Ann Arbor Public School superintendent Patricia Green

The board is now in the first stages of it has determined to be a “fast track” superintendent search. That’s because Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Patricia Green has turned in her resignation, after a little less than two years on the job. Her resignation takes effect in mid-July. In a brief letter to AAPS staff and families in the school system, Green said she intends to retire after 43 years in the profession. [.pdf of Green's letter]

The bulk of the board’s April 17 study session was spent discussing the first steps of a superintendent search. Led by board president Deb Mexicotte, the trustees discussed topics ranging from retaining a search firm, determining the superintendent profile, creating the search timeline, gathering community input, and naming an interim superintendent.

Also at the study session, Mexicotte also put out another call for trustees to indicate their interests for standing committee membership, as well as interest in chairing a committee. Appointments were to be made by the next regular meeting, which took place on April 24.

The dates and locations of the AAPS community budget forums were also announced. At the forums, the administration will review the budget for the 2013-14 school year.

The board also heard public commentary regarding potential budget cuts and the superintendent search.

Superintendent Search: Background

Green began her tenure on July 1, 2011 with a five-year contract and a starting salary of $245,000. According to AAPS spokeswoman Liz Margolis, a voluntary salary reduction that Green had recently offered has not yet been implemented. Under the terms of her contract, 90 days notice was required, which Green gave in her resignation letter to AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte on April 10.

Green’s resignation comes as the district was facing $17-$20 million of cuts for next year’s budget. That projected deficit has recently been reduced, but still remains around $9 million.

This is the second recent resignation by a top AAPS administrator. Robert Allen, the district’s deputy superintendent for operations, resigned earlier this year. His last day was March 22. Allen had served as interim superintendent in 2010-11 following the departure of former superintendent Todd Roberts. Allen left to take a job at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, which Roberts leads.

Superintendent Search: Search Firm

At the study session, Mexicotte reported she had already contacted Ray and Associates, the search firm retained for the previous superintendent search. Ray and Associates said they would allow AAPS to invoke the two-year guarantee. If AAPS were to engage the firm again, then only incidentals – such as travel expenses – would need to be paid. That is, no fee would be charged for the search itself.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte

According to Amy Osinski, executive assistant to the board of education, $29,919 was spent for the search that led to Green’s hire, $14,000 of which was the fee charged by Ray and Associates. Incidentals amounted to $15,919.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot asked if a similar guarantee would be in the contract if Ray and Associates were asked to conduct the current search. Mexicotte replied that she wasn’t sure the district wouldn’t get a similar guarantee – because the district has been a “very good reference for them.”

Lightfoot said she wanted to “debrief” before even discussing if the board would hire Ray and Associates. While she liked the fact that there would be no search fee, she felt it was out of sequence – that trustees needed first to discuss if they were even going to engage a search firm.

Mexicotte said she believed Ray and Associates were “helpful” and she “felt positive” about the board’s previous interactions with the firm. Vice president Christine Stead agreed, and said the firm provided a “nice, structured methodology.”

Trustee Glenn Nelson suppported taking advantage of Ray and Associate’s guarantee. That way, he maintained, the entire front end of “searching for a search firm” wouldn’t have to be done. If the board had to search for a search firm, the board would face a longer term of uncertainty.

Mexicotte confirmed that Ray and Associates could start immediately and could have all applications and resumes forwarded to the board by the first week of June. With that schedule in mind, candidates would be vetted and interviews held, with the idea of having a new superintendent named by the end of July.

One of the benefits of selecting Ray and Associates, said Mexicotte, was that the firm agreed that they knew the AAPS community and could interview the trustees over the phone rather than come to Ann Arbor to interview.

Mexicotte clarified that Ray and Associates could conduct the search in whatever way the trustees chose. They could help with the vetting of internal and external candidates, as well as assisting in getting community input.

Lightfoot said that while “fee-free does matter,” she was not as wedded to Ray and Associates because she was not wedded to a national search. She would prefer to look internally. She also clarified that the district was not legally required to use a search firm in the same way a district is required to have a superintendent.

Trustee Susan Baskett said that while some of the people with Ray and Associates “rubbed her the wrong way,” she didn’t want the community to spend more money or have the trustees do more upfront work to find a search firm. Baskett, too, said she would prefer first to look internally.

Outcome: The board voted to use Ray and Associates as the search firm.

Superintendent Search: Timeline

The trustees spent a significant time talking over the timeline for the search. Mexicotte asserted that the timeline was the first piece that needed to be determined – that it determined everything else. If trustees wanted to move quickly, Mexicotte maintained, they could have a superintendent named by mid-July, in place for fall of 2013. Or, if they wanted to “go out slow,” Mexicotte said, they could decide to go with a long-term interim and not begin the search until November, with hire possibly in January 2014.

The trustees coalesced around a fast search. Trustee Irene Patalan said she was willing to work hard to get a superintendent in place by the fall, recognizing that “the community would appreciate that.” Trustee Andy Thomas blanched at the idea of waiting until November to start a serious search. But he also noted that he didn’t want to do a hasty search that omitted a number of other potential candidates just because of the timing. If the district could have a candidate in place by October, or even December, he “could live with that.” Nelson agreed, and said it would be good for the district to settle on a new leader by early summer, even if the candidate couldn’t start until Jan. 1, 2014.

Baskett said Sept. 1 was not soon enough. She maintained they needed to have someone in place before the rest of the staff started the new school year at the end of August. She also acknowledged that their immediate focus was on the budget, and that the spring and summer were her personal busy season. Mexicotte said the point was well taken that if the search “was fast and now, it’s an additional burden for us all.”

AAPS board vice president Christine Stead

While Stead said she would prefer a fast search, she recognized that right now, the bulk of the work the board was doing currently was focused on the budget gap. So she wanted to keep the two items – budget and superintendent search – separate as much as possible. Baskett echoed the concern about the budget not forgetting about the budget.

Stead was also concerned that if the search was conducted over the summer, it would be more difficult to get the kind of community input they wanted. She raised the point that if a slower search was conducted, an interim superintendent “could get used to the role” and demonstrate his or her capability for the role.

Thomas asked if there was a “sweet spot” for when superintendent candidates were generally out looking for jobs. Mexicotte replied that according to Ray and Associates, there was a cycle for hiring. Right now was good, and six months from now is good. A candidate starting in October would be unusual, Mexicotte said. She also noted that if trustees conducted a search and were not happy with the candidates who were available, the board always “has the prerogative to go out later with the search.”

If they went fast, Stead said, trustees knew the steps. They could identify the desired candidate characteristics and send a survey out to themselves and the community by the end of April. Baskett said that because trustees have done this before, some parts of the process could be eliminated – like one-on-one interviews the search firm had previously conducted with each trustee.

While it was “intense work right away,” Nelson said search materials could be sent out by the end of April. May would be a budget-heavy month, with not a lot of time required for the superintendent search [because the search firm would be collecting candidates], then as the budget winds down, trustees would start working on the search again, Nelson said. With that schedule, Nelson felt it was a workable timeline. Mexicotte agreed.

Baskett asked how soon a search could get started. According to Mexicotte, Ray and Associates, based in Iowa, were ready to begin the very next day. The sticking point, however, was the profile the trustees needed to provide. A salary range needs to be identified as a part of that profile.

Outcome: The board voted to approve a fast-track search, with the goal of having a superintendent vetted and hired by Sept. 1, 2013. 

Superintendent Search: Profile

Mexicotte said that “linchpin” of launching the search was creating the superintendent profile – the bulleted list of needed characteristics. She said trustees could work on the profile that evening at the study session or they could meet at another time to figure it out.

Thomas did not want to make the criteria too fine before advertising the position. What would be advertised, he said, is the district, the reputation of the schools, the strategic plan, and all the positive things trustees believe in. That alone, Thomas maintained, will attract a wide variety of candidates. Then, as applications come in, they can sharpen their criteria.

Stead outlined a couple of criteria that were important to her. She said it was important that trustees were clear with incoming candidates about the “donor district” status of AAPS. The district has been cutting its budget for the past 19 years. While she was okay with setting a salary range, she did not want to set a target salary as a single number. She would like to take a different approach to salary than the one trustees used with Green.

Nelson said trustees should aim for completing the profile by the end of the following week. The trustees decided they would meet on Wednesday, April 24, for a study session before the regular meeting that evening.

Outcome: The board voted to meet before to the regular meeting on April 24 to finish developing the superintendent profile.

Superintendent Search: Community Input

Mexicotte asked the trustees how they wanted to gather community input. She said they could gather input after they have opened the search or they could gather it before. Her preference was to have the community input before they begin looking at resumés, but not necessarily before they “cast their net.” The characteristics they would be looking for were “very broad,” and the community has already begun making their interests known to the trustees.

Baskett said they needed input before posting the job, to head off any kind of conflict. Lightfoot agreed, saying that some of the qualities they had wanted before may have changed. She encouraged the public to informally weigh in on annarbor.com, and then the trustees would craft their profile. She said if trustees put a profile out, then ask for community input, it “doesn’t sound as if we’re taking their input into account.”

Thomas said he thinks there has been a shift in community opinion over the past two years, so trustees need to make sure what they were looking for is consistent with community expectations. But he did think that getting community input needed to precede posting the position.

AAPS trustee Glenn Nelson

In contrast, Nelson said he didn’t perceive any marked change in community feeling over the past two years. He noted that trustees were already getting input, indicating he didn’t think the board would need to ask for it.

To get community input on the superintendent search, Nelson suggested using the same dialogue format that the board had been using for community input on the budget. That way trustees could respond to questions, comments, and concerns. He suggested scheduling two or three more dialogues specifically centered around the superintendent search. Patalan liked the idea of holding community dialogues, saying that annarbor.com is not a place where she gets her information.

Stead pointed out that for the district’s last superintendent search, a survey was sent to community members to get a list of criteria for a superintendent. At the most, 345 people responded. She said they went through a “fairly lengthy process to get folks to engage.” Lightfoot cautioned against assuming that because not a lot of people participated before, the trustees should not have to ask for community input.

Outcome: The board will host several community dialogues to gather community input. 

Superintendent Search: Internal Candidates

Stead said trustees would still need to go through the exercise of identifying internal candidates. Mexicotte emphasized that a national search does not preclude internal candidates meeting the criteria. If you cast a wide net, she said, you can still catch the near fish.

Baskett recognized that while all of the trustees have probably received emails about all the wonderful candidates within the district, it’s important that there are names and that those candidates want the job.

During public commentary, Letitia Kunselman urged the board to look for an internal superintendent candidate before searching externally. She said there was an enormous amount of talent within the district.

Superintendent Search: Interim

After the trustees decided they wanted to pursue a fast track search, they spent time talking over the process of selecting an interim superintendent.

Mexicotte noted that because trustees had used a relatively short time frame for the previous superintendent search, they appointed an interim [Robert Allen] who indicated he was not interested in the permanent position. If they needed a longer-term interim, Mexicotte said, they would look at it a bit differently.

Mexicotte asked how they should identify interim candidates. Previously, the outgoing superintendent Todd Roberts had recommended Allen without the board asking him to make a recommendation. She said that they could ask for a recommendation from Green for an interim.

Nelson said that Mexicotte, as president, could use her judgment with the administration’s cabinet members and with the superintendent to get a sense which people would be willing to serve.  He said he did have some apprehension about settling this too quickly – because the co-existence of a superintendent and a named interim could be a “bad dynamic or at least an uncomfortable one.”

AAPS trustee Susan Baskett

While Thomas said he would like a recommendation from Green, he would not limit it to just that. He asked that board members also put forward names of individuals from the community. Baskett agreed, saying, “Good ideas can come from anywhere.” Lightfoot said the onus should be on the person who brings forward a name to make sure that person would be interested in the job. If a trustee brings forward a name, that trustee must contact that person to determine interest, she said.

Stead said that she would find it helpful if Ray and Associates were involved with coming up with some evaluation criteria the trustees can use to determine the interim – especially because trustees could wind up with a considerable number of names to go through. She felt that if Green had worked in the district for five years, Stead could fully support Green’s interim recommendation – but because that wasn’t the case, she would like something more objective.

Mexicotte then summarized what she was hearing from the trustees: they wanted Mexicotte to speak to Green to get a recommendation on an interim; Mexciotte will talk to cabinet members to ascertain their interest; she will collect names from trustees as suggestions for an internal candidate; and she will be asking Ray and Associates if they have any insight or a process to aid trustees in their evaluation of interim candidates.

Mexicotte then floated the topic of a timeframe for interim suggestions, and how to deal with the question of a potential interim’s interest in the permanent job.

Patalan and Nelson both said they would be in favor of an interim who was not interested in the job. Nelson maintained more candidates could be attracted if the interim was not also interested in the permanent position.

Thomas, however, said he wasn’t quite as ready to eliminate the possibility of an interim being a candidate for the permanent position. He also did not think candidates should come solely from the cabinet. Baskett said she felt that the possibility should be left open. The interim must be given the option to try it out, she said. Lightfoot was in agreement with that idea.

Nelson said that he was not comfortable having a public discussion of cabinet members as possible candidates. Stead said she would not like to “get a name without strong support.” That highlighted a need for criteria. Mexicotte said if trustees were going to establish criteria, then they could talk about who fits those criteria rather than having a discussion about the cabinet generally.

Stead argued for a structured vetting process for the interim – because it could be “one of the most important decisions we make.” Trustees need to address the budget gap, they still have vacant leadership positions, they still need someone to advocate for the district, and they need someone to work on the long-term vision of the district. While she would like a short-term interim, it might not necessarily end up that way, Stead allowed. For that reason, Stead said, she wanted really to understand the background of the interim. Lightfoot agreed.

Mexicotte said she was “kind of dismayed” that trustees were so invested in what she considers a short-term interim issue. While she recognized there are important issues that need to be addressed, if the timeline the trustees outlined earlier holds true, they would be looking at an interim serving for only a short period of time. And if it turns out they will need an interim for a longer period, trustees can have another conversation.

Mexicotte preferred that trustees look internally for an interim, and that they take the recommendation of the superintendent under strong advisement. If no one was willing to do the short-term assignment, then they could look externally. She didn’t see the interim as more than a “strong and informed caretaker for the short term.” It was a bit of complication, Mexicotte said, that the board didn’t need to delve into right then. Thomas and Nelson were persuaded by her argument.

Stead, Lightfoot, and Baskett disagreed. Stead felt the position warranted some vetting, given the responsibilities that a longer-term interim might need to take on. Lightfoot said she didn’t want to have repeat the conversation if trustees decide they needed the interim to serve for a longer period. She was fine with any additional vetting and additional meetings that would need to take place in order to do so. Baskett said she would volunteer her time to have the deeper conversation to find the district’s caretaker.

Outcome: The board voted to work with the superintendent to consider internal interim candidates to bring to the board within a month. They will be ideally looking for a short-term interim. The interim candidate will be able to apply for the permanent position.

Superintendent Search: Debriefing

Lightfoot asked for an executive (closed) session debriefing.

AAPS trustee Simone Lightfoot

She wanted to talk about “what happened … who did what, when, and how can we do things better before we move forward.” She asked if a closed session to talk over Green’s resignation would be allowed under the ‘personnel’ clause of the Open Meetings Act.  David Comsa, deputy superintendent for human resources and general counsel, clarified that a closed session under the personnel clause could be held only if “the person you are talking about requests a conversation.”

Lightfoot wanted to have the conversation to talk over “what the heck happened,” and wondered if no one else felt a need to have a discussion about Green’s departure.

Mexicotte reiterated that the rules of closed sessions under the Open Meetings Act mean that such a conversation would need to happen in public. She asked when that discussion would be most helpful to the board. She said that maybe sooner rather than later would be better – because that way the trustees could express their concerns to the community.

Mexicotte also pointed out that opportunities always existed for the trustees to ask questions of the superintendent or the administration one-on-one. As it stands now, Mexicotte said, the superintendent has made a public statement – and if the board wants to talk amongst itself, that can be done at anytime it chooses.

In response to Lightfoot’s request, Nelson said that rather than “talking about talking about it,” he would want to talk about it. Lightfoot said she wasn’t ready to have the conversation that evening but would like for the board to make time for it.

Stead agreed that a discussion reflecting back would be a good idea. Green’s announcement was a “major event for our organization,” and Stead supported the notion of reflecting on the past couple of years.

Baskett ventured that it might be more productive to have sidebars with her colleagues. If they had a public conversation, she said, it would most likely “impede progress and the mood moving forward.” And the board still needs to move forward, Baskett added.

Lightfoot asked how trustees would let the public know they’d had those conversations and has addressed the community’s concerns – if they were only sidebar conversations. If the board was amenable to sidebars, however, she said that was fine.

AAPS trustee Andy Thomas

To gauge the feeling of the trustees, Mexicotte asked if a debriefing of what they might have done better or could have done differently was a conversation the board wanted to have as a group.

The trustees decided that sidebars were enough. Patalan said that for whatever reason, a superintendent can resign.  And it was the trustees’ job to go forward, she said. Thomas contended that a public discussion “has great potential for being very contentious and potentially destructive to our effort to move forward.” Nelson said that it was his objective to get a superintendent profile completed over the next week, and if this kind of conversation had a bearing on the profile process, then he wanted to have it done. Stead said the search itself was a priority, and she would be fine with limiting the discussion to sidebars.

Lightfoot again expressed her concern that the public would not know what the trustees had talked about. But because the rest of the trustees had reached an apparent consensus  on sidebar conversation, Lightfoot agreed.

Outcome: The board agreed to having sidebar conversations about what they could do differently moving forward.

2013-14 Budget: Forums

Mexicotte announced the schedule for the AAPS community budget forums to be held by the administration. The forums will be held Thursday, May 2, 2013 at Huron High School and Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at Pioneer High School. Both forums will be held from 7-8:30 p.m.

Lightfoot asked when the ideas from the public will enter into their conversation about the budget. Green responded that while the administration has been asked to bring forward expenditures, it was the board who decided what to do with those ideas. Mexicotte said that it will be part of an organic conversation as the trustees discuss the budget.

Green said there were “no good cuts,” and there was nothing the administration wants to cut. She recognized that it will pit program against program, group against group. And the board will wrestle with the same kind of decisions the administration has faced.

Concerned that the community’s input has to be “hashed out at the table” instead of being included in the administration’s recommendation, Lightfoot said the administration should  include ideas from the community. Green countered, saying the administration “can’t develop a budget in a day.” The last community dialogue meeting was to be held on April 20, just five days before district director of finance Nancy Hoover was to present the budget recommendations.

The community dialogue meetings so far, Nelson said, will help trustees with the principles and vision that they should use to guide their decision-making process. He hears that people are sick and tired of cuts. They have collected “scores of names” from people who are volunteering to work on increasing revenue to the district.

2013-14 Budget: Public Commentary

Parent Erica Gordon spoke about her own family’s experience with alternative education, with one child at the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center and another at Community High School.

Katie Hook addressed possible cuts to the athletic budget.

She said the budget cuts seem so limited, and she asked if there could be a fundraising campaign to keep cuts from impacting students. She contended that the community would be willing to raise money to keep AAPS “exceptional and accessible” for all.

Student Katie Hook addressed possible cuts to the athletic budget by arguing that participating in sports was instrumental in building better body images for young women. She also mentioned that she and another student was working on a proposal to bring a Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program to AAPS. JROTC, she said, would be an asset to the district.

Committee Membership

As a brief part of the study session discussion, Mexicotte asked the trustees to let her know their preferences for committee membership as soon as possible.

At the April 10, 2013 meeting, the board had voted to eliminate the committee-of-the-whole structure and return to planning and performance standing committees, along with a governance committee. Mexicotte said she planned to finalize committee appointments and chairs by the next week.

An executive committee [made up of standing committee chairs and the board president] will meet, to set the agenda moving forward. At that point, Mexicotte noted, the executive committee will make sure to add a conversation about Roberto Clemente Student Development Center to the agenda.

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

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 24, 2013, 7 p.m. at the fourth-floor conference room of the downtown 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. Check out 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!

The meeting also included a review of secondary discipline data that showed disproportionate numbers of male students and African-American students receiving suspensions.

In response, the board made some suggestions on data collection processes and possible cross-references that could add depth to the analysis of student assessment and discipline data.

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan

The impetus for enumerating all AAPS gap-closing initiatives in a single document came from two public meetings held last spring – the College and Career-Ready Review, and Beyond the Talk. At each of those AAPS-sponsored events, participants argued that though achievement gap elimination efforts have long been part of the district’s ongoing work, these efforts are not being well-communicated.

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan: Overview

At Wednesday’s meeting, Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley – AAPS interim deputy superintendent of instruction – explained how the achievement gap elimination plan forms the core of the district’s school improvement plan. “There is nothing more important,” she said. “The achievement gap elimination plan is foundational to the district school improvement work.”

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley and other AAPS administrators presenting the Achievement Gap Elimination Plan to the board. (Photos by the writer.)

Speaking to the format of the plan as presented to the board, which was included in the meeting’s board packet, Dickinson-Kelley noted that the plan was written in the state-mandated school improvement plan (SIP) layout, since it is embedded within the district’s SIP. Noting that the format was “not necessarily pretty,” Dickinson-Kelley explained that after receiving board input, the district could create a more user-friendly document to present to the community.

The plan presented to the board included sections on achievement-raising initiatives targeting each of four core subjects – math, English language arts, science, and social studies – as well as district efforts to engage parents and the greater community.

Board members questioned the wording of the “gap statements” at the beginning of each section, as well as whether the plan should include more of the general social context within which the district is situated. Dickinson-Kelley agreed to amend the gap statements to be more clearly worded, and acknowledged that the plan is a “living document” designed to incorporate ongoing feedback from the community.

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan: Data Collection

The bulk of the administration’s presentation focused on the assessment measures being used to determine effectiveness of the plan’s initiatives. Dickinson-Kelley explained that combating disparities in achievement is complex work with multiple aspects. “It is rocket science,” she argued. “It should change as we assess what we do, and the impact of what we do. If it’s not working, we should adapt.”

Dickinson-Kelley explained the difference between the formative and summative assessments used to monitor student academic achievement and growth, noting that the board usually only sees summative assessments, such as Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) data. Jane Landefeld, AAPS director of student accounting and administrative support, explained that on the other hand, monitoring the ongoing success of a program requires the collection of formative data. Dickinson-Kelley pointed out that the frequency with which formative data is collected is important, as it directly informs instruction and allows intervention before students fail.

Joyce Hunter, assistant superintendent of secondary education, reviewed a chart with board members that listed the assessment schedule used by principals and counselors throughout the year. The chart included state assessments such as the MEAP and the Michigan Merit Exam (MME), as well as recent district report card grades, reading inventories, and other local assessment measures of individual student achievement.

Trustees Susan Baskett and Andy Thomas asked about the viability of making such a comprehensive set of student achievement data available to parents. Landefeld suggested that the current data format might not be understandable to parents, but suggested that creating accessible student profiles could be considered. Board president Deb Mexicotte noted that there would be privacy issues in developing “e-files” on student achievement, but that the board should consider it in the future.

Trustee Irene Patalan commented that by having principals and counselors review this data in a systematic and formalized way, as laid out in the chart, “if there is a pattern where students are not successful, it would inform instruction the next day.” Dickinson-Kelley agreed that systemic assessment data review allows for more responsiveness to students’ academic needs.

Trustee Glenn Nelson suggested that any complete profile on students should contain building-level data such as the percentage of parents who attend parent-teacher conferences there, as well as individual student data on absences, suspensions, and expulsions. Trustee Simone Lightfoot added that other variables could be identified as relevant indicators that are not test scores. Dickinson-Kelley agreed that it is important to collect information “beyond quantifiable test data.”

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan: Parent Engagement, Community Involvement

Dickinson-Kelley then highlighted the parent engagement and community involvement sections of the achievement gap elimination plan. Saying that much was gleaned from the minutes of the community meetings last spring, she reiterated that the plan is meant to evolve with continued input from parents and community members. She noted that one focus of the newly developing lab school at the Mitchell/Scarlett campus is to engage parents, and equity advisory committees.

Dickinson-Kelley acknowledged that AAPS could do better in its efforts to reach out to community partners. She noted that the achievement gap elimination plan suggests creating a community pamphlet or repository to catalog partnerships that AAPS has with local organizations such as the Family Learning Institute, 826 Michigan, the Minority Students Achievement Network (MSAN), and the Pacific Education Group (PEG). She also pointed out that these partnerships “complement each other extraordinarily well.”

Achievement Gap Elimination Plan: Board Response

Thomas stated that it was “very important that the board put our money where our mouth is” in addressing the achievement gap. He asked for an assessment of district resources devoted to research, data analysis, and ability to prepare ad hoc reports, and noted that he would support an increase in allotted resources if necessary. Dickinson-Kelley noted that she was planning to bring some suggestions regarding needed resources to an upcoming meeting she has scheduled with the board’s performance committee.

Acting on a suggestion from Baskett, Mexicotte assigned the board’s planning committee to work with Allen and Liz Margolis, AAPS director of communications, to create a more user-friendly achievement gap elimination plan document that could be used to reach out to the community, with an online component that would link to deeper sections of the plan.

Patalan complimented Dickinson-Kelley on the presentation, and Dickinson-Kelley, gesturing to her colleagues at the table, acknowledged that the creation of the achievement gap elimination plan was a cooperative effort. “The achievement plan is commonly owned, and behind all of us are legions of people working really hard as well.”

Preschool Achievement Data

Dickinson-Kelley, along with Ann Arbor Preschool and Family Center principal Michelle Pogliano and vice principal Kecia Rorie, reviewed achievement data from preschool cohorts as they moved into higher grades. The data show that gains made by students in AAPS preschool remain past the third grade, when most effects of the federally-sponsored early intervention program Head Start have worn off.

Part of the explanation, according to Dickinson-Kelley, is that AAPS preschool combines students enrolled in Head Start and those enrolled in the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) into blended classrooms, while meeting all curricular requirements of both programs. Head Start, she explained, was initially formed to mitigate poverty, and thus requires teaching about nutrition, hygiene, and other topics that can supercede academic learning goals. When AAPS noticed an achievement gap between Head Start and GSRP students, they decided to combine the classes and have seen longer-term gains for all students.

Thomas congratulated the preschool staff, noting that improvement was seen across all cohorts, and that the gap between African-American students and other groups is narrowing.

Nelson questioned how these data compare to the achievement of students who did not attend AAPS preschool, noting that AAPS “continually import[s] the proficiency levels of the rest of the world into our schools.” Landefeld did not have that data available.

Dickinson-Kelley stressed that the district is in full compliance with all goals of Head Start, while preschool staff provide more of an academic foundation as well. She also noted that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is looking to re-frame Head Start into a “wraparound school” model with stronger emphasis on foundational numeracy and literacy. Mexicotte suggested that the district find ways to trumpet the success of its preschool to the community, as well as to the state legislature, since it exemplifies the kinds of programs that Duncan is interested in supporting.

Positive Behavior Support

As part of the budget process for the 2010-11 school year, the board approved the elimination of student planning centers at the middle schools, which were a key element in the student discipline process. Planning centers were replaced with the institution of positive behavior support (PBS) programs in all the middle schools, and this was the board’s first review of the implementation.

Positive Behavior Support: Overview

Hunter introduced the idea of PBS as “a system-wide approach to encouraging positive behavior” that is structured around three tiers of intervention. With PBS, she said, “you’re teaching and modeling positive behavior, and everyone is involved in reinforcement.” Oftentimes, Hunter explained, rules are set up for 20% of the students, when 80% of the students are making good choices. A big element of PBS, she pointed out, is to recognize and reward positive behavior.

As an example of how desired behavior is taught, Hunter showed a short video clip from Clague Middle School. Clague, she said, chose to identify positive behavior choices as those that are “responsible, respectful, safe, and caring.” The video featured Clague students, and contrasted unsafe and safe hallway behavior in a brief and humorous manner. Hunter explained that it was used as a teaching tool during student advisory periods.

Hunter then passed out a summary of the three tiers in PBS programs, and board members asked for clarification on some of the language. She then introduced principals Janet Schwamb of Forsythe Middle School and Chris Curtis of Slauson Middle School to discuss how PBS had been incorporated into the culture of their buildings.

Positive Behavior Support: Programs at Slauson and Forsythe

Curtis began by describing how the first step in setting up a PBS program is establishing a shared set of expectations, first among staff and then extending to student council review. Slauson came up with nine basic expectations, such as coming to class focused and prepared, not running in the halls, and being respectful of property. Next, Curtis said, the expectations need to be taught. At Slauson, advisory time was used for this teaching, parents were introduced to the new system, and the expectations were listed in the student handbook.

Chris Curtis and Janet Schwamb, principals at Slauson and Forsythe middle schools, respectively.

Finally, Curtis explained, incentives were developed to encourage positive behavior. At Slauson, incentives have included: class trips to a water park or ice skating, passes that allow students to leave class early and go to the front of the lunch line, quarterly raffles for iPod Nanos, and occasional raffles of school spirit items such as baseball caps. Curtis described the database he crafted with the help of a former Slauson parent, which is used to meticulously track students’ behavior, and assign them to an “honor level” to help qualify them for certain incentives. A key element of the system, added Curtis, is that any infractions a student receives expire after 14 days, so students are constantly able to improve their standing.

All that, Curtis said, is Tier 1. Any students who are past Tier 1 go through the achievement team process, which often leads to the creation of a behavior contract to formally identify the behaviors being addressed. Curtis summarized by saying that PBS helps to move away from the suspension model where the administrator is “serving as the judge and jury all day long … [With PBS,] the behaviors in the building and the building culture come around quickly.”

Schwamb then described the implementation of Forsythe’s PBS program, which she said she “loves.” First, students and staff collaborated to set the four main behavior expectations as being “prompt, prepared, polite, and productive.” Then, teachers developed lessons to teach those behaviors, which were delivered during advisory time. Students also took mini-field trips to different parts of the building during the first three weeks of school to model what positive behavior would look like in those areas. Posters were made by students to reinforce the behavioral expectations, and were posted throughout the school.

Forsythe also uses a tiered tracking system, Schwamb explained, which allows students to start over every 14 days and at the beginning of each quarter. PBS has been well-received by parents, she said, who like that it “levels the playing field,” and requires all teachers and administrators to deal with infractions the same way. Schwamb noted that Forsythe provides similar rewards as Slauson, including passes to the front of the line, raffles for school clothing or iPods, and gift cards for school supplies.

Schwamb expressed excitement about PBS, saying that the “paradigm shift” allows her to enjoy more her relationships with students, has considerably reduced suspensions, rewards students who have correct behavior every day, keeps kids in class, and gets plans in place sooner for kids who need more intervention.

Positive Behavior Support: Board Questions and Response

Thomas asked how the principals felt that PBS worked, compared to the student planning centers (SPC) that have now been closed.

Curtis answered that overall PBS is a significant improvement, but that losing the SPC staff has caused a lack of ability to check up constantly on “frequent flyers” – students whose behavior would be much improved with more regular contact. Without the SPC teachers, he said, it’s harder to be proactive. However, Curtis concluded, he would not want to return to having SPCs. “It’s like trading in a jalopy for a Cadillac,” he quipped. “This new model is much better. I don’t want a pull-out model [where students are removed from classrooms], but still want it to be push-in.”

Patalan asked how students like the PBS programs. Curtis and Schwamb both reported that the programs have been well-received by students, especially 6th graders. Curtis noted feedback he received from student council about incentives they liked, and a wish list of new incentives. Schwamb said her students clamor to read the list of student names posted each Thursday, which reflects their current honor level.

Baskett asked about staff preparation for and training in PBS. Curtis remarked that PBS empowers teachers to enforce behavior, while keeping student-staff relationships intact: “The teacher doesn’t reject students from the room. Consequences occur in the room. Everyone knows what the deal is, and what happens. [PBS] keeps the authority within staff.” Schwamb noted that there was “enormous prep time” before the beginning of the school year; Hunter added that training is continuous.

Baskett asked how PBS defines insubordination, when some would call behavior insubordinate while others would say, “It’s just adolescence.” Schwamb answered that administration is trained to administer infractions consistently, and that an infraction would have to be “over the top” to warrant a suspension. Curtis added, “With the authority in the right place, frustration does not build up. It would have to be off the chart to suspend for insubordination.”

Schwamb explained the process for issuing a violation: “The first warning is that the teacher puts the [violation] sheet on the student’s desk. The second warning means the student puts his or her name on the paper, and the third time, the teacher collects it.” PBS, she said, provides an opportunity for students to redirect and self-regulate.

Dickinson-Kelley asked Elaine Brown, assistant superintendent of student intervention and support services, and Ruth Williams, interim assistant superintendent for elementary schools, to describe efforts to bring PBS to the elementary level. Williams responded that all the elementary principals are excited about PBS, and will receive training from Wayne RESA. Brown added that implementing PBS is a state mandate, and that the district is looking at how to provide schools with as much support as possible to ensure that PBS is successful. She argued that AAPS needs to be able to pinpoint what makes the difference when transitioning students toward positive behavior. Lastly, Brown noted that more social work support may be needed.

Baskett asked how the programs are being monitored, and Dickinson-Kelley said that all administrators were retrained this year in Power School – a web-based student information system – to be sure that all time away from instruction was accurately represented.

Baskett also asked whether PBS would be extended to the high schools. Hunter noted that the honor level system was already in place at Pioneer, but that other high schools have not implemented it yet. She likened it to how Read 180 started in the middle schools before expanding to other levels in the district.

Patalan expressed appreciation for the “14-day slate-clear restart” element of the programs. “I think of the life of a child through the school year, [and how it is good for them] not to be labeled,” she said. Curtis responded that for kids on tiers 2 or 3 of PBS interventions, one strategy that can be used to help them meet expectations is to shorten that reset window to 8 or 10 days, and then wean them back up to a 14-day cycle over time.

Lightfoot asked what capacity PBS puts in place to evaluate staff. Schwamb said she has invited teachers to meet and discuss the issuing of violations. Also, she said, staff can now identify which expectations are consistently hardest for kids to meet, and develop additional lesson plans to teach those behaviors. Lightfoot reiterated, “As the data continue to mount, I don’t want it to take years and years for teachers to get it together.” Nelson agreed, and argued that “a good school system should have summative and formative assessments of teachers and administration.”

Mexicotte commended Curtis and Schwamb, saying that they “took the step many of us have wanted to take for many years, and implemented what was a state mandate … The reason that PBS systems fail is that the staff does not buy in hook, line, and sinker, and that is something you clearly tacked around this.”

Inclusive Curriculum Development

Chuck Hatt, AAPS coordinator for literacy and social studies instruction, described a new unit the district had developed for inclusion in 5th grade social studies classes. He began by explaining that the district’s ongoing equity work led to a review of curricula by a set of “non-dominant-culture eyes.” One thing that was noticed, Hatt said, was that in the study of colonial U.S. history, students’ introduction to African-Americans is through slavery. This, he suggested, “is neither kind, nor appropriate,” given that students of European descent are exposed to numerous positive cultural touchstones to their ancestry before learning about America’s colonial period.

By working with a consultant who taught AAPS curriculum staff about the history of ancient African kingdoms, critiqued texts, and offered practical pedagogy about working with African-American children, the district was able to craft a unit on African civilizations that presents a more inclusive look at the origins of African-Americans. Hatt asserted, “This is something we should feel good about as a district – we have a lot of internal capacity to write good curricula.”

Board members expressed excitement about the new curriculum, and were given a copy of the unit to peruse. They confirmed that teachers had been trained in it, and that it would be implemented this year across the district. Lightfoot suggested selling the curriculum, and Baskett suggested submitting it for a Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) award. Mexicotte added that if the district does pursue selling it, “we should set a reasonable price, because the important thing is to spread the word.”

Review of Student Discipline Data

Hunter passed out a summary of suspensions issued so far this year at each of the middle schools and high schools, which showed higher rates of suspension among male students, as well as among African-American students. Thomas noted that nearly 50% of the suspensions were given to African-American students, and that “insubordination” was the most common reason for suspensions. Mexicotte said those elements of this suspension data have been typical, and that PBS programs (described above) should help to better codify “insubordination.”

Board members clarified that all suspension data referred to out-of-school suspensions, and that in-school suspensions do not remove students from instructional time. Brown explained that principals have been trained to “do in-school suspension totally differently,” especially with the removal of the student planning centers from the middle schools. Dickinson-Kelley also recognized both Hunter and Williams for their efforts to “keep the conversations in front of principals, asking ‘How often are your kids away from instruction?’”

Trustees also questioned whether the overall number of suspensions was higher than other years. Hunter acknowledged that the number at Pioneer “seems high.” Mexicotte noted that “whenever we ratchet up our focus on discipline, it might skew us into thinking we are doing worse when we are just getting more consistent about reporting.”

Board members suggested tracking additional information alongside suspension data to allow for more robust analysis of the suspension numbers in the future. Baskett asked if the district keep data on any mitigating circumstances in the students’ lives, such as divorce or trauma, happening near the time of the suspension. Nelson asked if there was a narrative block on the standard form or input screen used to record a suspension. Mexicotte suggested cross-referencing suspension data with data on other plans students may have, such as Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) or 504 plans, which function to support students during temporary conditions such as having a broken arm, or being depressed.

Landefeld noted that some of the data suggested is entered in Power School or would be collected as part of the achievement team process. She also acknowledged that administrators had been trained to label infractions consistently.

Thomas thanked the administrative team for their time and effort in addressing the problems discussed during the study session. Nelson also noted his appreciation at getting this information organized and systematized. He stated that tracking suspensions would be a new part of teacher evaluations, and Mexicotte added that the data would be stratified by students versus incidents, since certain students may earn repeated suspensions regardless of their teacher.

Agenda Planning

Board members requested that Dickinson-Kelley and her team present updates on both achievement data and suspension data quarterly, as the initiatives and programs that are part of the achievement gap elimination plan are being put in place. They also requested that Brown provide them with a comprehensive update on special education services before the special education millage that will come to voters in the spring. Administration was supportive of their requests.

Present: President Deb Mexicotte, vice president Susan Baskett, secretary Andy Thomas, treasurer Irene Patalan, and trustees Glenn Nelson and Simone Lightfoot. Absent: trustee Christine Stead. Also present was Robert Allen, interim superintendent of AAPS.

Next regular meeting: Nov. 17, 2010, 7 p.m., at the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, with an AAPS Education Foundation donor reception held immediately before the meeting at 6:30 p.m. [confirm date]