Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Patricia Green. (Photos by the writer.)

Green is the one district employee for whom they are directly responsible. Earlier that evening, the trustees met in closed session with Green to go over her interim mid-year evaluation. Because it was an informal evaluation, the board did not release an official statement.

Beginning with the 2013-2014 school year, at least 25% of the superintendent’s annual year-end evaluation must be based on student growth and assessment data, according to a state mandate. In 2014-15, that percentage increases to 40%, and in 2015-16 school year, at least 50% of the evaluation will be based on student growth and assessment data. This mirrors the criteria in place for teacher evaluation. Up to now the superintendent’s evaluation has been largely narrative.

Board vice president Christine Stead noted that the board was implementing the metrics ahead of time, since they were not legally required to be in place until the next school year.

Superintendent Evaluation Process

As vice president of the board, Stead is charged with coordinating the annual evaluation of the superintendent. As she did last year , Stead presented the board with an evaluation rubric for their consideration and led the trustees through a discussion about which metrics for student achievement and growth they would use to evaluate Green.

Superintendent Evaluation: Survey Instrument

The rubric Stead presented was developed by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) and contains suggestions for rating superintendents as ineffective, minimally effective, effective, or highly effective in 11 categories: relationship with the board; community relations; staff relationships; business and finance; educational leadership; personal qualities; evaluation; progress toward the school improvement plan (SIP); student attendance; student/parent/teacher feedback; and student growth and achievement.

The last five of those categories are mandated by the state to be included in the superintendent’s evaluation. Student growth and achievement is the only category out of the five that has a percentage attached to it. For the rest, the board has latitude on how each category is weighted – and what additional areas to include in the superintendent’s assessment. The rubric was meant only as a suggestion.

Superintendent Evaluation: Student Growth and Achievement Data

The trustees quickly coalesced around the four indicators of student growth and achievement they will use to evaluate Green. Stead’s initial recommendations were to use the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), the Michigan Merit Examination (MME), the ACT, and the Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (NWEA MAP) scores.

Christine Stead

Green suggested looking at the two major reports that guide the administration’s work: the achievement gap elimination plan (AGEP) and the discipline gap plan (DGP). Those were the measures Green’s administrative team was focused on monitoring. Trustee Glenn Nelson expressed surprise that the district strategic plan wasn’t on the list of major reports. Green responded to Nelson by saying that while everything the administrative team did was aligned with the strategic plan, the AGEP and the DGP could be analyzed for student growth measurability.

Stead agreed with Green, saying the evaluation “should align with the work we want to do.” For future consideration, she suggested exploring the idea of measuring student character. As more research focuses on character as a better indicator of future success than test scores, Stead said it could be “could be uniquely distinguishing for our district” if the district were to measure student character. This would be important if the district really wanted to measure the areas they believed were indicative of lifelong success, and if they wanted to measure the results of the “robust education” traditional public schools offer, Stead concluded.

Nelson suggested looking into the National Student Clearinghouse Student Tracker for High Schools, which is designed to help districts “more accurately gauge the college success of their graduates,” according to the organization’s website. While several trustees agreed that would be interesting information to have, trustee Irene Patalan asked how it would fit into the evaluation. President Deb Mexicotte noted they they needed to think about what was useful for this context. And college completion rates would not be useful, Mexicotte ventured. Green added that it wouldn’t be fair to be held to a metric that just got introduced in March.

Stead asked Landefeld if district information from the NWEA MAP could be summarized – because ideally, the board would be analyzing measures the district is already using for student achievement and growth. Landefeld confirmed that such information could be aggregated.

Trustee Simone Lightfoot established that the metrics could be changed as the information from the state changes, or as the tests are replaced. The MEAP is scheduled to be phased out in 2014 and replaced by Smarter Balanced, an exam produced by The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, a state-led effort to provide consistent and comparable standards aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

Stead also acknowledged that these indicators could change the following year, if there was more direction from the state. But for this year’s evaluation, the board has some flexibility in choosing its own measures.

“Not everything that counts can be counted … that’s true in education, and it’s true in executive leadership,” asserted Nelson. While the board continues to move towards a more quantitative evaluation, the narrative piece they do will be important to “count that which cannot be counted.” While a narrative piece was still allowable, Comsa again emphasized that at least 25% of the total evaluation needed to be weighted towards objective measures of student achievement and growth data.

The board ultimately decided to look at the MEAP, the NWEA MAP, graduation rates, and the MME and ACT together – because those two are similar tests. The information, according to director of student accounting and research Jane Landefeld, could examined district-wide, building by building, or in disaggregated groups. The board will determine the weighting for categories that are not already mandated by the state.

Superintendent Evaluation: Community Feedback

The trustees spent some time talking over how community feedback should be included in the evaluation. Stead stated that the survey tools the board has traditionally used to solicit feedback from the community were good. The feedback would be gathered, then included in the overall evaluation.

Lightfoot was in favor of having community feedback stand alone in the evaluation – not included under another category heading. Both Mexicotte and Stead seemed inclined to take community input and capture it as an aspect of the rubric. Stead said that one of the board’s jobs is to not just use a tool when evaluating Green, but to draw upon their collective experience, data, and reports for the evaluation. And part of that would include the community’s feedback.

In the past, Patalan noted, some survey respondents took the feedback very seriously and did not comment on the areas on which they had no knowledge. Stead acknowledged that was true for some, but also noted that “some people comment on things they wouldn’t even know.”

Mexicotte and Stead reviewed how the collection of community feedback has been done in the past. First, board members, including the superintendent, make a list of people they would like to survey, which is intended to reflect a broad range of people in the district. No limit is put to the number of people trustees can include on their lists. Surveys are then sent to those people confidentially, along with representatives from a set of “usual suspects,” Mexicotte said. Those usual suspects including bargaining units, principals, staff members, board associations, and parents. All the input that’s received is then aggregated and presented to the board during a closed session.

Before last year, the names of people to whom the survey was to be sent and the feedback was aggregated by Amy Osinski, the executive assistant to the board of education. Last year, Susan Baskett raised the issue of confidentiality and suggested asking someone from outside the current administration to perform that task. Ultimately, Mexicotte sent out the documents and was the only person to see the list in its entirety. Mexicotte and Stead did the aggregation by themselves using a team approach.

The trustees supported keeping the aggregation of data in-house. Stead said that it provided the kind of confidentiality people wanted, and, as Patalan noted, “it keeps it within the board.” Nelson thanked Stead and Mexicotte for the work they did in compiling the data.

Again this year, the trustees will provide Mexicotte with the names of the people they would like to survey. Mexicotte reported that last year 90 surveys were sent, and more than 60 were returned. This return rate was higher than usual.

Superintendent Evaluation: Next Steps

It was ultimately decided that the evaluation statement will be made up of the goals and objectives with the required metrics, plus the narrative and discussion of the trustees, community feedback, and the judgements of the individual trustees.

The trustees spent some time talking over what portion of their documentation would become public. For the 2013-14 evaluation, a quantifiable result must be made public – most likely the composite rubric score. For the 2012-13 school year, a statement similar to the one the board released last year would suffice, said Comsa. Stead suggested releasing a blank rubric and the weighting they decide to give each category. Lightfoot said she liked being transparent with their evaluation. She contended that anything they put together will shape not only the superintendent evaluation, but teacher evaluations, as well.

Stead concluded the discussion by formulating the next steps that need to happen for the evaluation. At the April COTW meeting, the board will review the community survey content for changes and make any needed changes. Towards the end of April, the trustees will be asked to provide nominations for the community and key stakeholders. The survey will then be sent out by Mexicotte to the community members, who will have one to two weeks to respond. After the compilation of the feedback, the board will meet in executive session in June to conduct the superintendent evaluation.

Legal Action Review

Simone Lightfoot said she was keen to revisit a suit against the governor and the state “for what they are doing to public education.”

Simone Lightfoot

It would be “irresponsible” to not pursue it, maintained Lightfoot. She asked if they could re-entertain a conversation about pursuing legal action, or at the very least, have an update to their previous charge to look into legal action against the state for its misuse of the School Aid Fund (SAF).

Several concerns were brought up related to pursuing legal action. Trustee Andy Thomas was concerned with the lack of specificity of Lightfoot’s request. He recalled that the last time they looked at pursuing legal recourse against the state was when the legislature was shifting money from K-12 to higher education. He didn’t see the same kind of targeted approach with this request. Green emphasized the district have already been advocating for legislative change and was hesitant to call upon her contacts without first having “very specific direction from the board” about the grounds on which the district would want to sue the state.

Lightfoot said that she was not advocating for a “shotgun approach,” but had heard from other districts that they were mulling such an option. She wanted to “tap into those conversations” because she believed that was something the AAPS board of trustees were interested in. When Green said she hadn’t heard anything like that from her colleagues, Lightfoot said she would gather information and provide it directly to Green.

Nelson was concerned that such a request would burden the executive team too much. It was determined, however, that an update could be provided with just a few phone calls to outside counsel by Comsa and his team.

Outcome: The board charged the administration with an update to any recourse on legal action towards the state’s misuse of the SAF.

Board Policy Changes

During agenda planning, Mexicotte told the board she would like to bring introduce two new policies for discussion at the March 27 meeting.

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte

While she did not get into the specifics, she said the policies would focus on time and meeting management, boardsmanship, and committee structure. She said she would like the board to engage in discussion around “how we are running out meetings in terms of policy and procedure, how we are interacting and getting our work done in terms of identifying important agenda items as well as how we are accomplishing our work.”

The trustees recently made changes to their agenda setting process, which has led to more discussion about adding agenda items. Recent meetings have lasted until 2 or 3 a.m.

Mexicotte said the board would also review and discuss the “affirmation of boardsmanship” she had presented to the trustees at the Jan. 16, 2013 meeting. The affirmation is a result of the Mexicotte’s effort to address the board’s goal of building trust and relationships, a goal set at the board’s August 2012 retreat.

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, March 27, 2013, at 7 p.m. at the fourth-floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch, 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!

Ann Arbor Public Schools superintendent Patricia Green.

The board’s evaluation was uniformly positive, and counted among her successes the filling of vacant cabinet positions, dealing with funding cuts, helping to get the technology millage passed, and developing a strategy to address the “achievement gap.”

Green’s evaluation had included input from a set of roughly 70 community members suggested by board trustees. See previous coverage by The Chronicle on the evaluation’s structure and process: ”AAPS Begins Superintendent Evaluation.”

Green joined the district July 1, 2011, and is working under a five-year contract.

Also at their meeting, the board heard public commentary on two topics: second grade class sizes at Lawton elementary; and teacher release time used to support Skyline’s theatre program.

Superintendent Evaluation

When the board emerged from its closed session, board president Deb Mexicotte stated simply, “We have completed our work and we have a statement.” Board vice-president Christine Stead moved that the statement be accepted by the board, and read it aloud:

Dr. Patricia Green joined the Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS) as Superintendent at the start of the academic year 2011-2012. Upon Dr. Green’s arrival, there were several open positions in the Executive Cabinet and direct reports thereof; creating both a challenge and an opportunity for Dr. Green to bring in new talent and leadership as part of her first year with the AAPS. Dr. Green has demonstrated excellent judgment in her ability to attract and retain a very capable leadership team for the AAPS.

At the same time, Dr. Green was faced with the second year of the most drastic cuts in education funding that the AAPS has experienced. The funding crisis established by the state exacerbated an already difficult decade of declining funds for the AAPS. Dr. Green demonstrated an ability to make recommendations to the Board that allowed the AAPS to preserve our core educational mission while addressing significant funding issues. Dr. Green was also successful in breathing new life and accountability into our systems, policies and procedures; using our strategic plan as a guidepost.

Dr. Green was personally and significantly involved in the successful passage of the Technology Millage from early due diligence to providing advocacy to our community on the district’s behalf. Dr. Green reinvigorated efforts to address the AAPS achievement gap, including a substantive effort on the role that discipline and behavior play in addressing this issue. Dr. Green has engaged in significant change management activities throughout her first year; an area of great interest to the Board.

We appreciate Dr. Green’s extensive work with groups within the community in her first year, and we support and endorse her continued commitment to visible leadership throughout the district in the future. These accomplishments are highlights, among many, from her first year of service.

The Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education looks forward to continuing to work with Dr. Green in advancing the success of the AAPS for all students in the years to come and congratulates her on a very successful first year in the AAPS in a very challenging environment.

Trustee Irene Patalan seconded the statement, and it was approved unanimously by the board.

Trustee Glenn Nelson then added that that during its discussion, the board had also thanked Stead for her efforts to coordinate the evaluation, and for leading the board through the process. “Managing this process is not a simple thing, and she did it well,” Nelson said. [That process included surveying about 70 community members: .pdf of survey form contents]

Green then thanked the board for the “tremendous support” she felt from them throughout the school year, and said she looks forward to a “very close affiliation in the future.”

Public Commentary and Board Clarification

Under the Michigan Open Meetings Act, closed sessions must be conducted in the context of an open meeting, which must include an opportunity for members of the public to address the public body. Two topics were addressed at public commentary at the June 27 meeting:  second grade class sizes at Lawton elementary; and teacher release time used to support Skyline’s theatre program. The board chose to respond to constituents regarding both matters at this meeting, as described below.

Public Comment: Lawton’s Second Grade Class Size

Anne Ristich, a parent of two second graders at Lawton, addressed the board. She argued that the increase in class sizes at Lawton is undermining parents’ trust of the district, and threatening students’ success. “If a solitary second grade teacher is expected to maintain a class of 27-32 students on his/her own, the functional system once designed for these students to flourish is now damaged and only exists to be endured,” Ristich said. She shared quotes from a stack of letters written by Lawton parents that asserted the larger class sizes will make students less globally competitive, and prevent them from reaching their full potential as “their eagerness to learn will be replaced with an eagerness to escape the mob.”

Ristich acknowledged that the exact class size numbers for the fall have not yet been determined, but noted that as recently as two years ago,  first and second grade classrooms averaged only 21 to 23 students. She closed by asked the board to reflect on whether these children should be made to endure instead of flourish, and to share their rationale behind setting the class size targets they do. In addition to a set of letters from parents, Ristich gave the board an article from the Michigan Department of Education website supporting the effectiveness of smaller class sizes.

Timothy Wilhelm also addressed the board about the sizes of Lawton’s second grade classes. He said the trend of increasing class sizes is detrimental to children’s education, and noted that research has shown that smaller class sizes have a measurable effect on effective education. Wilhelm said that Lawton parents are asking the board to allocate resources for a third second-grade class to be put in place at Lawton in the fall. He said his numbers indicate there will be roughly 60 students attending second grade at Lawton next year, and that “we think 30 students in a class is too large, and that it is contrary to the district’s goals.”

Wilhelm pointed out that the incoming second graders at Lawton are unusual in that they are a slightly smaller group than the group of incoming third graders above them or the group of incoming first graders below them. He said he knows there are budget cuts, that the information parents have may not be complete or accurate, and that the actual number of teachers may not be allocated until the later in the summer. But, Wilhelm continued, parents are looking for transparency and reassurance that the quality of students’ education is placed first and foremost in decision-making, and said that if approaching the board was not the correct process to use to be heard, to please let him know.

During the clarification section following public comments, Green said the class size numbers are “very fluid” right now and that the “data is still in transit” from individual schools. She said that no decisions have been made yet about the situation, and said that AAPS director of elementary education Dawn Linden has been in touch with Lawton’s principal about the concerns. Green commended the small set of parents present for caring so much about their children. “We feel your pain, and it’s important that you know that,” she said. “We want to be transparent with you … I cannot give you an answer right now.”

Mexicotte added that the best point of contact for parents to follow up on this issue would be their building principal, saying that advocacy regarding class sizes is done through the principal to central administration. Wilhelm said he has questions about the scope of the principal’s authority in the situation, and Mexicotte suggested he direct his questions to Linden.

Stead added that class sizes always fluctuate over the summer, and that the district tries its best to anticipate expected attendance by class and grade level. She said that she has experienced the same questions noted by Lawton parents when her own two AAPS students have been in larger classes. Wilhelm said that as a group, Lawton parents have discussed the options available, such as getting a teacher’s aide or having a split class, and they would love to have that dialogue.

Mexicotte reiterated that such dialogue should be at the school level at this point, and that it was premature, given that numbers are not set yet for the fall.

Another Lawton parent said that she had not signed up to speak but wanted to add that class sizes having seemed to creep up every year, and that parents do not want this to go on every year until fifth grade. “That’s why we’re here,” she said.

Mexicotte responded that the board also feels class sizes should be low, and pointed out that no cuts to teaching positions were made as part of the 2012-13 budget. “We are trying to hold the line,” she said.

Public Comment: Teacher Release Time, Skyline Theatre

Skyline student Seth Bear spoke to the board about the release time of Ann Marie Roberts, Skyline’s performing arts teacher and theater director. Bear noted that he was speaking on behalf of a group of Skyline students who were attending the meeting, all wearing light blue “SAVE SKYLINE THEATRE” T-shirts.

Skyline High School student Seth Bear addressed the Ann Arbor Public Schools board of trustees at their June 27, 2012 meeting.

He explained that Roberts uses her two prep hours to work on various components for Skyline theater productions that take place after school. However, in this coming year the district does not want to allow Roberts to have the second prep, but instead will assign her to teach another class during that time. Bear argued that taking this second prep away from Roberts would jeopardize the theater program, and cause students to lose “the most important part of our lives.”

Bear then read a list of awards and accolades received by the Skyline theater program and some of its individual students, including high academic achievement. He also shared quotes from some of the students in the theater program who said that being in theater has: led to other good experiences; been their passion; helped them to grow as human beings; and shown them what it means to be part of something bigger than themselves.

During clarification on public comment, Green said she had been baffled when she had received e-mails about what Bear had just described, and said that she is still trying to get to the bottom of it. The best she can say right now, she said, is that there is a contract with the teachers’ union that covers release time and that the decisions about release time are made at the building level.

Green added that the teachers’ union contract gives school principals discretion about how to allocate 70 days of release time among all department chairs, and that Roberts is the department chair for arts, music, and theater. She told the students that Skyline principal Sulura Jackson was the person to whom they should address their concerns.

Bear said that it was his understanding that Jackson no longer had the authority to grant Roberts the second prep period. Green said she does not have all the details, and that Jackson and other Skyline administrators are all currently unreachable as they are away at a conference. Green also pointed out that a memorandum of understanding between the teachers’ union and the district states the release time granted in the past is being phased out, and replaced with the 70 days of time to be used at the principal’s discretion.

Baskett asked how much release time was given to all high schools this year, and Green said she did not know. Baskett asked the students if they had spoken to Roberts and Jackson, and they said they had. Then Baskett clarified with the students that they had come to the board because they were under the impression that Jackson is no longer in charge of the decision.

Bear thanked the board for taking the issue seriously, and said “We are not done fighting …We did not come here trying to attack anybody. We are just trying to defend what we love.” Mexicotte responded that both of her degrees are in theater, so she is very sympathetic, but that the outcome will depend on what the contract actually says.

Bear asked if the board could keep the students updated via e-mail about how the situation is resolved, and Mexicotte said she would. She asked Bear to send the board an e-mail with a person the board could use as a point of contact. Green added that a lot of people are going to be away on vacation for the next several weeks, so if the students don’t hear from the board right away, “don’t think we forgot about you.”

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, July 25, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. in fourth-floor conference room of the downtown branch of the Ann Arbor District Library, 343 S. Fifth Ave., Ann Arbor.

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 encourage your friends, neighbors and colleagues to help support The Chronicle, too!