrooms from the effect of budget cuts, and even suggested lowering class sizes. AAPS superintendent Patricia Green suggested it was also important to relieve some of the pressure and anxiety felt by teachers and other district staff. “We are at the tipping point,” she said, “Five years of budget cuts can take its toll.”

Also at the Jan 25 COTW meeting, trustees heard updates on the AAPS preschool and family center programs, including some discussion of the county’s relinquishing of its management of the federal Head Start grant. And, the board was briefed on the implementation of the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), a new assessment tool the board approved for purchase last May.

Budget Update

Superintendent Patricia Green introduced the budget update by urging the board to consider a “balanced approach.” Later, she clarified, “We have fund equity for a rainy day – it’s pouring. It is my recommendation that we use fund equity this year.” Robert Allen, the district’s deputy superintendent of operations, said that in his view, the district was “past the tipping point” in terms of acceptable budget reductions. He noted that Gov. Rick Snyder will be proposing his budget on Feb. 9. That will give AAPS an idea of what its foundation allowance will be, but  Allen reiterated that AAPS is anticipating the need to reduce the FY 2012-13 budget by $14 to $16 million.

At the Jan. 25 COTW meeting the board discussed the 2012-13 budget mostly in broad strokes, rather than focusing on the evaluation of specific budget reduction suggestions. Trustees aligned themselves philosophically behind the idea of dipping into fund equity, a topic about which they have previously been quite split. They also discussed the budget-creation process – specifically how to engage community members most effectively and to make their input as useful as possible.

Budget Update: Using Fund Equity

Trustee Andy Thomas suggested that the board should try to meet half of its budget reduction target by reducing expenditures and enhancing revenue, but should meet the other half by taking the money out of fund equity. He noted the one-time funding AAPS received from the state to reward state-identified “best practices,” and Medicaid reimbursement as unanticipated sources of revenue that could be used to offset any budget cuts.

Thomas was clear that using fund equity would stave off the more difficult decisions only for one more year – due to the structural funding deficit facing the district. However, he said, that would give the district another year to have the kind of conversations in the community about what major things could be done, and a year to get any of those plans in motion. Optimistically, Thomas also said that there could be a change in the priorities of the governor or state legislature as Michigan’s economy continues to recover.

Trustees each expressed support for Thomas’ proposal, at least in theory. “I don’t know whether I buy into the ‘half’ formula, but I want to be supportive of using fund equity instead of trying to solve it all through revenue enhancement and expenditure cuts,” Nelson said.

Mexicotte agreed philosophically, she said, with using fund equity to give the district a “respite.” She argued, “It’s been hellacious the last couple of years and it’s just too much. Our people don’t deserve it. Our students don’t deserve it.”

Even Stead agreed, whose position on using fund equity has been among the most conservative of her colleagues. “I would be more comfortable using fund equity if we feel like we can get some political change … I’m certainly comfortable being a little more risky.” Lightfoot expressed support at Stead’s evolving position, to which Stead responded, “I’m not proud of myself.”

Budget Update: Budgeting Process

Trustee Christine Stead suggested that the board should spend the next few months working with the community to develop budget solutions specific to the areas most likely to be impacted. She noted that it would be more effective to engage the community sooner in forming partnerships rather than dealing with informing everyone over the summer of the impact of budget changes. “I think we need to fast-track [the process] and help people focus on areas we already know will be impacted,” she suggested.

Mexicotte went a step further, saying, “The community forums are not going to get us where we need to be at this point … I think we need to use to expertise we have.” She suggested that the administration was in a better position than the community to know what cuts have been made over the past few years, and to suggest how to proceed. She also suggested that it might be time to stop making incremental adjustments and instead to “make some bold moves.”

Baskett suggested changing elementary school boundaries [redistricting], or altering start times at high schools. “Everything has to be on the table,” she said. Education is not going to be the same.” Stead suggested making further cuts to athletics, and instituting a balanced calendar district-wide.

Mexicotte said she would be on board with any suggested changes that would provide a budget solution while strengthening educational outcomes. “Let’s be bold. Let’s put it all on the table – whatever it is,” she suggested. “I would like to know the very best thinking of our team … I would like to know what its worth to redistrict, to close a building … I don’t know if that’s what I want to do, but if it [leads to] better outcomes, I want to know the options.”

Mexicotte closed by asking Allen and Green if they felt they had received appropriate direction form the board, and they said they had.

Transportation

The one area in which the board did dive into budget specifics was busing. That was prompted by news that Ypsilanti and Willow Run public schools decided this week to consolidate transportation services in their districts, and put out a request for proposals (RFP) for transportation services.

Allen explained that if Ypsilanti and Willow Run quit the existing consortium of districts getting transportation services through WISD, that would would leave only AAPS in the WISD consortium.  That would significantly increase management costs that have, up to now, been shared by the members of the corsortium. He also noted that there has been a lot of talk at the state level about the possibility of consolidating school districts. Green suggested that merging transportation operations may be the first step toward a broader consolidation of Ypsilanti and Willow Run.

Transportation: Board Response to Ypsi/Willow

Trustees asked why Willow Run and Ypsilanti public schools made the decision to band together, with an eye to withdrawing from the WISD consortium. WISD assistant superintendent for business services Brian Marcel responded that both districts are under a lot of financial stress and are likely trying to be sure they do their due diligence. He noted that if the WISD responds to the joint RFP put out by Willow Run and Ypsilanti, it would be “competing against ourselves.”

Trustee Glenn Nelson added that he thought the Ypsilanti/Willow Run RFP was motivated by a desire to privatize services in order to get out from under the state retirement system mandate, which is rising to an employer contribute rate of 27% of total salaries. Nelson suggested that the board should explore whether AAPS could join the RFP process. Nelson said that privatizing transportation services – with or without Ypsilanti and Willow Run – would yield significant savings, though he said he was not necessarily advocating for that.

Mexicotte said that it distressed her that Willow Run and Ypsilanti “did not make a phone call to say they were going to do an RFP.” Trustee Susan Baskett agreed, likening the situation to AAPS “getting dumped at the prom.” Mexicotte reiterated how AAPS had decided to stay in the WISD consortium even when all but three districts pulled out because AAPS was the “linchpin” needed to make it work for the other districts. “I’m trying desperately to hang onto a top-drawer educational system, and I feel like at every turn we are being thwarted,” Mexicotte said. She suggested considering taking buses and drivers back within AAPS, or alternately, cutting busing entirely.

Marcel said the WISD has tried to be responsive to AAPS, and that it was not a fair assessment to say WISD had not addressed inefficiencies. When AAPS decided to change its overall transportation policy this year, Marcel said, “that changed everything.”

Transportation: Evaluation of WISD Transportation Services

Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Christine Stead expressed concerns that the board has not been given a requested update on operational statistics from the WISD. The operational stats would include a detailed breakdown of on-time arrivals and departures, and accidents/incidents. Marcel said the WISD has provided the board with a financial report, and will be undertaking a customer satisfaction survey of parents in the spring.

Stead said continuing to receive transportation services from the WISD wouldn’t be compelling if two of the three districts pulled out of the consortium. She added that the operational statistics were necessary to decide if AAPS should continue to work with the WISD on transportation. Lightfoot agreed, saying that the spring was too late to receive this information.

Mexicotte suggested to Marcel that he meet with trustees one-on-one to address their frustrations. She noted that the board has made “numerous” requests for information from the WISD that it has not received.

Transportation: Special Education Busing

Thomas wondered whether AAPS would leave special education busing in the hands of the WISD regardless of what it decides to do regarding general education busing. Allen said that was definitely a conversation that should happen, and noted that the fact that special education buses carry low numbers of students to central locations makes the consolidation of those services particularly appealing.

Transportation: AATA

Lightfoot strongly advocated subsidizing the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority to bus AAPS students rather than eliminating busing entirely. “AATA is thinking about its role,” she said. “We have a responsibility to work across government entities for the benefit of taxpayers.” [Lightfoot was one of 39 people who spoke at a public hearing on transportation held at a meeting of the Ann Arbor city council on Jan. 23. In her remarks, she encouraged increased collaboration between AAPS and AATA.]

Lightfoot also said she leaned toward supporting AATA rather than the WISD – because the AATA is in the business of providing transportation. She suggested that the AAPS could subsidize student bus passes, and that it’s important to give the community options, if AAPS eliminates busing entirely.

Baskett noted that if AAPS eliminates busing, many students will look to AATA to provide that transportation, and suggested that AAPS should give AATA a “heads up.”

Stead expressed concern with working with AATA while the transit authority is in the midst of a major transition to a countywide model. She noted that while Ann Arbor will still hold nearly half the seats on the restructured AATA board [7 of 15], it would not have a majority. Green agreed, saying that coordinating student transportation with AATA “is not as easy as it sounds, [and] … cannot happen on a short turnaround at all.”

Thomas noted that the basic problem with using AATA buses for students as he saw it was that AATA routes are “spokes of a wheel… intended to bring riders downtown, not to distribute people around the edge of the wheel.” Lightfoot said that AATA could be used to work in certain areas or at certain times of day, but Stead countered that AAPS cannot offer busing inequitably within student groups.

Nelson stated that there are models for this sort of cooperation, such as in Madison, Wisconsin. The strongest argument against the idea that it’s too hard, he said, is that this model works in other places.

Preschool/Headstart Update

Michelle Pogliano and Kecia Rorie – principal and vice-principal, respectively, of the district’s Preschool and Family Center – gave their annual report to the board outlining the various programs and services serving the youngest AAPS learners. The preschool serves children and their families from birth to five through four main programs – Head Start, the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP), Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE), and Early On. Children can qualify for services in a variety of ways – based on low income, being “at-risk of school failure,” or having developmental delays or special needs.

Pogliano explained the impact on the preschool of Washtenaw County’s decision to relinquish management of the federal Head Start grant. At this time, she said, a request for proposals (RFP) has not yet been issued for another entity to take over Head Start, but it is anticipated that the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) will submit a proposal to become the new grantee. If local management of Head Start shifts to the WISD as anticipated, Pogliano said, AAPS preschool will remain a “delegate site” and the program’s structure will remain the same.

Nelson noted that Head Start’s grantee is required to make a 25% match of federal funding for program costs. He expressed concern about how that will play out. He questioned what the WISD would have to cut in order to provide the matching Head Start funds, which he estimated to be about $400,000.

Stead pointed out that federal funding is also likely to decrease over the next ten years, leading to a cumulative reduction that could have a serious impact on the ability of Head Start to be sustainable. Lightfoot agreed, saying that she feared the program might be phased out all together.

Trustees praised the preschool staff members for their dedication, and expressed their support for the preschool, regardless of what happens to federal Head Start funding. Pogliano said the new grantee should be in place by April.

Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Assessment

AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction Alesia Flye, director of instructional technology Anne Reader, and director of student accounting, testing, and administrative support Jane Landefeld updated the board on the implementation of the Northwest Evaluation Association’s (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment in the district this fall.

The board approved the purchase of the MAP in May 2011. It is an adaptive, computerized assessment of math and reading skills. The MAP is currently being administered to all AAPS students in grades K-5 and K-8 students at Ann Arbor Open at Mack and the Scarlett-Mitchell campus. It’s administered three times a year – in September, January, and May.

At the Jan. 25 COTW meeting, both Flye and superintendent Patricia Green acknowledged that the rollout of the new assessment tool had been rocky, but that staff is now more comfortable with it.

Green said there was a time this fall when the district had to decide whether to follow through with using the MAP. “There were complications with the implementation due to our archaic technology… It became a real nightmare,” Green said. She explained that after significant retooling of the product, by both the vendor and AAPS instructional technology department, “the glitches weren’t there this time around.”

Reader detailed how professional development has been used to teach AAPS staff how to administer the MAP, as well as how to use the data it provides. She walked the board through some examples of the reports and planning charts teachers can access, as well as how individual student data will be shared with parents. Use of student growth data among third grade teachers at Allen Elementary was highlighted.

Trustees expressed excitement about the uses of the growth-over-time data provided by the MAP, as well as the utility of looking at MAP data side-by-side with other information about students – such as classroom grades, other assessment scores, and demographic data.

Mexicotte noted that this work supports the “personalized curriculum” objective of the district’s strategic plan. Nelson and Thomas noted how MAP data can aid the district in closing the achievement gap.

Baskett requested that the information sent to parents about individual student data should be written in more user-friendly language and include suggestions on available resources for helping struggling students. Nelson agreed, saying, “If you tell someone they’ve got a problem, and don’t tell them what to do about it, you just cause stress and anxiety.” Green said that Flye has “tremendous talent” in communicating with families about student data, and that she was currently working on that.

Trustees also suggested there might be a need to increase the student accounting support staff as the district’s data management needs increase. Green agreed, “The workload is enormous.”

Agenda Planning

The board agreed to amend its meeting schedule to avoid meeting five weeks in a row – by canceling its Feb. 1 meeting, and switching the order of the next two meetings. The next regular meeting will be on Feb. 8, and a COTW meeting will be held on Feb. 15.

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

Absent: Treasurer Irene Patalan

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012 at 7 p.m. at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

Stemming directly from discussions held at the board’s Oct. 14 retreat, the changes covered the board meeting agenda structure and its committee structure.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte (left) and Trustee Susan Baskett discuss linking the AAPS strategic plan to board discussion. Baskett is holding a copy of the plan's mission and goals. (Photo by the writer.)

The proposed changes were initially presented as special briefing items, meaning they could have been approved by board action that night. But in the end, the board approved just two of the changes at their Oct. 26 meeting – linking all agenda items directly to the strategic plan, and adding a section to the agenda to clarify facts related to public commentary. The board put off making two other decisions – one that would officially change the board’s committee structure, and another adding time limits to meetings.

The most substantive change – meeting monthly as a “committee of the whole” instead of maintaining two standing committees of three trustees each– was examined in light of the 21 board policies that such a change would affect. A large part of the policy discussion centered on how items are put on the board agenda, and how changing the committee structure could affect that process.

Responding to some trustees who said that they would like more time to let the proposed policy amendments “marinate” before committing to them, board president Deb Mexicotte led the board to treat the proposed changes as first briefing items. Issues typically come before the board as a first briefing and are then voted on at a subsequent meeting as a second briefing item.  Mexicotte later moved, and the board agreed, to meet as a committee of the whole on Nov. 2. The board will then vote on the policy changes necessary to enact the committee structure changes at the next regular meeting on Nov. 16.

The final suggested change – adding time limits to agenda items and meetings – was discussed in some detail, but not acted upon officially at Wednesday’s meeting. Board president Deb Mexicotte said she would present a summary of the discussion regarding time limits at the Nov. 2 committee meeting.

Also at Wednesday’s meeting, the board heard public commentary on the upcoming NAACP freedom fund dinner, class sizes, transparency, transportation, and special needs services. Trustees also approved a series of policy updates as part of a short consent agenda.

Procedural Changes: Agendas, Committees

The board spent most of the meeting discussing procedural issues for doing its business. One set of those issues involved the basic template to be used for future meeting agendas. Another set of issues stemmed from a change of the board’s committee structure to a single “committee of the whole,” instead of two, three-member standing committees. Those committees had previously vetted new proposals, received new information, and set the board’s agenda.

First we present changes to the board agenda structure followed by the issues related to committee restructuring.

Changes to Board Agendas

The board considered three changes to the structure of its agendas. One change involved explicitly linking agenda items to the district’s strategic plan.  The board also discussed a section that would allow the board to clarify remarks made during public commentary. Finally, the board considered adding time limits to meeting agenda items, as well as limiting the length of entire meetings.

Board Agendas: Linkages to Strategic Plan

Mexicotte opened a discussion on a set of ways the board could more “thoughtfully and explicitly” link to the strategic plan during board meetings. She proposed adding strategic plan goals to meeting agendas near the items to which they refer, as she had done for the Oct. 26 agenda, and asked for the board’s feedback.

Trustee Andy Thomas said he liked the format, but wondered if the board should be sure to consider having some attention paid to each of the eight strategic planning goals at each meeting. As it stands, Thomas pointed out, only four of the eight goals were referenced on the Oct. 26 agenda.

Nelson said he would prefer to review periodically whether the board’s agenda is regularly addressing all eight goals, and respond then if any of them have “inadvertently fallen off” the board’s radar.

Mexicotte also introduced new “placemats” which will sit at each trustee’s seat during board meetings in order to help them “be conscious about linking to the strategic plan at the table.” She suggested that the board “should practice the inculcation [of the strategic plan] in everything we do as a good role model for what we expect from the rest of the district.”

Finally, Mexicotte pointed out that she has directed board secretary Amy Osinski to look into the cost of having the district’s mission statement printed on the back of the board’s business cards, to keep its focus front and center at all times.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot thanked Osinski for creating a new cover for board meeting packets, which lists the AAPS strategic plan mission and goals in a readable font. She said she continues to request larger font size be used throughout the packet. Trustee Susan Baskett added that she would like to see page numbers on all reports or enclosures in the packet that are longer than two pages.

Trustee Irene Patalan noted that she appreciated the renewed focus on the strategic plan. [.pdf of AAPS strategic plan]

Outcome: The board approved the addition of explicit links to the strategic plan goals next to each item on its meeting agendas.

Board Agendas: Clarification on Public Commentary

The board voted at the begining of the Oct. 26 meeting to remove a new “clarification” item from that night’s agenda until after it had a chance to discuss in more detail how it would be used. Later in the meeting, board members discussed what the purpose of a clarification item would be.

Mexicotte said the clarification section could be used to correct “substantive errors of fact” made at public commentary, perhaps by inviting AAPS administration to comment.

Trustees were interested in having a method for clarifying misconceptions, but stressed the importance of responding with empathy to constituents who address the board.

Patalan also pointed out that adding this section to the agenda was a significant departure from how the board has ever treated public commentary before, and asked her colleagues to “be careful with this and go slowly.”

After the discussion, a motion was approved to reinstate “Clarification” on the Oct. 26 agenda after the special briefing items on board committee restructuring.

Outcome: The board approved adding a section to each meeting agenda called “Clarification,” which could be used to correct factual errors made as part of public commentary.

Board Agendas: Time Limits

Mexicotte asked whether the board wanted to consider limiting the length of presentations made to the board, the length of association reports made at regular board meeting, and its overall meeting length.

There was general agreement that administrative presentations should be limited to around 15 minutes, with another 15 minutes of questions and answers. The board also seemed generally supportive of the idea of limiting association reports to around five minutes. Suggestions were made to institute a rotating system where only three associations report at each meeting, and to recognize a larger number of associations who make regular reports.

However, the bulk of discussion on time limits was about how to use meeting time most effectively. While there was general agreement about limiting meeting length, there was no consensus on what to do when a discussion reached its targeted time limit.

Trustees reviewed a variety of parliamentary procedures including “calling the question,” voting to extend the time allotted to a discussion, having the board secretary function as timekeeper, and requiring a supermajority to approve motions. While Mexicotte encouraged the board to embrace a “disciplined time frame,” Nelson expressed apprehension that cutting off discussion too early could cause many 4-3 votes instead of the common 7-0 decisions the board has generally reached. Baskett suggested limiting some elements of the meeting, but not board discussion.

Multiple board members suggested that if the board added time limits or made more frequent use of the parliamentary tools at their disposal, there should be a scheduled review of such changes, perhaps in three months, or at the board’s organizational meeting in January 2012.

Outcome: No action was taken on setting time limits at the Oct. 26 meeting, but instead will be discussed at the board’s first “committee of the whole” meeting on Nov. 2.

Committee Restructuring

At the Oct. 26 meeting, the board explored changing its committee structure, as recommended by the facilitator of the Oct. 14 board retreat.

Committee Restructuring: Background

The proposed new structure would replace the board’s two standing committees – the planning committee and the performance committee – with a “committee of the whole.” The committee of the whole would include all seven trustees, who would together vet new proposals, receive information from the administration and community, and set the board’s agenda.

The board framed its discussion on committee structure by reviewing the 21 board policies that would be affected by the change. Of these, 15 policies elicited no discussion among board members, and three others elicited only minor questions of wording. Discussion on the three remaining policies: Policy 1220 (Meetings – Type & Notice), Policy 1220 (Meetings – Agenda), and Policy 1460 (Auxiliary Committees/Task Forces) is outlined in more detail below.

Committee Restructuring: Meetings – Type & Notice

Board Policy 1200 lists the configurations in which the board meets – regular meetings, an annual organizational meeting, special meetings, emergency meetings, information/work/study sessions, retreats, public hearings, and closed sessions – and the type of notice required for each. The proposed change was to add “committee of the whole” to the list of configurations.

At the Oct. 26 meeting, board secretary Amy Osinski asked whether meeting as the committee of the whole (COTW) would replace study sessions, and Mexicotte said the board would need to discuss that.

Stead then asked whether the expectation that “no action shall be taken by the board,” which applies to study sessions and retreats, would apply to the COTW. She wondered if all the trustees were present, what would prevent them for voting themselves into a regular meeting. Mexicotte said that she believes the board should not take action at COTW meetings, but that she was looking into posting requirements.

Committee Restructuring: Meetings – Agenda

The proposed policy change that generated the most discussion at the Oct. 26 meeting was Policy 1220 – Meetings-Agenda. This policy identifies the four ways that items may currently be placed on the board agenda: (1) the executive committee (standing committee chairs and president) and superintendent, by mutual consent, decide to put an item on the agenda; (2) the board consents to put an item on the agenda during the regular “agenda planning” portion of each regular meeting; (3) the board consents to place an item on the agenda during a study session, special meeting, or emergency meeting; or (4) any board member makes a motion to place an item on the agenda that is approved by the board in a regular meeting.

The policy also specifies that the agenda for each specific meeting shall be set by the board president in consultation with the superintendent.

If the board decides to move to the committee of the whole (COTW) system, the “president” would replace the “executive committee” in number one above, and all policies would be vetted by the COTW instead of by one of the two standing committees.

Committee Restructuring: Meetings – Agenda (Nelson’s Rotation)

Lightfoot expressed concern about “concentrated control being placed at superintendent and president level.” Nelson added that it’s essential that that board maintain communication among all members.

In that vein, Nelson proposed that the six board members who are not the president rotate through an “advisory committee” with Mexicotte and Green to set the agenda, two at a time.

Nelson defended his suggestion, which he acknowledged “is a lot like the old executive committee,” by saying that there is value in formalizing small group meetings between sub-quorum groups of board members and the superintendent. “I think we still need to figure out systems of small group communication and that it’s better if we do that as part of the formal structure … Those groups are important to the process [of agenda-setting]. They will occur either way, and the board is less transparent if we meet informally.”

Stead and Patalan each responded that they would like to try setting the agenda all together as a COTW before returning to a subcommittee model, even a rotating one. “This was part of what I heard at the retreat,” said Stead, “that trustees felt their voices were not being heard.” Thomas called Nelson’s proposal “overkill” and said he was uncomfortable adding a new piece to the committee structure before the board had even tried meeting as a COTW.

Nelson pointed out that his proposed agenda-advisory subcommittee would also add efficiency, and said he was concerned that “half of every COTW will be taken up with what will be on the next agenda, and where on the agenda, since we know that everything at the end could be shifted [to future meetings].” Thomas agreed that setting the agenda as a group might be a lot to manage, but suggested the board “just go with it and see how it works out.”

Mexicotte said she did not share Nelson’s “pessimism,” and that she firmly believes the board will be able to place important items on the agenda in a timely fashion using the COTW.

Committee Restructuring: Meetings – Agenda (Requests Process)

Lightfoot requested clarification on how individual board members could make agenda requests. She noted that she would support Nelson’s rotating agenda advisory committee proposal, as it would “broaden the inclusion of all trustees” in setting the board’s agenda.

Mexicotte explained that she had requested the planning committee and performance committee chairs forward her any topics pending in their committees. She had also e-mailed a request for agenda items to all board members. She had then met with Green, and together they placed every item except for one on upcoming board agendas over the next few months, which she said was a similar process to what had previously been followed by the executive committee.

“Until we get to a place where past concerns are no longer concerns,” Lightfoot stressed, “… we have to be considerate of how we operated as a board in the past.” She then reiterated her concern about the Achievement Gap Elimination Plan (AGEP) staying “on the radar,” as an example of a flawed agenda planning process. Green noted that the AGEP was not off the radar from the administration’s perspective, and that it will come to the board early in 2012.

Mexicotte reviewed the four ways that any item can be placed on the board agenda listed above, and suggested that she would bring a “narrative” about the process to the first COTW meeting.

Lightfoot pointed out that the process of setting the agenda requires either a majority vote, or a decision by the president and superintendent, and restated her support for an agenda-advisory committee with rotating membership. “Anything we can do to broaden the inclusion of all trustees should be done,” she asserted.

Mexicotte responded, “For good or for ill, in all of our work … we work as a majority board. There are always times when we aren’t going to be able to convince our fellow trustees to move in the direction we want to move in, but there are so many avenues to getting something on the agenda. If you can’t get a majority, you can’t get a majority – it’s like that with all agenda items.”

Lightfoot stated, “My concern is based on having been there, done that. I want to ensure that we have mechanisms in place to do better.”

Committee Restructuring: Auxiliary Committees/Task Forces

Board Policy 1460 defines auxiliary committees and task forces, as charged by the board. Auxiliary committees are defined as “joint commissions broadly formed around an area of on-going district interest or concern,” and typically have a long-standing charge (at least three years). Task forces are defined as bring “created for a specific purpose, role, or job,” and expire automatically after one year without board action.

Lightfoot asked about the process for setting auxiliary committees or task forces, and said the board should enlist additional community input through these measures. She suggested setting up groups regarding the key areas of budget, transportation, technology, achievement, and state funding, among others.

Mexicotte answered that the process for establishing auxiliary committees or task forces is the same as for any of the board’s work. If the formation of such groups is formally moved, she said, the board will debate priority, capacity, and whether or not the suggested topics are the board’s work.

Nelson suggested that all ideas for task forces or auxiliary committees should come forward at one time, so the board can debate which are the most important. “Without a doubt,” he said, “these are vehicles to bring in community members.”

Mexicotte said that there is not currently a stipulation in Policy 1460 that requires community engagement, but that such an amendment could be added. When any such groups are set up, she explained, they will have some mechanism for choosing their membership, having meetings, and engaging with the community.

Committee Restructuring: Next Steps

Outcome: The board approved a motion to meet as a committee of the whole on Nov. 2. At their next regular meeting on Nov. 16., trustees will consider at second briefing and vote on the 21 policy changes that would be necessary to institutionalize the new committee structure.

Policy Updates

The planning committee, chaired by Stead, reviewed and amended five policies, which the board reviewed at first briefing at its previous meeting. Mexicotte asked if there had been any changes since the first briefing, and Stead said no.

Stead then spoke to a question about Policy 5200 (Progress Reporting) that had come up at the previous meeting. Lightfoot had asked if Policy 5200 should include a list of situations that would trigger closer monitoring of student progress, and Stead had said she would look into that. At the Oct, 26 meeting, Stead pointed out that numerous other policies, including 6300 (Achievement for all Students), 6350 (Special Education), 5150 (Student Attendance), 6140 (Homework), and 5050 (Graduation Requirements), require student assessment, monitoring, and intervention. Therefore, she said, she does not recommend adding a requirement for additional monitoring in Policy 5200 (Progress Reporting). The intent of Policy 5200, Stead argued, is simply to ensure that progress reports are disseminated to families.

Lightfoot questioned whether the other policies are as effective without a “catch-all” requirement included in Policy 5200, but let it stand without suggesting an amendment.

Outcome: The policy changes were approved unanimously, as part of a consent agenda that also included minutes and gift offers.

Public Commentary

The board provides an opportunity for public participation at its meetings.

Public Comment: Freedom Fund Dinner

William Hampton, president of the Ann Arbor branch of the NAACP, addressed the board regarding the NAACP’s annual freedom fund dinner, at which all AAPS black students with GPAs over 3.2 will be honored. He noted that this year’s keynote speaker, Raymond Randolph, was one of the freedom riders of the South who played a significant role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and would “share his compelling story to connect the dots from past to future.” Hampton asserted that the “success of all future generations depends on what we do today,” and thanked the board for “remaining in the process.”

Public Comment: Suggestions for Maintaining Trust

Ahmar Iqbal, school board candidate and AAPS parent, thanked the board members for their service and shared his view that the role of a school board trustee is to maintain the trust of the community while setting the tone and the expectations. He made three suggestions to the board: (1) reinstate the city committee on transportation; (2) explain how the proposed tech bond will be used to benefit the community, and (3) address large classes by offering teachers additional training on how to manage them and letting administrators return to classroom teaching.

Public Comment: Disparate Impact of Suspensions

Beverly Geltner said her trust has not been assured by the board and she was very concerned about students being suspended at Pioneer High School for not having returned books. She noted that the same principal suspended a large group of students “in bulk” last year and questioned the legality of how suspensions are administered in the district.

Geltner then offered what she described as a quote from an American Civil Liberties Union report, which said that 58% of AAPS students suspended in 2006-07 were black, while black students only made up 18% of the student population that year. She stated she is concerned that the district does not plan to make recent suspension data public until February.

Geltner also asserted that AAPS is in violation of a state statute requiring a state-mandated icon to appear on the front web page of the district which links to budget and salary data, that check register data is not on the website, and that the latest MEAP data has not been made public.

Public Comment: Sleep Study, Bus Plan

Jerri Jenista, a local pediatrician and parent of a student at Roberto Clemente Student Development Center brought to the board’s attention a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study on adolescent sleep. The study linked less than eight of hours of sleep per night to a host of risk factors in adolescents, including less physical activity, drug and alcohol use, and suicidal feelings.

Jenista contended that the current bus schedule requires many Clemente students to be at their bus stops by 6:15 a.m., which is unreasonably early, and significantly cuts into their sleep. Students then experience total commuting time each day of 3.5 to 4 hours, she pointed out. On the bus in the morning, Jenista argued, it’s too dark to study, so the time is completely wasted.

Jenista then pointed out that Clemente students are an “extremely high risk” population, 38% of which have an individualized education plan, or IEP. She said she is considering asking for more reasonable transportation as a function of her son’s IEP, and encouraging others at Clemente to do the same.

Public Comment: Special Needs

Al Boehnlein asserted that his son, who has autism, has not been receiving the services he is due as part of his IEP, and that the district is doing a disservice in general to special needs students by not ensuring that they are taught reading, regardless of their level. Specifically, Boehnlein noted, his son has not been assessed by a reading specialist, and has not been given an intensive reading program to follow. Boehnlein said the district has not responded to his concerns, and that he has filed a state complaint. Children with special needs, he argued, can educate themselves if they can read. “I want my son to succeed, and he deserves a chance to succeed … I would love a comment from you.”

Clarification on Public Commentary

Mexicotte asked district superintendent Patricia Green if there were any points from public commentary on which she would like to add clarification.

Regarding MEAP scores, Green called on Alesia Flye, AAPS deputy superintendent of instruction, who clarified that current MEAP scores are on the district website, under the School Improvement Plan for each building.

Regarding the state-mandated “transparency in reporting” icon, Green called on Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent of operations, who clarified that the required icon does, in fact, appear in the upper right-hand corner of the district’s website.

Regarding the assertion that students were suspended for not returning books, Green called on AAPS assistant superintendent for secondary education, Joyce Hunter, who clarified that students with unpaid fines were not allowed to register for classes, but that there were no suspensions for unreturned books.

Mexicotte then clarified that the district participates on a Transportation Safety Committee, an “active, ongoing” group composed of city, county, and state representation, along with AAPS board members, parents, and staff. The TSC, she said, has met regularly every two months to address a wide range of safety concerns related to transportation. The TSC met this October, she said. Mexicotte said that the committee a speaker may have been referring to is the “City-Schools” committee that used to meet to bring Ann Arbor and AAPS together on other areas of mutual concern.

First Briefing: Support Group Website Link

Glenn Nelson introduced a resolution at first briefing that would allow a new organization of Arab-American district parents to link to their group from the AAPS website. The resolution explained that this group has already contributed to the AAPS curriculum by helping to develop a unit on Islam to be taught in 6th grade, and by helping with training teachers on that unit. Nelson also noted that the AAPSG “has a documented history of regular meetings and leadership plus well-developed plans for the future that will enable continued accessibility to staff and citizens and continued constructive actions.”

Outcome: The board had no discussion on this resolution at the Oct. 26 meeting, but will consider it again at second briefing on Nov. 16.

Association Reports

At each meeting, the board invites reports from six associations: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At the Oct. 26 meeting, the board heard reports from just two associations – the BPSSG and the AAPAC.

Association Reports: BPSSG

Bryan Johnson, BPSSG chair, reported that the BPSSG executive committee met recently to outline its “Academic, Character, and Citizenship” program, and develop a shared calendar of program events. He also reviewed the BPSSG’s other committees – advocacy, development, finance, membership, and programs/services – and encouraged community participation on committees. Johnson thanked those community groups who have come forward to collaborate with the BPSSG to impact student achievement. He also noted that the BPSSG has arranged transportation to the Eastern Michigan University college fair on Nov. 9 for any high school student who is interested.

Association Reports: AAPAC

AAPAC’s representative reported that the AAPAC has been working with the district’s student intervention and support services department to create a handbook specific to AAPS to complement the Washtenaw Intermediate School District parent handbook. She invited trustees to the two Disability Awareness Workshops occurring in November. And, she noted that the AAPAC is scheduling a workshop on iPad applications that could be used to teach life skills, social skills, and fine motor skills, among other skills, to special needs students. “Without technology,” she said, “it would be impossible for many students to access the curriculum as is their legal right.”

Superintendent’s Report

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green reported that Ann Arbor Technological (A2 Tech) high school’s new name was officially celebrated on Oct. 14. A2 Tech was formerly known as Stone School.

She noted that students from Community high have been invited to submit articles to the Huffington Post, the 17th-most-visited website in the U.S.

Green offered a series of accolades regarding different aspects of the AAPS environmental education program, which is 50 years old this year, including the receipt of a $29,000 donation to support the program. She highlighted a project by Chartwells, the district’s food service contractor. Chartwells was able to serve food grown on a student farm as part of the Green adventure camp. [There is no relation between the Green adventure camp and AAPS superintendent Pat Green.]

Finally, Green thanked the AAPS educational foundation for its continued support as the foundation prepares to award $18,000 in “Great Ideas” grants to individual teachers in the district. She also recognized everyone who attended the foundation’s Harvest Dinner, which raised money for the AAPS physics department.

Student Engagement

A new section of the agenda called “student engagement” highlights the connection between student performances at board meetings and the strategic plan goal #3, which reads: “We will actualize the potential for excellence in all students through inspiration and support.” Board members did not comment on this revamping of the agenda.

Clague Orchestra

A subset of Clague Middle School  7th grade orchestra students played two songs for the board at the Oct. 26 meeting, under the direction of Abby Alwin. One student had to sit out after feeling faint, but was quickly revived after being offered a sip of water by board secretary Amy Osinski.

Huron Challenge Day

Candace Rozelle-Williams and Linda Gibbs addressed the board about Huron’s Challenge Day, a one-day workshop for Huron students and adults which addresses the root causes of problems in the school community, and challenges participants to step out of their comfort zones and to learn how to better connect with others.

Trustees who had participated in past Challenge Days applauded the program and expressed their appreciation for its coordinators. Green said she will be attending part of the Nov. 7 Challenge Day at Huron “wearing slacks and sneakers,” a reference to the high-energy exercises that occur at the beginning of the workshop. Gibbs stressed that adults from the community are welcome, and encouraged anyone interested in learning more about Challenge Day or attending to contact her directly at Ldhibbs@comcast.net, or 734-214-5723.

Agenda Planning

Mexicotte suggested adding a discussion of the Northwest Evaluation Association’s assessment, to the January committee of the whole (COTW) meeting. The NWEA assessment was just added to the district testing calendar this school year.

Nelson reported that he and Christine Stead have volunteered to write a resolution on personal property tax in response to an active bill in the state legislature that would eliminate personal property tax. If this bill passes, Nelson said, student revenues would decrease by $316 per student and, taxes on homeowners would increase by almost 0.5 mill due to tax shifting. He asserted, “This is a critical issue for students throughout the state.”

Nelson also suggested that the results of the FY 2010-11 audit should be reviewed before holding community budget forums in November, and urged the administration to “sequence that right.”

Green responded that she and AAPS deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen are planning to meet with the auditor before the forums, and that the data from the audit will be incorporated into the presentation to the community.

Stead added that she would like to schedule a second round of community forums on the budget after the state revenue conference at the end of January, because AAPS will “know a lot more about what the intent of the state is at that point.” She suggested adding forums to the schedule in early March since February is already very busy, as well as keeping the budget on every COTW meeting as an agenda item.

Mexicotte looked to the board for a consensus on a start time for the COTW meeting on Nov. 2. The board agreed to meet beginning at 5:30 p.m.

She then explained her expectations regarding building a template agenda for COTW meetings, and said she was inclined to have policy review and updates occur at the COTW, and bid contracts come to the regular board meetings, as a way to split up the work. At the COTW, Mexicotte suggested, the board should develop talking points around issues as they come up.

Finally, she suggested framing the work of the committee with a template that would include the following pieces: (1) acknowledging the problem or change; (2) linking to the strategic plan; (3) recognizing the affected stakeholders; and (4) identifying next steps, such as making recommendations to the administration. Mexicotte closed by thanking her fellow trustees for their dedication to the board.

Items from the Board

Stead noted the large amount of legislation targeted at K-12 schools currently under consideration at the state level, especially a bill to remove the cap on the number of charter schools statewide. There are already 250 charters in the state, Stead said, which take funding away from traditional public schools.

Lightfoot asked how the board could “close the loop” and get updated on how questions from the public will be answered. For example, she asked where AAPS stands in the process of reviewing bus transportation to Pine Lake Village Cooperative and Roberto Clemente Student Development Center. Lightfoot also requested that the district consider changing school start times.

Patalan reported that she spent the morning of Oct. 23 at Occupy Wall St. in New York City. Noting that she had been part of the generation who protested the Vietnam War and participated in the “black action movement,” Patalan said, “I understood what they were doing – it made sense to me.”

Mexicotte said she had participated in a panel on college readiness among underrepresented students and that she would provide information to the board on the topic.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice-president Susan Baskett (until 10 p.m.), secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Simone Lightfoot, Glenn Nelson, and Christine Stead. Meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.

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