John U. Bacon

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany, who might be the smartest man in college sports, stood outside the Big Ten’s brand new offices last week, telling a group of reporters, “Maybe in football and basketball, it would work better if more kids had a chance to go directly into the professional ranks. If they’re not comfortable and want to monetize, let the minor leagues flourish.”

It isn’t clear if Delany’s comments reflected his deeply held beliefs, an offhand comment, or just a daring bluff – but if it’s the latter, it isn’t as daring as it seems.

By challenging the NFL and NBA to start their own minor leagues, Delany doesn’t have much to lose. He knows they won’t, because they have every reason not to. They’ve used the college leagues to develop their players from the day the pro leagues started. Why would they derail the gravy train now?

And even if they did, it wouldn’t cost the Big Ten much, if anything.

But if we call Delany’s bluff and play it out, we’ll see it leads to one idea that could actually save what we love most about college football: the passion no other sport can match. 

The Unexamined Root of the Problem

I came to the same conclusion Delany did several years ago, though for different reasons.

Working on a book proposal a decade ago, I was struck by the essential difference between American football and basketball on the one hand, and just about every sport in the world on the other: football and basketball developed primarily as college games. When the NFL and NBA opened decades later, they simply hired the best college players available, but it still took the pro leagues decades to challenge the popularity of college football and basketball. The NFL didn’t get a permanent foothold until the classic 1958 title between the New York Giants and the Baltimore Colts, and the NBA Finals were still on tape-delay until Magic and Bird joined the league in 1979.

Why does this matter? Because by starting after college football and basketball were already established, the NFL and NBA were freed from having to develop viable minor leagues of their own, making them virtually the only sports in the world that don’t have them. Roughly a century ago, Major League Baseball and the NHL could not rely on the nascent college programs to fill their rosters, so they had to create their own minor leagues.

And that’s why today, almost every high school football and basketball star has just one path to the big leagues: the NCAA. This makes no sense. Athletes and universities can benefit each other, but they shouldn’t need to. Pelé never had to worry about passing 12 credits before playing in his first World Cup, and the University of Chicago figured out it didn’t need a football team to be a world-class university. As former University of Chicago president Robert Maynard Hutchins liked to say, “Football is to education as bullfighting is to agriculture.” He backed it up in 1939, when he pulled the Maroons out of the Big Ten. Today, Chicago’s admissions department is the fourth most selective in the country, behind only those of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

When a committed student-athlete enrolls in a four-year college, everyone involved receives at least some benefit. The athlete gets a free education, an enduring asset no matter what he does on the field, and the college enjoys reflected glory from his performance. But when we require a gifted athlete with little or no interest in higher education to enroll in a four-year college to get to the NFL or NBA, he is more likely to fail in the classroom, which may actually prevent him from pursuing a promising athletic career – something that happens only in America – and the school’s academic reputation will take a very public hit. Nobody wins.

So, how do we fix this?

The Pros and Cons of Paying Players

Everyone agrees it’s increasingly difficult to support the farce that the NCAA is foisting upon us, but we can’t agree on how to fix it. In recent years we’ve seen proposals ranging from school-sponsored minor league teams to ending big-time college sports altogether.

The most popular idea sits between those two extremes: give up the ruse, and pay the players. After all, everyone seems to be making millions off the athletes, except the athletes.

Consider the skyrocketing salaries of Division I football coaches, which now average more than $2 million a year, an increase of 750 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1984, about 20 times more than professors’ salaries increased over the same period. In 2012, the highest-paid state employee in 27 states was a football coach, and in 13 it was a basketball coach. The number of states whose highest-paid public employee was a university president? Four. The explosion in CEO pay, and the rationales that go with it, would be a fair comparison.

This chasm between the value of the players’ scholarships and their coaches’ salaries will only become more obscene with the arrival of the four-team playoff this season, whose TV rights alone will be worth $5.64 billion over 12 years, or about $470 million a year – all for three games. In the NCAA basketball tournament this past spring, March Madness generated $1 billion – in ad revenue alone.

As I wrote in “Fourth and Long“:

They will tell you it’s the cost of doing business – but what’s the business, exactly? When 60 Minutes interviewed [former Domino’s Pizza CEO-turned-Michigan athletic director] Dave Brandon that fall, he said the “business model is broken.” What he failed to grasp was that it is not supposed to be a business in the first place. After all, what business doesn’t have to pay shareholders, partners, owners, taxes, or the star attractions, the players and the band?

This mind-set seems particularly true of the contemporary CEOs-as-athletic directors, for whom no amount is enough.

“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans,” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, almost two hundred years ago, “one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?”

More recently, Homer Simpson told his boss, Monty Burns, “You’re the richest man I know.”

“Yes,” Burns replied. “But you know, I’d trade it all for just a little more.”

And that’s the problem. Like Asian carp invading your freshwater paradise, once the money-grubbers take over, their appetites are insatiable, and they are impossible to remove.

The most serious threat to big-time college athletics is not the endless scandals, which affect only those who get caught, but the rampant greed, which affects everybody. As Michael Kinsley has famously said, “The scandal isn’t what’s illegal.  The scandal is what’s legal.”

With so many millions sloshing around the athletes, it’s no surprise they’re reaching their limits. And it’s not just “Johnny Football” Manziel, a uniquely unsympathetic figure, either, but Kain Colter, Northwestern’s pre-med quarterback, who has taken to wearing an armband with “A.P.U.” on it, for All Players United, in support of those fighting to protect their rights, and their safety.

Certainly, the idea of giving the players a stipend of a thousand or two a year – which the NCAA almost passed four decades ago – so they can pay for a dinner date, a winter coat or a trip home, is long overdue. But even that modest proposal will cost more than its proponents imagine, since Title IX will dictate all scholarship athletes receive the same stipend, be they the All-American quarterback or the second-string coxswain on the women’s crew team.

Thus, when people talk about $20,000 “salaries” for college athletes, the cost at the biggest programs, which have some 700 student-athletes, will quickly exceed $10 million. And before you know it, you’re talking real money.

If you think for a second these payments will be deducted from the coaches’ bloated salaries, I have a “Johnny Football” autograph to sell you. No, these salaries will be piled on to the mountain of money that college athletic departments already spend every year. And they will pay for that pile, of course, by extracting still more millions from alternate jersey sales, rising seat license “donations,” corporate partnerships, and the ads that come with them – the very things that are alienating lifelong fans.

If I’m right that the biggest threat to college football is not scandal but greed, paying the players will only exacerbate the sport’s central problem, setting up the kind of tug-of-wars we see in pro sports that turn everybody off. Pouring more gasoline on a fire will not make it smaller. Paying players will not solve the problem it is intended to solve – the players will soon want more, just like the coaches, and not without reason – but it will create many new problems that will threaten the future of the sport.

Universities already have a difficult time controlling their athletic departments, and the pay-to-play plans will not make it any easier. They will turn the student-athletes into bona fide employees, which will open a Pandora’s box of legal issues, and questions from the IRS.

The pay-to-play proposals also assume the current record TV ratings, sweetheart corporate deals and sold-out stadiums will continue far into the future. But we’ve already seen plenty of signs that the fans are also nearing their breaking point.

Penn State fans travel an average of four hours to see their Nittany Lions play – as hardcore as any fans in college football. But Penn State snapped its six-year streak of 100,000-plus crowds more than a year before Jerry Sandusky was arrested, thanks to an aggressive seat-license program. Three thousand fans dropped their season tickets in 2010, when the seat-license program was introduced, three thousand more did the next year, and the departures have only accelerated since. When I attended the University of Central Florida-Penn State game this fall, my friends estimated there were no more than 85,000 fans in the stands that night – no matter what they announced as the “official paid attendance.”

Penn State fans are not the canaries in the coalmine. They are the coalminers. And if they’re starting to climb out of their favorite mine, no program is safe.

The cost for a family of four to attend a Michigan football game, with average seats and no hotel rooms or restaurant meals, runs about $500 – more than a day at Disney World. And Mickey never loses. While the Michigan athletic department claims the streak of 100,000-plus crowds, dating back to 1975, has never been broken, the game against Akron revealed wide swaths of empty seats, particularly in the student section – your future season ticket holders.

If you crank up the seat licenses, the TV timeouts and the endless ads another notch or two to pay players’ salaries, you will risk losing a generation of fans, and the whole enterprise will erode. The question of paying the players will become truly academic if there’s no money to pay them.

When did you last attend a boxing match or a horse race? If the bottom can fall out of those once robust sports, it can happen to college football, too. And if you like Off-Track Betting Parlors, and the empty stands they create, you’re going to love the future of big-time college sports.

Creating Two Tracks to the Big Leagues

Despite the many good reasons to pay the players, I think there are better reasons not to – and a better way to fix the problem that paying the players is intended to fix.

Delany might not be serious about his dare, but I am.

In my previous book “Three and Out,” I wrote, “For those rare stars, I’ve always believed, the NFL and NBA should set up viable minor leagues to give such players a real choice – the same one high school hockey and baseball players have.”

That came out two years ago. The need for this change is much more urgent today.

What football and basketball players need is what baseball and hockey players have enjoyed for almost a century: a viable minor league, so players who don’t want to be college students, and prefer to be paid in cash instead of scholarships, can do just that.

This would cut down on the majority of problems that beset both sports, almost overnight. Johnny Football? Sign all you want. “One and done” becomes “None and done.” Go!

Delany’s bold statement aside, you have to believe that if the NFL and NBA actually called his bluff, he might fear losing some of the NCAA’s most exciting players to the new minor leagues – and with them, some of the appeal of college football and basketball.

Fret not. As I write in “Fourth and Long”:

College athletes are more passionate playing for a scholarship than pro athletes are playing for millions. And we admire them more for this very reason. It’s the difference between citizen soldiers volunteering for the army and hired Hessians. Give us the doughboys, the G.I. Joes, and the grunts fighting for a cause.

And this is why we watch: not for perfection, but passion – the same reason over a million fans watch the Little League World Series every summer. This point is easily proven: the worst team in the NFL would crush the best team in college football, every year. Yet college football is the only sport in the world that draws more fans to its games than the big league teams it feeds. The attendance at Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State typically averages 50 percent more than that of the NFL teams in those states—and often doubles it. No minor league baseball or hockey team comes close to matching the attendance of their parent clubs.

This basic truth escapes both the proponents of paying players and the NCAA executives who try to squelch minor leagues from starting: college football is selling romance, not prowess. If ability were the only appeal, we’d move NFL games to Saturday and watch those games instead. But if you lose the romance of college football, you will lose the fans of college football.

In 2005, former Michigan athletic director Bill Martin commissioned a professionally conducted survey, which revealed that Michigan football season-ticket holders were doggedly loyal, with slightly more than half of them holding their seats for more than two decades. They were about 50 percent more likely to buy Michigan basketball season tickets than season tickets for any professional team. Only 9 percent of Michigan season-ticket holders also bought season tickets to any professional team, and this survey was taken when Michigan basketball was down and the Detroit Red Wings and Pistons were just a few years away from their latest titles.

This tells us a basic truth: College football fans don’t just love football. They love college football – the history, the traditions, the rituals, and the rivalries that surpass those of the pro game. They are attracted to the belief that it’s based on ideals that go beyond the field, do not fade with time, and are passed down to the next generation.

We don’t have to wonder if creating a separate minor league system will work. We already know: Just check out college hockey. The players who would rather have a paycheck than a scholarship can jump straight to the minor leagues – and they do. Because the players who opt for college are not forced to do so by the NHL, the graduation rates tend to be much higher in college hockey, and the scandals much fewer. College hockey fans love them all the more, because they know the guys they’re cheering for have chosen to be college hockey players. They’re the real deal.

In hockey, at least, both the minor leagues and the colleges deliver the players and the fans exactly what they promise. The only games they play are on the ice.

How to Make It Honest

Okay, but why would the NFL and NBA ever go for this, and voluntarily invest millions of their own money to create something they’ve been getting for free since they started? They wouldn’t, of course, so you’d have to force them.

But forcing them can be accomplished in one step: bring back freshmen ineligibility. If you want to make it honest, that’s how you do it.

In fact, freshmen ineligibility was the rule from 1905, the year the NCAA was founded, until 1972, and for a simple reason: colleges actually believed their athletes should be students first, and this is how they proved it. It gave all athletes a year to get their feet on the ground, and catch up where needed. Dean Smith and Terry Holland argued before the Knight Commission about the merits of freshmen ineligibility – but that was nine years ago, and nothing has changed.  Until the NCAA, the leagues, the presidents and the athletic directors bring back freshmen ineligibility, you should not take them seriously when they speak of “student-athletes.” They do not mean it.

By requiring all student-athletes to be actual student-athletes, many elite athletes will opt out – but there’s no way the NFL or the NBA will let talented 18-year-olds wander off if they might be able to help their teams win games. So, the NFL and NBA would almost certainly do what they should have done decades ago: Prepare players for their leagues, with their own money, by starting their own minor league teams.

Creating two paths to the pros will throw a bucket of cold water on the overheated facilities arms race, the soaring coaches’ salaries and the insane TV contracts. Yes, those things exist in college hockey and baseball, but nowhere near on the same scale. Restoring a sense of proportion is what we’re seeking here.

Yes, we need other reforms, too. We need to put an end to the NCAA’s absurd charade of posing as the sheriff when it’s really the saloonkeeper. Universities should hire athletic directors who’ve spent their working lives nurturing student-athletes, not “maximizing the revenue streams” of their “brand.” And we should require all universities to reinstate true faculty oversight of their athletic programs.

“Without faculty control,” Michigan’s legendary athletic director, Don Canham, wrote in an essay that came out after his death in 2005, “the presidents are running up to $70 million budget programs (Michigan, Ohio State, Stanford, Texas, etc.) with no oversight. What $70-million business could conduct business without a board of control?” In the eight years since Canham warned of “unbridled expansion,” Michigan’s budget has more than doubled. Guess he knew something.

All these changes are needed, but creating a second path to the pros is the key. And – as Smith, Holland and Canham himself urged – restoring freshmen ineligibility is the way to do it.

No, this solution will not create a perfect world. There will still be athletes who aren’t bona fide college students. There will still be coaches and boosters happy to break the rules. And there will still be an outsized mania for the sport. The goal is not perfection, but sanity – to protect the integrity of the universities the players are representing, and to preserve the passion the players and fans still feel for their favorite game.

The time to save this century-old game is now. And creating minor leagues to preserve college athletics, while giving all athletes a real choice, is the way to do it.

It’s time to call Mr. Delany’s bluff.

About the writer: Ann Arbor resident John U. Bacon is the author of the national bestsellers “Fourth and Long: The Future of College Football,” “Bo’s Lasting Lessons” and “Three and Out: Rich Rodriguez and the Michigan Wolverines in the Crucible of College Football.” You can follow him on Twitter (@Johnubacon), and at johnubacon.com.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our publication of columnists like John U. Bacon. 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!

Left to right: AAPS trustee Glenn Nelson; John Young (athletic coordinator at Skyline High School); Dottie Davis (AD at Huron High School). (Photos by the writer.)

After sharing divergent opinions over many hours of candid discussion, trustees directed AAPS administration to use their “best judgment” in making $475,000 worth of cuts to athletics district-wide.

They also informally requested that the administration create a “dashboard” of district statistics, as required to qualify for additional “best practices” funding from the state.

Finally, through a formal resolution, the board directed the AAPS administration to work toward placing a technology bond on the November ballot. The bond, if passed, would levy a new millage to upgrade computers and other technological devices throughout the district.

The direction given by the board on those three issues came as a result of an unusual combination of meetings on Wednesday.

First, during a planning committee meeting lasting from 3-5:30 p.m., a revised set of athletics cuts was discussed by that committee and relevant members of the administration. Then, at 5:40 p.m., the remaining trustees arrived and board president Deb Mexicotte called a regular board meeting to order, which was recessed immediately into a study session.

During the study session discussion, which lasted over four and a half hours, the board discussed four items – the athletics cuts, the “dashboard,” a technology bond, and the possibility of offering all-day kindergarten district-wide. At the conclusion of the study session, the board resumed its regular meeting for just five minutes in order to take formal action on only one of the items – pursuing a technology bond.

Athletics Cuts – Round Two

The planning committee of the AAPS board consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan; the performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas.

During Wednesday’s planning committee meeting, and again during the study session, board members reviewed and discussed in detail a revised plan for cutting the athletics budget district-wide by $475,000. This second pass at the cuts was requested by the board at its June 29, 2011 meeting after the community pushed back against the original plan put forward by the athletic directors (ADs).

Athletics Cut: Proposed Revisions

The original athletics cuts included: elimination of all freshman sports except for football; complete elimination of funding for dance, cheer, figure skating, lacrosse, and bowling; and reduced funding for field hockey and crew. The process to determine the original cuts had not included direct participation by anyone other than the ADs.

On Wednesday, the district’s deputy superintendent of operations Robert Allen, Huron High School athletic director Dottie Davis, and Skyline High School athletic coordinator John Young suggested some changes to the cuts. Those changes had been crafted by a wider group of contributors including the ADs, Allen, the district’s director of communications Liz Margolis, high school principals, and some coaches, booster club members, and parents.

The revised plan would retain funding for freshmen volleyball and boys basketball as well as for football, and would allow the other freshmen sports – baseball, soccer, and girls’ basketball – to convert to club status if they desired. It would also renew funding for lacrosse for one year, but require it to convert to a club sport as of 2012-13.

In order to cover the increased cost of re-funding these programs, the ADs suggested increasing the  ”pay to participate” fees. For high schools, the fee would increase from a first-sport-second-sport system ($150 for the first sport/$75 for the second sport) to a flat fee of $250 for an unlimited number of sports. The middle school “pay to participate” fee would increase from a $50 flat fee to a $75 flat fee.

In total, the revised program reductions would save $381,820. And increasing the “pay to participate” fees would bring in $190,000 in new revenue. Therefore, the total overall reduction to the athletics budget would be $571,820. Allen explained that this target provides a built-in cushion in case a lower number of students participate in athletics, and that the actual savings would likely be closer to the original target of $475,000.

Athletics Cuts: Board Response

Trustee Christine Stead questioned whether the cuts would meet the district’s obligations under Title IX, which requires that equal athletics opportunities be afforded to girls and boys. Dave Comsa, AAPS assistant superintendent for human resources and legal services, assured the board that the ADs have been careful to provide equal access to participation to all students. He added that the district had been contacted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which handles Title IX inquiries, and that after talking to Allen, the EEOC was satisfied that AAPS was in full compliance with the law.

Trustees questioned the rationale behind eliminating freshman sports. Davis explained that many of the freshmen athletes can be absorbed into junior varsity (JV) or varsity teams. She added that there are not many other schools nearby with freshmen teams, so there were not enough opponents for the teams to play against.

Trustee Susan Baskett requested that the ADs make it very clear how a varsity sport can convert to a club sport, and noted that she was aware of some difficulties encountered by those trying to create club sports at Pioneer High School. Margolis said that the ADs would help any team that wishes to convert to club status after losing district funding. Club sports are fully self-funded. Trustee Glenn Nelson said that club sports should be required to offer scholarships to students who qualify for free or reduced lunch, just like varsity sports do now.

The bulk of the board’s discussion centered on the possible disadvantages of raising the “pay to participate” fees. Trustees expressed concern that fewer students would be able to participate, but responded positively to a suggestion from Davis that parents be allowed to pay the fee in installments, as long as the full payment is received before the season began.

Young noted that some families will be able to weather the increase without any problem, and that some students will qualify for scholarships. But Young said it will be the group of middle-income students who sway the total participation numbers one way or the other. He suggested that the students who might be discouraged from paying a higher participation fee were those who played on teams primarily for social reasons, or because “they just don’t want to go home.”

The series of committee meeting, board meeting and study session took place at the Balas administration building, with the new AAPS superintendent Patricia Green (far right) taking her place at the table for the first time.

In response to public commentary questions about which extracurricular activities are charged pay-to-participate fees, Comsa clarified that “if [students] get a grade in a course, [AAPS] cannot charge for it.” So there is no fee for students to participate in arts programs such as band, choir, and orchestra. Margolis added that there are tons of clubs at the high schools, but that the district does not support any of them financially.

Stead suggested that charging a flat fee would encourage students to try new sports, and Davis confirmed that colleges look favorably on athletes who are more well-rounded. Trustees Irene Patalan and Andy Thomas also suggested that students could be encouraged to pay part of the fee increase by earning the money themselves.

There was some discussion of what comparable districts were charging, and it was determined that the district’s fees are among the lowest. Baskett pointed out that some other districts had a family maximum for athletics participation fees, and suggested AAPS do the same.

In the end, Mexicotte, Nelson, and trustee Simone Lightfoot were not in favor of increasing the pay-to-participate fees, while Thomas, Patalan, and Stead were fully supportive of the revised proposal made by the ADs. Baskett said she “could be convinced” in either direction.

There was some discussion about whether to hold a formal vote on the proposed pay-to-participate increase, but Mexicotte argued strongly that the board did not need to take formal action because the athletics reductions would still end up near the target of $475,000 approved in the budget, regardless of how the administration chooses to proceed. “This is as micro-manage-y as we’re going to get … I’m putting it back to the experts,” she said. “Whether or not [the discussion provided] that clear of a direction, I say the tie goes to administration.”

Trustees settled on asking administrators to use their “best judgment” to decide whether to proceed with the fee increases, keeping in mind the concerns expressed by the board around the table. Davis concurred that the discussion had provided “great insight.” Margolis later told The Chronicle that a final decision on the administration’s plans regarding athletic cuts will be forthcoming.

State Incentives: The “Dashboard”

Allen reviewed that the state is offering an additional $100 per student to school districts that meet four out of five suggested “best practice” standards, as defined by the state. One of these is to create a “dashboard” of statistics to be displayed on the district website, including graduation rates, dropout rates, enrollment numbers, test scores, staff and administrative salaries, fund balance, and total days of instruction provided.

Allen noted that he saw no challenges to displaying the information requested, and said that it is all already being collected. Mexicotte suggested trying to design the district’s dashboard to be just like the one Gov. Rick Snyder created for the state, and that the source code for the state dashboard might even be public domain.

AAPS superintendent Patricia Green

Nelson pointed out that the statistics required to be in the dashboard are mostly summative measures, and that providing formative measures as well might provide some genuine insight. Lightfoot agreed that the data could be used to tell a broader story instead of just setting it up to meet state requirements.

The board directed the administration to have an AAPS dashboard up on the district website by Oct. 1, and update the board at that time on how many of the five best practice requirements the district has met. The other requirements include proving that the district has: consolidated services; obtained competitive bids on non-instructional services; and limited spending on health benefits.

Green said that making the dashboard more expansive resonates with her, and applauded the board for not just trying to meet the minimum requirements. Data helps in decision-making, she said, and “transparency only makes us stronger.”

Study sessions are less formal, and the board often entertains input from others in attendance at the meeting.  During the dashboard discussion, Mexicotte recognized Larry Murphy, who will challenge incumbents Lightfoot and Thomas for a school board seat in November.  Murphy suggested that Allen request timely guidance from the Michigan Department of Education to be sure that the district’s dashboard meets the state requirements, so that it could be revised before the funding deadline.

Technology Bond for November Ballot

Allen presented the board with a 10-year projection of the district’s technological needs totaling roughly $30 million, which he described as “part two” of the technology refresh funded by the 2004 bond.

In response to board questions, Allen explained that the bond was primarily for hardware, and that the suggested replacement timelines were gleaned from practice as well as manufacturer life-cycle recommendations.

Green asserted that a technology bond would help to prepare students “not for our past, but for their future.” If the district’s technology deteriorates, she said, students will not be able to develop the the skills needed to succeed in the 21st century.

The board discussed how flexible a technology bond would be, and Allen confirmed that the district would have the ability to spend the money on any technology, even if it’s not currently on the market.

The board expressed universal support for putting a technology bond on the ballot, and moved into a discussion of appropriate timing.

Stead expressed concern that asking the community to fund a technology bond in November might interfere with a successful campaign for another countywide enhancement millage. Mexicotte suggested that the two were not mutually exclusive, saying “I don’t think a 0.5 mill stewardship bond in Ann Arbor this fall does anything to derail a countywide bond in one and a half years.”

The board moved unanimously that the administration craft a proposal to place a technology bond on the November ballot. The exact amount of the millage will be determined by the administration based on the district’s projected technology needs.

All-Day Kindergarten

Board members considered tying a construction millage to the technology bond in order to build additional physical capacity for all-day kindergarten, but in the end decided to table the discussion until they had more information.

Allen distributed a report written by a district task force in 2009, which had been charged with studying the costs associated with expanding kindergarten to full-day district-wide. According to the report, he said, the operational costs (more teachers and more materials), plus the capital costs (adding classrooms to buildings) would cost the district $3-4 million in the first year.

On the flip side, Allen pointed out, keeping kindergarten half day for most AAPS schools, as it currently is, will cost the district $3.8 million per year – if half-day kindergarten funding from the state is decreased as anticipated. The state has said it plans to pay districts half of the per-pupil foundation allowance for every half-day kindergarten student as an incentive to get districts to offer full-day kindergarten. However, such a funding cut has not yet been passed by the state legislature.

The board suggested that the district should wait to see if the law goes into effect before rushing into building more classrooms. Some trustees also suggested that portable classrooms could be used in the meantime, if the transition to full-day kindergarten is eventually warranted.

Allen also pointed out that the district’s sinking fund could be used for construction costs instead of a dedicated millage.

The board entertained some discussion about the value of expanding neighborhood schools versus providing all-day kindergarten at a centralized location, and determined that more study and community input is needed before moving forward.

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support Jennifer Coffman’s coverage of the Ann Arbor Public School board. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle. And if you’re already supporting The Chronicle, please encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!