From left: AAPS superintendent Patricia Green, board chair Deb Mexicotte, vice chair Christine Stead and trustee Irene Patalan.

The resolution was written by trustee Christine Stead, and targets a handful of state senate and house bills, as well as the governor’s proposed rewrite of the School Aid Act.

On a long list of statements objecting to various pieces of legislation is one opposing ”the lack of local funding control so that communities might be able to break free from the state’s efforts to demolish public education …”

At the meeting, the board also approved an upgrade to the Argus/IMRA planetarium theater system, the appointment of Cameron Frost to the Recreation Advisory Commission (RAC), two sets of grants, and a set of financial reports brought as second briefing items.

As part of a comprehensive schedule of regular reports to the board, AAPS superintendent Patricia Green also asked three top members of her staff to report on enrollment, facilities, and all-day kindergarten.

The board held brief discussions on each topic following the presentations.

Resolution on Education Legislation and School Funding

Board president Deb Mexicotte introduced this topic by saying that during the state’s current lame duck legislative session,  bills have been put forward with many negative and long-range implications. She said AAPS trustees have been working with the Washtenaw Alliance for Education (WAE) to advocate for the best possible outcomes for AAPS as well as for all districts throughout the state. Mexicotte said that Christine Stead had drafted a resolution for trustees to consider to show the board’s opposition to the set of state education bills as well as to advocate for stable funding for public schools. She then asked Stead to outline the resolution. [.pdf of resolution text]

Stead explained that the state legislature has been trying to catch people off-guard, but that WAE and other advocacy groups have been able to respond strongly. She commended the leaders of WAE for organizing so quickly, including getting a letter signed by leaders across the state and sent to President Obama.

Stead said the resolution speaks against a set of bills, including one that is trying to codify the powers of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA), an entity which began managing 15 schools that were formerly part of the Detroit Public Schools just this fall. She noted that the EAA’s approach had failed completely in Kansas City, where it caused a sharp decrease in student performance. [For an op/ed on the EAA, see "In it for the Money: Letters and Wish Lists"]

The other anticipated bills addressed by the resolution, Stead said, essentially create a “super-voucher” system by allowing any entity to become a school – a municipality, an employer, or a for-profit company, and allow student funding to follow students fluidly through the system. She argued that the GOP plan is meant to encourage for-profit companies to run these new educational enterprises, and said the resolution outlines many layers of concern with the structure and funding models being considered.

Each of the other trustees then weighed in on the resolution.

Trustee Andy Thomas noted that Green had provided testimony to the state against the proposals – and that in his role as board secretary, he has been responding to communications he’s received questioning the appropriateness of Green responding to the legislation. He said he has been replying to those communications by saying that as the chief administrator of the district, Green has the responsibility to share with the public her view of threats to the AAPS, and has been sharing her opinion that this legislation would have a harmful effect on students. The board supports Green in sharing her opinion and offering testimony, Thomas said.

Trustee Irene Patalan reported that she went to a meeting in Lansing on Monday, which highlighted how this approach was a rushed plan, and that it was experimenting on Michigan’s children. She said it typically takes five years to see substantive change if it’s done correctly, and argued that the state should be working through the state board of education if it wants to implement changes.

Trustees Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson added that they strongly supported the resolution. Lightfoot said she is glad AAPS has “join[ed] the political table,” and that, “We like to be polite, but the fight in Lansing really requires a war mentality.”

Mexicotte said that when the state legislature started trying to “squeak past” a flurry of legislation despite the electorate’s input, she was struck by the fact that the legislative activity was unfolding happening at the time time a popular parenting magazine had listed AAPS has one of the top ten districts in the country. She stated that she was still very optimistic that AAPS would get past this, but then pointed out that the current dismantling of public education started with the passage of Proposal A, then unfunded mandates, then “blowing the cap off of untested cyberschools and charters.” Finally, she asked, “Are we going to let them destroy public education in Michigan?”

Regarding the “super-voucher” program, Mexicotte pointed out that the citizens of Michigan have rejected a voucher system multiple times. She called the current legislation “the most sinister way of approaching a voucher system,” saying that “they have made the student the voucher … not only can anyone be a school now, but the entity that transports [funding] is the actual student.”

Stead acknowledged the leadership of John Austin, president of the state board of education, for fighting hard for students, and read the resolution in its entirety. Trustee Susan Baskett said she had expected more from the state board of education, “They should be leading us.”

Trustees suggested a few small changes, including: adding a “whereas” section about how duly elected boards of education and their constituents have been entirely marginalized in the creation of these bills; removing the word “reform” from the title of the resolution (originally, a resolution on “education reform legislation”), because the board in no way sees this legislation as reformative; and adding a clause that sends the resolution to newly elected school board members and state representatives.

Outcome: The resolution was unanimously approved as an action item during the Dec. 5 board meeting.

Argus/IMRA Planetarium Theater System Upgrade

AAPS director of communications Liz Margolis introduced a proposal to fund a new theater system for the district’s newly renamed Argus/IMRA planetarium at Pioneer High School. She explained that the upgrade to the Digistar 5 theater system would cost $65,000 and would be fully funded by the recent donation by IMRA to the AAPS Educational Foundation. Margolis also noted that IMRA is eager to see the upgrades.

Basket asked if the upgrades would require additional purchases in future years, and Margolis explained the new system may require new lighting in the second year. Additional grant funds could also be used to increase the planetarium’s hours, she said.

Lightfoot asked what IMRA stands for, and Margolis explained that it is a Japanese company that does laser research, and is dedicated to public school funding. Lightfoot said that this donation is a good example of AAPS reaching out to businesses that might be willing to provide funding for specific projects. Margolis noted that the AAPS business partnership coordinator had worked with the AAPSEF to secure the IMRA funding. Lightfoot suggested IMRA might also be open to providing internships for students.

Outcome: The Argus/IMRA planetarium theater upgrade was approved as a special briefing item as part of the Dec. 5 consent agenda.

AAPS Educational Foundation 2012-13 Grant Awards

Helen Starman represented the AAPS Educational Foundation (AAPSEF) in putting a series of grants before the board totaling $271,323. She noted that the grants affect students at all levels – elementary, middle school, and high school. Some grants are district-wide, and others are classroom-specific. Starman highlighted the pass-through grant made this year by IMRA corporation to sustain the district’s planetarium, as well as the middle school 4 p.m. bus grant, which was a collaboration between the AAPSEF and the AAPS PTO Thrift Shop.

Trustee Glenn Nelson praised the AAPSEF, saying that there is no question of the usefulness of the foundation, particular its matchmaking ability. Starman said the foundation is just beginning to realize its full potential.

Outcome: The AAPSEF 2012-13 grant awards were converted to a special briefing item and approved as part of the Dec. 5, 2012 consent agenda.

Recreation Advisory Commission Appointment

Jenna Bacolor, AAPS director of community education and recreation (Rec & Ed), presented her recommendation to the board for an appointment to the recreation advisory commission (RAC). The 12-member RAC, Bacolor explained, provides a forum for formal communication between the school board and the city council about recreation, with six appointments made by each entity. The RAC meets quarterly at the Rec & Ed offices. Bacolor noted that Nelson’s role as an ex-officio member is greatly valued, and that his opinions are very useful.

She then explained that the current RAC opening is for a spot appointed by the school district. She recommended Cameron Frost, currently a Rec & Ed field hockey coach, for the position. She noted that a RAC subcommittee had reveiwed four applications for the opening, and the committee felt that Frost will make a significant contribution to the RAC.

Nelson thanked Bacolor for the kind words, and said he takes great pleasure in being the board liaison to the RAC. He added that the RAC is “a really useful institution to all of us.”

Mexicotte thanked Bacolor for her recommendation, and suggested that the board waive a second briefing on this issue, as there is no controversy about it or additional things to be learned. The board supported her suggestion.

Outcome: The board waived a second briefing on this issue, and approved the appointment of Cameron Frost to a three-year term on the RAC as part of the Dec. 5 consent agenda.

Reports to the Board

The board received three major reports – on enrollment, facilities and all-day kindergarten.

Reports to the Board: Enrollment

AAPS director of student accounting Jane Landefeld and AAPS executive director of physical properties Randy Trent presented a two-part report on enrollment and facilities. [.pdf of enrollment and facilities report]

Landfeld began by stating that the district’s total headcount has stayed constant (16,637 in the fall of 2011, and 16634 in the fall of 2012). She then shared counts by school over time, highlighting that some of the elementary populations have shifted due to offering full-day kindergarten, or shifts in the population in some neighborhoods. Middle school enrollment has decreased slightly, and high school enrollment has increased slightly.

Landefeld noted that high school enrollment is slightly uneven, with Huron and Pioneer at 1,611 and 1,651 students, respectively, and Skyline at 1,501 students. She said the lower Skyline number was likely due to the transportation time required to get there – which limits some students’ abilities to participate in the lottery. She noted Skyline’s capacity is 1,600 students. Finally, she noted that another 127 AAPS students participate via the Early College Alliance (44 students), Widening Advancement for Youth (51 students), and Washtenaw International High School (32 students) programs.

Regarding the ethnic makeup of the district, Landefeld noted that there have been some shifts since fall 2001. At that time, the student population was 61% Caucasian, 16% African-American, and 3% multi-ethnic, with other ethnicities making up the rest of it. This year, the Caucasian and African-American student populations have dropped to 51% and 14%, respectively, and the multi-ethnic designation has risen to 11%.

Higher grade levels have larger numbers of students receiving special education services, Landefeld pointed out, but overall, the total percentage of special education student has decreased. Currently, 9.7% of students (1,618) have an individualized education plan (IEP). Overall, 24.6% of students (4,068) qualify for free and reduced lunch (FRL), for a total for 4,068 students. This has increased by 5% in the past five years, though there are still fewer high school students receiving FRL than the number who qualify, as they are less likely to apply.

802 students are English Language Learners (ELL), and speak 49 different languages. Of these, 29.8% speak Spanish, 14.5% speak Japanese, 13.7 speak Chinese, 11.1% speak Korean, and 10% speak Arabic, with all other languages groups having fewer speakers.

Landefeld then reported numbers on Schools of Choice students, highlighting that about the same number of students leave the district each year as enter it. She noted that students come and go from charter schools, private schools, other public schools, and homeschooling situations – and that the numbers are generally similar in both directions. She noted that Honey Creek is one charter school that is growing at a faster rate, but that overall AAPS is doing well maintaining its student population compared to other districts across the state.

The board thanked Landefeld for her report. Thomas asked whether AAPS had lost students whose parents did not want all-day kindergarten. But AAPS assistant superintendent for elementary education Dawn Linden said she had heard only of a handful of cases in which parents had made that choice. Nelson noted that recent data from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) projects lowering school-age populations, and that enrollment will continue to be challenging, as school districts compete for a shrinking number of students.

Reports to the Board: Facilities

Trent then segued into his facilities report, saying that it had been nice to work with Landefeld pulling the reports together: “I like numbers,” Trent quipped, “She loves numbers!”

Trent then showed a slide on elementary room capacity, and pointed out that the district has some flexibility with capacity because so-called “reserved rooms” can help AAPS shift rooms around the district depending on enrollment in different neighborhoods. Reserved rooms include rooms used for special education, Title I services, childcare, music, computer labs, occupation and physical therapy, and other special uses. He also noted that the preschool building has about 20 rooms, but about half of that building is allocated to specific outside programs. The state expects a utilization rate of 85% in middle and high schools, because not every classroom is used every hour.

Trent reviewed the replacement costs for all buildings in the district. Elementary buildings are worth $164 million, and all other buildings in total are worth $353.8 million, for a grand total of $0.5 billion in property value. He noted that AAPS is renting one elementary building in Superior township, Freeman Elementary, to Go Like the Wind Montessori. Trent said that AAPS is keeping the 40-acre property as a potential future building site, and noted that with only 12 classrooms, Freeman Elementary would not fit any of the district’s current programs.

Finally, Trent pointed out that that district also owns 165 acres of property in Missaukee County, Michigan, in the center of the lower peninsula. He said the district took field trips there in the past, but that the distance has become prohibitive, so such trips have stopped years ago. The Missaukee County property has been for sale for several years, Trent noted. It’s the last of many properties the district previously held up north and in Canada.

Nelson commented that at the current class sizes, there is some excess capacity in the elementary buildings, but not much. “If we closed a building, we would be right up against the edge of capacity in the remaining buildings,” he noted. Trent responded that such a statement would be true if you looked strictly at the numbers, but reiterated that reserved rooms can be realigned with necessary use.

Reports to the Board: All-Day Kindergarten

Green introduced the all-day kindergarten report to the board, saying she thought it would be a good time to update the board on how the newly-expanded program is going. Linden began by saying that the project has been “near and dear to our elementary hearts” and is going really well. [.pdf of all-day kindergarten report]

She outlined the work of the five subcommittees led by central office staff that managed the transition to all-day kindergarten district-wide.

The curriculum committee, Linden said, revamped the pacing guide for monthly lesson design, building in a four-week assessment cycle. She noted that developing a model daily schedule was exciting. It includes: morning meeting and calendar, literacy (phonics mini-lesson, literacy centers, writing workshop), snack, math (mini lesson, followed by math centers and games), lunch/recess, science, free choice centers, read aloud/snack, specials, social studies, and clean-up.

The instructional materials committee was charged with figuring out how classrooms should be outfitted. The committee thought through what was needed for choice time, transitions, and social and emotional developmental needs. The committee recommended $30,000 worth of purchases, including leveled readers, phonics lesson guides, benchmarks assessments, Everyday Math kits, teacher resources, classroom calculators, social studies digital subscriptions, science early explorations modules, and health teacher resources. They also recommended spending $10,000 on classroom tools such as listening centers, headphones, blocks, and whiteboards, and $38,000 on furniture.

Linden reported that in rolling out the program, consistency across the district was a big concern. So the professional development committee worked to create staff learning opportunities that would achieve consistency without costing any money. They used a Professional Learning Community (PLC) model which allows kindergarten teachers to share with each other in smaller group-learning teams, with the focus on curriculum implementation, data-driven instruction, and the sharing of effective practices, creating a year-long support system to keep teachers connected all year.

The technology committee assessed current software and hardware needs, and found significant inconsistencies in the number of classroom computers, which was remedied. Math and literacy support software was purchased, which is used as a learning center.

As the final note on the implementation committee work, Linden noted that the communication committee created a brochure and a short video, which she shared with the board.

Linden reported that she had also worked with elementary principals to standardize kindergarten round-ups. All round ups now need to take place in February, Linden said, and should showcase the district’s world-class program and the typical kindergarten experience. They are now all required to welcome children, engage families in kindergarten-style activities, and offer a tour of the building. The biggest change from before is that some buildings had not invited children to kindergarten round-up. “We wanted to send a message that we are child-centered and that your children are welcomed,” Linden said. “We wanted kids to come of the kindergarten round-up being excited to come to school.”

The kindergarten pre-assessment process is still being reveiwed, Linden continued. Some buildings are pre-screening students, and the district is looking at providing a standard tool for that purpose, which would connect readiness measures to elements of the district’s kindergarten curriculum. That way, she said, gaps could be addressed quickly, and parents could help students prepare over the summer.

Linden also noted that a new bill passed in June 2012 progressively alters the age that children must be in order to enter kindergarten in the state of Michigan. Currently, the requirement is that students must be five years old by Dec. 1 to enter kindergarten in that year. Next year, the date will be Nov. 1, then Oct 1 in 2014-15, and Sept 1 in 2015-16. This is the traditional cut-off in many other states, Linden noted. She said that AAPS will continue to examine the impact on enrollment. Some trustees questioned the state’s motivation, and Stead pointed out that this is a cost-saving measure at the state level.

Linden closed by summarizing that total implementation costs for all-day kindergarten were $750,000, including the supplies, curriculum, and furniture outlined above, along with the increased staffing costs.

Trustees commended Linden on her first solo report to the board since being hired last year.

Communication and Comment

Board meetings include a number of agenda slots when trustees can highlight issues they feel are important. Every meeting also invites public commentary on subjects not necessarily on the formal agenda or that are not covered elsewhere in The Chronicle’s meeting report.

Comm/Comm: Association and Student Reports

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

At the Dec. 5, 2012 meeting, the board heard from Skyline High School representatives, the Youth Senate, the AAPAC, and the AAEA.

Skyline students Jeremy Glick and Emilie Weisberg described the function and organization of Skyline’s Student Action Senate (SAS), of which they are members. Their report highlighted the work of the four SAS committees – rights, voice, and responsibilities; teaching and learning; school spirit; and activism. Trustees asked clarifying questions about the organization of Skyline into Smaller Learning Communities (SLCs). Students explained that SLCs are multi-year groupings within the school, and have a set of adult advisers. Lightfoot asked why students do not make use of lockers, and Glick and Wiesberg said there was not enough time to do that between classes. Mexicotte asked about the location of a possible Skyline school garden, which had been mentioned as part of the SAS committee work, and Weisberg described it as by the front sign.

Youth senator Nicholas Liu suggested that the board allocate ongoing funding to support the Argus/IMRA planetarium instead of relying on grant funding. He argued that the district should cover maintenance costs, as well as adding public viewing hours and new classes. Public events could also charge admission, Liu said, which would defray the costs, and new high school astronomy classes would also make better use of this resource. Liu closed with a plea that the board ensures the planetarium gets the ongoing attention it deserves.

AAPAC’s representative to the board argued that Michigan is undergoing “turbulent times,” and that the district needs to protect its children from businesses who would like to profit off education. “We arefirst and foremost, our brothers’ keepers,” she said.  She said it was exciting to open up a report card that had such high expectations, and look forward to continuing to be invited to give feedback on academics for special needs students. She also highlighted the success of the disability awareness workshops held recently at a number of AAPS elementary schools this fall.

The AAEA’s representative, Linda Carter, reported on a long and active day spent at the state capital lobbying against Right to Work legislation. She noted that 70% of Michiganders support collective bargaining, including more than half of those who voted against Proposal 2. She quoted several studies that expressed concern about Right to Work legislation and its negative effect on children in the state.

Comm/Comm: Public Commentary

One person offered public comment at the Dec. 5 board meeting. Karen Baker, a parent of two AAPS students, spoke on behalf of her 10th grade daughter, who she said was being continually bullied by another student at Huron High School. Baker gave several examples of the bullying, saying her daughter was being followed home, and being threatened in the hallways, in the cafeteria, and on the bus. Baker argued that although AAPS policy on bullying is very clear, the district has not responded appropriately to the situation. She requested that her daughter be transferred to another school.

Comm/Comm: Board President’s Report

Mexicotte summarized the board’s November committee of the whole (COTW) meeting, saying there were three major items on the agenda. First, she said, the board was updated on the hiring of athletic coaches, and how the systems that govern athletics and employee discipline intersect. Then, the board held its first round of discussion on the budget process, and expects to follow up on this item at the next COTW meeting. Finally, the board checked its progress on board goals, but ran out of time to complete that agenda item, Mexicotte said.

Comm/Comm: New Pioneer Principal

Green introduced new Pioneer high school principal Cindy Leaman, who stood and was recognized by the board. Green reviewed Leaman’s career history, and noted that she has been involved in numerous district-level efforts, including training other administrators in response to intervention (RTI) strategies, chairing a committee on teacher evaluations, and participating as a member of the district’s strategic planning committee. Leaman is currently the principal of Clague middle school, and will transition to Pioneer after winter break.

Baskett welcomed Leaman in to her new position, noting that she will be Pioneer’s first female principal. The board also recognized the AAEA’s Linda Carter to speak on behalf of Leaman. Carter said that Leaman is “fun, fair, and a lot of energy. Pioneer is getting the best!”

On behalf of the board, Mexicotte also welcomed Leaman to her new position saying, “We know it will be a very successful tenure.”

Comm/Comm: Superintendent’s Report

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green highlighted major activities and accolades received by staff and students, including a major win by the Huron High School chess team, student musicians selected to perform the upcoming Michigan Music Conference, and a student who appeared on TV in Korea. She also noted that Clague Middle School had celebrated 40 years of excellence. Green said there are many students and staff members who give to families in our community, noting among others the “service squads” of various schools. Green also recognized deputy superintendent for human resources and legal services Dave Comsa, who was recently elected to an executive council of school attorneys.

Green also took the opportunity during her report to highlight the new community builders program she initiated in the district. The program brings together student leaders at the elementary level around the theme of creating caring communities. Schools will be given a flag to fly whenever they have a caring and respectful day without incident, and schools with the most caring days will be recognized. Green said she has been “thrilled and delighted” to see the program come to life, and thanked deputy superintendent for instruction Alesia Flye and Linden for their roles in the program.

Comm/Comm: Thurston 5th Grade Choir

At the opening of its Dec. 5 meeting, the board entertained a performance of three selections by the 5th grade choir of Thurston elementary, directed by Yael Rothfeld. Rothfeld said the choir gives interested students a chance to participate in formal choir. She explained that it is a non-audition, volunteer choir, and that students meet once a week during lunch to learn and rehearse the music. The board expressed support and appreciation for the students and their families for the performance.

Comm/Comm: Consent Agenda

The board passed a consent agenda containing three second briefing items on which there was no additional discussion at the Dec. 5 meeting – the financial audit report, the first quarter financial report, and the AAPS grant award. Minutes approvals and gift offers were also included on the Dec. 5 consent agenda and approved.

Comm/Comm: Agenda Planning

Lightfoot suggested the board hear an update on the process followed during and after the fight at an AAPS football game this fall – now that the formal investigation of the incident has concluded. She suggested that the board may need to review its policies and procedures to be sure they will fit any similar situation in the future. She also said she would like the board to discuss both the student and adult roles in the incident.

Mexicotte responded to Lightfoot’s remarks by saying that superintendent Patricia Green and the district’s legal counsel Dave Comsa have already invited any trustees who are interested to meet with them to review the videos of the incident. Andy Thomas suggested that perhaps requesting that administration provide the board with a written update would be sufficient. He also noted that the board had already discussed the incident at a previous committee of the whole meeting, and made suggestions to administration regarding policy regulations. Patalan also supported a written report.

Lightfoot said she was “disheartened” by the board’s response to her agenda suggestions. Mexicotte suggested perhaps holding a discussion about the student discipline policy during the board’s January committee of the whole meeting.

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, Dec. 19, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the fourth-floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch, 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 school board. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting us, please educate your friends, neighbors and colleagues about the importance of helping to support The Chronicle, too!

David Erik Nelson

It’s the letter writing season.

I’d like you to add at least one more letter to your list: I need you to drop a line to your state reps, senators, and the governor telling them that you’re opposed to any expansion of Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority during the current lame duck session.

You’ll want to tell these folks to oppose or veto House Bill 6004 and Senate Bill 1358 (which expand the Education Achievement Authority) and House Bill 5923 (allowing for the unlimited formation of new publicly-funded charter and cyber schools).

More than that, though, I want you to activate your whole network – that Facebook thing you do, that Twitter thing and even LinkedIn. Because I bet you have friends, family members and colleagues who live in Kalamazoo, Traverse City, Grand Rapids, Bad Ax or wherever else in Michigan, who you can move to action by nudging them with social media. What we want to do here is activate the entire state.

Below the fold is a template you can crib from – and feel free to omit the link to this column, if you so choose; my self-promotion is, as a policy, utterly shameless.

A Sample Letter To Save Public Education

SUBJECT: I OPPOSE HB 6004, SB 1358, HB 5923, AN EXPANDED EAA, AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

Dear __________________,

The tail end of a lame duck session is no time to radically alter our public education system. Please do everything you can to oppose any expansion of Michigan’s as-of-yet unproven Education Achievement Authority, and to limit the implicit privatization of public education in Michigan. This includes opposing House Bill 6004 and Senate Bill 1358 (which expand the Education Achievement Authority to a statewide entity) and House Bill 5923 (which allows for the unlimited formation of new charter and cyber schools, including those run as for-profit businesses). Please support Senator Rebekah Warren’s Senate Joint Resolution R, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the operation of a public school on a for-profit basis.

Handing over our public institutions – and tax dollars – to private companies with no demonstrable record of success, and doing so without strict oversight, flies in the face of reason and should offend rational, honest public servants on both sides of the aisle.

For a detailed analysis of the hazards of pitfalls inherent in the EAA, charter schools, and “cyber” schools, please take a few minutes to read this most recent piece by handsome Ann Arbor Chronicle columnist David Erik Nelson: http://annarborchronicle.com/?p=102112

Thank you for your time, consideration, and good faith.

Sincerely,

NAME
ADDRESS

Gimme a few minutes, and I’ll explain why you almost certainly don’t want to rush into beefing up Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority.

The What?

The Education Achievement Authority, dummy! It arose from the platonic conception of itself in 2011 to take over the lowest-performing 5% of Detroit’s public schools, and began operation with this 2012-2013 school year.

Back in 2011 the EAA was hand-crafted by Roy Roberts (at that time the emergency manager of Detroit Public Schools) and Eastern Michigan University, under the auspices of our old emergency manager law (aka Public Act 4). You might recall that we, the People of Michigan, repealed PA 4 via ballot referendum last month. Meanwhile, the Detroit Board of Education – an elected body – has voted to disband the EAA and part ways with EMU.

Strangely, despite the fact that it was formed under a law that we’ve invalidated, and despite being disbanded by the officials elected as caretakers of the property it would occupy, and despite having less than one year under its belt (and thus no data to demonstrate the efficacy of its methods), the EAA is somehow poised to expand statewide instead of shriveling.

Check out the EAA website, and you’ll learn that this mythical beast “will” (not may or could) “operate the lowest performing 5% of schools in Michigan” – not just poor ole Detroit – and will provide “greater autonomy to help ensure dramatic student achievement increases.” For added fun, the process would apparently be iterative – which means that each year the lowest performing 5% of the schools that are left will be added to the EAA. Are you following the math here? This is a formula that will rapidly lead to the EAA-ification of the majority of the districts in the state.

Liberated From Public Oversight

“Greater autonomy” evidently means “free from the expectation of answering to the people who pay for it or enroll kids in it.”

In their recent opposition to Proposal 2 both the Governor and the Michigan Republican Party voiced concerns that the amendment (which would constitutionally guarantee workers’ right to collective bargaining) would invalidate existing laws applying to school teachers and staff, and thus might endanger children. That’s a valid (if far-fetched) concern, and I suppose many Michiganders shared it, because Prop 2 failed.

But according to the language of the current HB 6004/SB 1358 – which are strongly supported by the GOP and the Governor – the EAA has no external oversight or auditing. The EAA is not subject to oversight by our elected state Board of Education (let alone any local body) – or even the state legislature (because funds pass directly to the EAA outside of the legislative process). And the EAA can seize publicly-owned school buildings that are built and maintained using local tax dollars – whether or not the local families who paid for these facilities will be served by the new EAA-controlled school (which has the privilege of determining what students it will serve).

The Chancellor of the EAA, John Covington, is appointed by the Governor – and thus only answerable to him. I have trouble imagining a scenario where an essentially local official (in that he presides over the local school for anyone in an EAA-controlled district) could be less accountable to the people. (That Covington has sort of a crap record as an education administrator is entirely beside the point; just Google his name if you want to see how Kansas City, Missouri, continues to smart over his stint as a school superintendent there.)

Sketchy Methods

Methodologically, the EAA is all about “child-centered learning.” You, Dear Readers, are in luck, because in my old life I spent 10 years in child-centered education (albeit in the really fringy part).

I love child-centered education – which, as the name implies, means setting curriculum and goals based on the child’s strengths, needs, and interests, rather than on the needs of school administrators, book publishers, test designers, elected officials, possible employers, the military, or private industry.

Fortunately, a great deal of our public education already engages in solid child-centered practices with proven track-records. Across the state children with identified special needs are set up with IEPs (“individualized education plans”) that are crafted by teachers, parents, and education specialists to address those students’ learning differences productively. Those plans are carried out either in the “regular” classroom – often called “mainstreaming” – or in separate “resource rooms,” which is probably more like the sequestered “special ed” rooms many readers will recall from their Golden Rule days.

“Regular” students in “regular” classrooms regularly also see individualized curriculum, where teachers break the room down into sub-groups – or even spin individual kids off on solo projects – so that everyone can work at a level that is personally challenging and enjoyable. That’s a process called “differentiation,” “accommodation,” or “scaffolding,” depending on the context.

But “child-centered learning” under the EAA doesn’t necessarily look like that. What’s being described in some cases sounds good (for example, this program at Nolan Elementary in Detroit), and is very much in line with traditional models of child-centered learning. It ain’t no Sudbury School, but it’ll do.

But the EAA is in love with digital child-centered learning. This seems to hinge on the “Buzz” software built on Agilix Lab’s BrainHoney platform. This is a commercial product from a private software company which doesn’t yet seem to have pulled together any case studies demonstrating the efficacy of their approach. My brief research using Archive.org indicates that they’ve been billing themselves as a “worldwide leader in distributed learning solutions” since at least 2007; you’d think they’d have collected some data over the course of half a decade . . .

Anyway, this testimony from Brooke Harris, an English teacher at Mumford High School in Detroit, describes Buzz-assisted EAA-style “child-centered” learning in action:

Buzz is composed of “one size fits all” purchased curriculum. Instead of differentiated activities and lessons being created by their teacher – a certified professional who lives and works in the city of the students, who has taken the time to get to know each of them on a personal level – the limited activities and lessons have already been mapped out without any knowledge or regard to the student’s background, culture, needs, strengths, or interests.

That doesn’t sound super “child-centered.” In fact, if you read the entire testimony – it’s just two pages, a transcript of Harris’s testimony before the House Education Committee on Nov 19, 2012 – Buzz sounds like yet another poorly designed, ill-tested, and likely overpriced software package dumped into the lucrative “education market.”

But Buzz is just the tip of the iceberg. Harris paints a disheartening picture of what things are like in an EAA school. Not only is this computerized “child-centered learning” a total sham, but Harris is still dealing with 45-student classrooms. That’s Afghanistan-style classroom overcrowding! (Read more on class-size here.)

The legitimately child-centered IEPs of mainstreamed special-needs students in this EAA school are being ignored – because the schools have criminally overburdened the special education staff. (That’s not hyperbole; the case-loads being forced on staff violate Michigan law; see the footnote in Harris’s testimony.)

This is the EAA. Now, in a funny coincidence, I actually have a nodding familiarity with Mumford back when it was just a standard failing Detroit public school. I’m gonna level with you: It was very bad, and this is worse.

Nonetheless the EAA is the only school/district in Michigan that’s still in the running for federal Race to the Top funds – much to the chagrin of basically everyone in conventional education, who saw a half billion dollars cut from the School Aid Fund this year.

Giving Away Our Schools So We Can Buy Them Back

All of this is troubling, and it becomes more so when coupled with HB 5923 – which removes limits on new charter and “cyber schools.” This latter is the business of folks like Agilix Labs – not that they themselves seem to be interested in education, per se; their business is in building and maintaining a platform so that other folks can quickly set up their own “cyber schools” with minimal hassle and no computer know-how. But my experience is that folks like Agilix don’t sell software packages; they sell service contracts. If the school can’t keep paying the bill, they lose access. If Agilix upgrades their platform and it requires hardware the school doesn’t have, the school either has to upgrade their computers or lose their curriculum. If Agilix jacks up the price after the current contract expires and the schools can’t afford it? Sorry, Charlie!

It seems almost certain that the new EAA super-district will be seizing schools and handing over the day-to-day operation to chartered education management companies using online curricula.

Now, the old public-school Mumford was crappy – folks were always complaining about the decades-old textbooks – but at least they had textbooks and qualified teachers to use them. Miss a payment to BrainHoney, and you’re reduced to a Teach-for-America kid reading aloud from Wikipedia off his iPhone.

Now, there are wonderful community-operated charter schools in Michigan, as well as some distance-learning “cyber” programs that support classroom learning well. Again, I know that for a fact.

But charter schools in general – for-profit and community-based alike – have a shaky track record. According to the U.S. Department of Education, as of 2009 at least five case studies had found charter schools underperforming when compared to their local traditional public schools: “Charter schools in all five case study states were less likely than traditional public schools to meet performance standards even after controlling for several school characteristics.” However, the Dept. of Education still concluded that “the study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools.” This dearth of meaningful research into whether or not charter schools actually work is itself troubling. It’s not like charter schools fell from space in 2011; we’ve been doing this for two decades. The first charter-school kindergartners now have kids of their own. How has life worked out for this first generation of charter schooled Americans? Are they sending their kids to charters?

Still, we somehow have no clear idea if charter schools work, and now we seem to be priming ourselves to flip our whole system to this model. Would you go all-in on an alternative cancer treatment if your doctor said “We don’t really have any research on whether or not this works, but I’ve just got this feeling about it, you know?” (By contrast, just 20 years into the Perry Preschool Project, we knew that we had something good going on. Today, 50 years after the project began, the value of the HighScope pre-school methodology is universally accepted. Each dollar invested in such a program yields $7 in profits, in the form of savings on social programs and criminal justice, as well as economic growth. Sadly, I don’t see any movement in the state legislature to put our entire education system in the hands of highly trained pre-school teachers – you know, people with an actual track record for success in education.)

So, maybe charters are a good way to educate kids, maybe they aren’t, but there’s one thing to be sure: In Michigan they can be a pretty damn good way to make a dime. Check it out: These laws make the per pupil grant (think “voucher”) highly portable. This is around $6,000 per kid, and represents his or her share of the tax dollars going toward education. But the thing is, that $6,000 doesn’t represent the actual cost of educating a specific student, just his or her share of the pie when its divided up equally. Obviously, it costs different amounts to educate different kids. As a rule of thumb, teens are more expensive to educate than grade schoolers, and special needs always add to the cost.

For example, a first grader like ours, who’s “good at school” (e.g., likes going, tests well, reads well, speaks English as a first language, has ample help at home from two experienced teachers, etc.) probably only costs a few grand to educate. Expense-wise, he’s basically half-a-kid. But a blind high schooler with a cognitive impairment – who needs a variety of supports and accommodations, and perhaps even a classroom aid – can easily run in excess of $18,000 per year. Where do we get the other $12,000? Duh – we use the excess from all those happy, frolicking first-graders.

Nonetheless, if my six-year-old splits for the green pastures of a cyber-charter-topia, that new school gets all $6,000 he represents on the grand spreadsheet in Lansing, even if that new program only needs $3,000 (or less!) to educate him.

Charter schools disproportionately serve elementary schoolers and ignore special needs. In fact, under these new laws charters will be able to cherry pick students for any reason except religion (age, gender, native language, musical acumen, height – you name it). That is, they can skim off the low-cost or high-talent students (and their full per-pupil grants), and leave out the expensive kids who are tricky to teach or require specialized staff.

A system like that can only work (to the degree it works at all) if you still have a well-funded public system to dump the “expensive” kids into. If we hand the whole thing to a for-profit system, they can no longer off-load the expense of the most resource-intensive students, and their business model collapses over the long term – even if they’ve been saved the expense of construction by swiping the facilities we paid for. And then what? When their profits flag and their stock price plummets and investors and creditors come knocking, what happens? Do we bail them out with more public funds? Prop them up with milages and taxes? Then we’re right back to a public system again – but now it has no local oversight at all, no workplace safeguards for staff, no quality assurance for students and families, no standards or benchmarks.

About 80% of the charter schools in Michigan are operated as for-profit endeavors by large education management companies, such as EdisonLearning (one of the largest players in the market). EdisonLearning (previously called Edison Schools) doesn’t have a great track record. All told – and this is anecdotal, based on my observations and acquaintances’ first-hand accounts of the operation of for-profit charter schools – for-profits seem all too often to do a poorer job and cost more, rather than doing a better job for less.

I don’t see a pressing reason that we should pay more to have less input into schools that do a worse job.

Do This Right Now!

If you’re steamed about this, then you want to contact the Governor, your reps, and your senator ASAP – feel free to use the template from the top of this column. Assuming you’re basically local, that means contacting these folks:

Governor Rick Snyder (everyone should write him right now!)
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Phone: (517) 373-3400
Email: https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/GovRelations/ShareOpinion.aspx

Representative Mark Ouimet (represents western Washtenaw)
S-986 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-0828
Toll Free: 855-627-5052 (855 MARK052)
Email: MarkOuimet@house.mi.gov

Representative Rick Olson (represents Saline)
S-989 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-1792
Toll Free: (888) 345-2849
Email: RickOlson@house.mi.gov

Representative Jeff Irwin (who needs no convincing)
S987 House Office Building
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Phone: (517) 373-2577
Fax: (517) 373-5808
Email: jeffirwin@house.mi.gov

Representative David Rutledge (little strip of eastern Washtenaw)
S-988 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-1771
Toll Free: (855) 347-8054
Email: davidrutledge@house.mi.gov

Senator Rebekah Warren (represents most Ann Arborites)
415 Farnum Bldg.
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-2406
Email: http://warren.senatedems.com/contact-me

Senator Randy Richardville (represents Pittsfieldians)
S-106 Capitol Bldg.
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: (517) 373-3543
Email: senrichardville@senate.michigan.gov

For good measure, you might want to separately email our federal representatives, indicating that you’re disappointed that the unproven and, thus-far, disappointing Michigan EAA is up for Race to the Top funds. Forward them the note you sent to the Governor, et al.

Representative John Dingell (or find your rep here)
Ypsilanti Office
301 W. Michigan Ave, Suite 400
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Phone: (734) 481-1100
Email: https://dingell.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Senator Debbie Stabenow
243 W. Congress, Suite 550
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 961-4330
Email: http://www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=contact

Senator Carl Levin
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building
477 Michigan Avenue, Suite 1860
Detroit, MI 48226-2576
Phone: (313) 226-6020
Email: https://www.levin.senate.gov/contact/email/

Playing The Letter Game

A few quick notes on playing the “Write Your Representatives” game:

1. Even if you know one of these folks already agrees with you write anyway; it’s powerful for them to be able to say: “I’ve gotten X-hundred letters about this from my constituents, and they’re all saying ‘No way!’ There’s clearly no ‘mandate’ for doing something this extreme this fast.”
2. Olsen, Ouimet, and Richardville support these bills, but are still political animals. Even if you feel hopeless in your district, write them anyway: They are your representatives, too, and when those letters pile up it can be hard to ignore. Ditto on writing Snyder. He’s a reasonable guy; point him toward the reasonable path, and remind him about how we helped him with Prop 4 last month.
3. Get your friends and family on board, just like we did with Prop 4. Show them the letter you sent and encourage them to cut and paste and send their own. Point them here if they want details.

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. So if you’re already supporting us on a regular basis, please educate your friends, neighbors and colleagues about The Chronicle and encourage them to support us, too!