For 2013-2014, WISD will provide services to the Washtenaw County children’s services department, as well as the juvenile detention and daybreak residential programs. WISD has been providing summer school sessions for the county since 2004.

The estimated cost for the 2013-2014 year is $531,347. State funding will pick up most of those costs, with the county responsible for an estimated $146,116. Half of that $146,116 will be eligible for reimbursement from the state Child Care Fund, leaving a net cost to the county of $73,058. The program will include four full-time-equivalent teaching positions and one FTE school social worker.

In addition to the current school year, the county board authorized renewal of the contract for a second year in 2014-2015.

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

AAPS board president Deb Mexicotte. (Photos by the writer.)

The board’s committee discussion centered on four main topics: vision; revenue enhancement; action needed by the state legislature; and communication.

Discussion of revenue enhancement was highlighted by the possibility of asking voters to approve an enhancement millage through the Washtenaw Intermediate School District – which would entail a countywide vote. Voters in 2009 rejected such a proposal, which would have resulted in a 2 mill tax for five years, starting in 2010. It was projected to raise $30 million annually, to be divided among the 10 school districts in Washtenaw County. The AAPS share would have been a bit over $11 million. Board discussion at the Oct. 3 committee meeting acknowledged the need to generate support for such a proposal in other districts in the county besides AAPS.

Discussion of possible lobbying efforts directed at the state legislature was highlighted by the possibility of amending Proposal A, passed in 1994, which limits the ability of local communities to levy increased taxes to support schools.

Preliminaries: Outlining the Conversation

Board president Deb Mexicotte began the committee of the whole (COTW) meeting by outlining the objectives for the evening’s discussion. She acknowledged the board has a large number of responsibilities over the course of the year, which include labor negotiations, the budget, student achievement, maintaining buildings and facilities, and strategic planning. She characterized the board’s work as “ongoing, omnipresent, and focused on getting the best outcomes for students.”

The evening’s COTW objective was to focus on an additional goal of working to create opportunities for additional financial support for the district. That goal was adopted by the board, based on discussion at a retreat held in August. Mexicotte asked trustees to think about the work they might do on that issue, what tasks it might give to the administration, and how that might be distributed over the course of the year.

Andy Thomas clarified that the discussion was separate from, and in addition to, any discussion about the annaul budget and how the budget will be structured in the upcoming year. Mexicotte concurred with Thomas, saying it was in no way a budget conversation.

Mexicotte opened up the floor for initial thoughts. As four headings to think through, she offered: legislation, revenue enhancement, communication, and policy. Christine Stead asked that vision and advocacy be added. The board ultimately focused its conversation on four areas: vision, revenue enhancement, legislative action [including advocacy], and communication.

Vision

Stead pushed for talking about a vision first, saying that it was a good way to get everyone on the same page. She wanted to focus on identifying something specific so they could use that to frame everything else they did.

Vision: General Discussion

Irene Patalan said that for many citizens, education is the reason why they come to Ann Arbor She cited many of the “best of” lists that Ann Arbor lands on, saying that people make the choice to live here – and that it means the district is on the right track.

When Glenn Nelson asked how the strategic plan fit into the overall vision, Stead identified Strategic Plan Goal #8: “We will ensure adequate resources to accomplish our mission and goal” as possibly being enough to encompass the vision statement. Mexicotte wondered if that statement was aspirational enough. She then highlighted the word “adequate” in the goal and asked if the district’s resources are adequate. Several trustees said no.

Nelson cited recent reports on the Achievement Gap Elimination Plan, discipline gap reports, and emotional and social learning, saying that the district is tightly constricted by resources. He said that it was hard to treat students as individuals in the context of larger class sizes.

Stead said she would like to flesh out exactly what “adequate” or “inadequate” means – based on a cost analysis. Mexicotte replied that the meeting was the board’s session and the goals was the board’s goal. If the trustees believed the district didn’t have the resources, then that was what they believed, Mexicotte said. She focused the board’s attention on the question of what it would take to conclude that the district has adequate resources. She said that at some point, trustees had decided that the district has crossed a threshold – that makes them believe the district doesn’t have adequate resources.

Patalan mentioned that class size could be a focus. Class sizes are bigger than they feel comfortable with, she said. Mexicotte replied that if the board agreed that one of the sticking points is class size, then direction needs to be given to the administration to increase hiring, or the board needs to decide what else might be done.

While Nelson said he agreed with Patalan that class size is important, he also didn’t think that should be the main focus. To him, building a world class education should be first and foremost. He compared the tuition of Greenhills School [$19,290 for middle school; $19,680 for high school] to the AAPS foundation allowance of $9,020 per student. While he was careful to say that the difference between the numbers should not be the focus, he said the magnitude of the issue was not just an additional $1,000 per student.

Simone Lightfoot advocated for thinking “outside the box” when talking about “what it takes.” Restoring positions was one approach, but there were other innovative ways of dealing with large class sizes – or increasing test scores, no matter the class size. She wanted to think “radically different” and go to the teachers, students, and principals to ask them how to tackle the issue of class size.

The trustees talked over some of the districts that could serve as benchmarks. Mexicotte said there were some comparable districts in Illinois and New York that receive $16,000 to $17,000 per student. Nelson said he believed that benchmarking the district to other excellent districts around the nation, such as Brookline Public Schools in Massachusetts, might be useful – to give the community a better idea of what can be done, instead of appealing to the abstraction of “we need another $9,000 to do a good job.”

About district achievement, Mexicotte said, AAPS scores were better than other Michigan districts that receive the same or a greater amount of money. If the district could somehow get an additional $7,000 per student, that would “feel great,” and the district could do amazing things. Even with strangled funding, the district was maintaining high excellence, she said.

Stead offered her Christmas list: target classroom sizes set by grade level; increased time in school for all students; and a globally competitive curriculum. For Stead, a globally competitive curriculum means a robust arts program, IT and business courses, as well as rigorous math, language, and science courses. She would also like to see adequate counseling and behavioral support, adequate professional development time for staff, and rewards for top performers.

AAPS trustee Susan Baskett

Mexicotte’s frequent rejoinder was “What would it take?” She asked trustees to identify the steps they needed to implement, if they identified a list similar to Stead’s. Mexicotte listed several options: hiring a consultant to do a cost-based analysis; tasking deputy superintendent for operations Robert Allen with an analysis; or choosing a trustee to lead the work.

Nelson argued for a more incremental approach. He cautioned against suggesting too big of an increase per pupil – so that the public doesn’t think the board is being unrealistic. If board members defined two or three things they identified as the highest priorities, then it would give them more focus, he said.

Mexicotte reaffirmed that the key was to think aspirationally. She noted that they had asked the administration to support a zero-based budget, to work from the ground up. She said that would give the opportunity to shake the budget out and have the aspirational goals meet the budget on top. Quiet through the discussion, Susan Baskett said she would like to get past the vision discussion. Mexicotte replied that, to her, vision was the “silken cord.”

Vision: Next Steps

Trustees determined that strategic goal #8 would suffice as a vision statement. To help them better define what “adequate” means for student education, the trustees asked that the administration analyze the cost associated with target class sizes. They also determined they would direct the administration to ask for feedback from staff on class size and resources.

Revenue Enhancement

The second area of focus was on revenue enhancement. Mexicotte led the discussion, asking for ideas to increase revenue. Several possibilities were identified: passing a countywide educational millage; increasing and maintaining enrollment by focusing on schools of choice; competing with charter schools; emphasizing customer service; renewing the sinking fund set to expire in 2014; and exploring the district’s real estate assets.

Revenue Enhancement: Countywide Millage

In terms of dollars, a countywide educational millage would impact the district most, Stead said. She noted that if the previous countywide 2-mill tax increase had been approved by voters in November 2009, over $11 million would have been generated for the district. She acknowledged that because an enhancement millage had to be approved by voters countywide, generating support of the other communities in the county would be essential. She estimated that it would take more than a year to create a compelling enough story – a story that drew upon benefits to the economy, increased property values, and better educational attainment for the community – to garner enough support throughout the county. Anything short of that would not be successful, Stead said.

Thomas said that they could expect some opposition to a countywide effort. Based on the outcome of the millage vote in 2009, he said, it’s apparent that a plurality in Ann Arbor is not sufficient to carry a countywide millage. So the district would need to start making contact with the surrounding school districts. He suggested reaching out to the boards, PTAs and PTOs, and area chambers of commerce to “tip the balance a little bit.”

Mexicotte followed up on the remarks made by Thomas, saying that it sounded to her that he was recommending the board take some kind of leadership role in doing advocacy outreach to neighboring communities. The trustees agreed that was something they wanted to do. To spread out that work, Mexicotte suggested the board could start by approaching the stakeholders in the county to help build a consortium. Nelson said they should craft a clear position piece that explains in detail why it was a good thing for all communities involved.

Revenue Enhancement: Increasing and Maintaining Enrollment

Thomas said that if the district could enroll 50 students who live in the district but currently attend charter schools, an additional $450,000 in revenue would come to AAPS. Baskett added that they have to remember the surest way to get more revenue is to bring in more students. While acknowledging AAPS was not losing as many students as other area school districts, Baskett said she didn’t believe AAPS is doing an adequate job of keeping the students it already has.

Continuing that thought, Nelson said that customer service needed to be a real focus. Parents and students need to know the district really wants them to come to AAPS. He gave school tours as an example, saying that prospective students need to feel welcomed into a school by all staff. Patalan supported Nelson’s focus on customer service. She suggested asking principals for reasons families have cited for their decision to leave the district. While their evidence may be anecdotal, principals could still provide some insight into the issue. Superintendent Patricia Green also said that principals could be a good source of information about this problem.

Concerned that focusing solely on principal input would be too unreliable, Baskett wanted to know if there was an adequate exit survey for families leaving the district. An exit survey could give an analysis of loss of students in the district, she said. Thomas agreed, adding that he wanted to understand why a family might attend AAPS for the first three years of school, then leave the district. He referenced previous data from Jane Landefeld, director of student accounting and research services, that had indicated a loss of 50 to 60 students per grade cohort. Mexicotte acknowledged that churn of students could be worth targeting.

Echoing the call for feedback from departing families, Lightfoot said that they needed to talk more with the customer – that is, students and families. Although there is currently a climate survey that gathers some of that information, Lightfoot said that with additional questions, they could get better insight into what’s happening in the schools.

From left: Christine Stead and Irene Patalan

Saying she was less interested in a comprehensive entrance and exit survey, Stead wanted to focus on forward-looking initiatives. She contended that AAPS needs to be more competitive to keep students in the district. As some specific actions that could have significant results, Stead suggested: timing the district’s marketing efforts to match other schools in the area; holding more open houses; and communicating district achievements better.

Revenue Enhancement: Sinking-fund Millage

Nelson identified the 1.00 mill sinking-fund millage – set to expire December 2014 – as a source of additional revenue. [A sinking-fund is a limited property tax for addressing building remodeling projects. State law allows a district to levy up to five mills, for no longer than 20 years.] A sinking fund millage is important enough that it can be ignored until just before it expires, Nelson argued. He wanted to focus on providing information to citizens by the fall of 2013.

Revenue Enhancement: Real Estate

Lightfoot suggested looking at all real estate owned by AAPS as possible revenue generators – either through lease or sale. Mexicotte agreed that getting a list of all the district’s property holdings could be useful. She also observed that if the district were to sell off property, it would be a one-time only deal.

Revenue Enhancement: Next Steps

The trustees identified several next steps for revenue enhancement. Nelson and Stead will spearhead the effort to make a case for a countywide education millage, putting together a cohesive description of the case and consequences for other districts in the county. Nelson will also work towards identifying needs for highlighting a renewal of the sinking fund millage in 2014.

To work towards maintaining and increasing enrollment, Baskett will explore timing the district’s marketing to be competitive with other area schools. While Stead said they already knew when schools such as Greenhills were placing advertising inserts into the New York Times, Baskett will formalize that knowledge. Patalan and the administration were tasked with working on an exit survey for students.

AAPS administration will give trustees a comprehensive list of real estate assets and an estimate of their value. The list will be included in the enrollment and demographic information presentation in December. The report may also include information such as easements and maps, to determine if the land is buildable.

Legislative Action

The trustees discussed several areas of legislative reform. They centered around amending Proposal A, working to achieve local levy authority, and working cross-governmentally.

Legislative Action: Amending Proposal A

Stead suggested amending Proposal A as a worthwhile goal for the board. [Proposal A was passed in 1994 to allow for distribution of state school aid fund revenues through a new foundation grant funding system]. She suggested lobbying for local levy authority, where local districts would be allowed to ask their own communities for support. Currently, the local option requires all member districts of a countywide intermediate school district to ask all voters in a group of districts for for an enhancement millage.

According to Stead, since the adoption of Proposal A in 1994, 76% of the 6 mills of revenue raised in Ann Arbor does not come back to AAPS through allocation from the state’s school aid fund. Stead said that back in 1994, sharing about half may have sounded reasonable. But the truth is, she said, is that more than half of what Ann Arbor property owners pay in taxes for schools is not returned to the district. So when people say they pay a lot of taxes in Ann Arbor for the schools, Stead agreed  – and said that it strikes her as an inappropriate amount.

Nelson noted that he has submitted a proposal to the Oxford Foundation-Michigan for a proposed revision of the law that deals with the enhancement millage. In his proposal, Ann Arbor would not keep all the money it raises through taxes. However, Nelson’s proposal would allow voters in local school districts to pass an enhancement millage of no more than 3 mills – with the constraint that no school would receive net revenue per student exceeding the amount consistent with average property wealth in the intermediate school district (ISD). He offered it up as one way of restoring local levy power.

Andy Thomas

Thomas pointed out that they would need to find natural allies around the state to push for any kind of legislative change at the state level. He said that legislators from local districts are supportive, but they would be facing a “stiff headwind” across the state. Nelson suggested that other 20j districts might be those natural allies.

By way of background, Section 20j of the School Aid Act makes calculations for “hold-harmless districts.” At the time of Proposal A’s enactment in 1994, some school districts’ foundation allowances exceeded the established  $6,500 per-pupil base level set by the state. Rather than have their funding lowered, the “hold harmless” districts were allowed to levy an additional millage to make up the gap. AAPS was one of those districts.

There was, however, a section in the revised school code that limited the growth of hold-harmless foundation allowances to the lesser of (1) the increase in the base level and (2) the rate of inflation. In 1999-2000, an inflationary increase of only 1.6% created a scenario in which giving the hold-harmless districts the full increase in the base level would have raised their grants higher than the rate of inflation. So Section 20j was created to provide hold harmless-districts the same foundation increase as other schools. In 2009, Section 20j was line-item vetoed by then-governor Granholm – which meant that districts previously identified as 20j schools saw a greater percentage decrease in school funding than other districts.

Legislative Action: Local Levy Authority

Mexicotte argued that if the district had local levy authority for the sinking fund, it could be used to pay for a broader range of expenses. [Currently the sinking fund can be used only for a limited set of expenditures, including major building renovation and the purchase of property.]

Thomas agreed and said that he took issue with laws that determined what schools could use funds for. As they think through the issues and challenges of transportation, Thomas said, it would be nice to have such a change enacted so charging for transportation could be a possibility. Mexicotte said that having access to such a common sense solution would be ideal, but state law did not allow it.

Baskett said she would like to engage the legislature on mandated costs that don’t make sense – such as paying into Michigan Public Schools Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) for employees who would not likely be able to access the pension. [One example is noon hour supervisors, which were discussed by trustees at the Sept. 19, 2012 board meeting. The board will vote on an outsourcing contract for noon hour supervisors at its Oct. 10 meeting]. Lightfoot suggested that talking about mandates, sinking fund allocation, and transportation might be an easier way of getting allies across the state.

When Mexicotte asked about working to change MPSERS, there was silence in the room – until Nelson said that the problem with MPSERS was that current public employees are paying for the mistakes of people years ago. Stead ventured that as a system, the state is weaker for the changes that have been made.

Legislative Action: Cross-Governmental Cooperation

Lightfoot promoted the idea of talking with the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) and the University of Michigan to develop cross-governmental relationships to improve the district. Baskett said that it would benefit the district to advocate for various initiatives led by other entities like AATA, because their successful initiatives could benefit the district’s students.

Trying to determine how such advocacy would fit into the board’s financial goal, Mexicotte pressed for a connection. Baskett said that if the board advocated for AATA, transportation might not be as great a worry. She specifically mentioned AATA bus routes that now run past the Roberto Clemente Student Development Center, which could help reduce district transportation costs.

Legislative Action: Restoration of K-12 Funding

The trustees briefly discussed pursuing legal action to restore K-12 funding. In 2011, funding for K-12 schools was diverted to support state aid for community colleges and the state’s 15 public universities. While trustees agreed that they would like to see this funding restored, they also decided to wait until there was a better judicial climate to pursue it. Lightfoot, however, said she was not concerned with the opinions of legislators and justices. If restoring K-12 funding was important, then it should be funded.

Legislative Action: Miscellaneous

As the trustees brainstormed, several other suggestions were offered. Baskett said the district should have a presence at various educational workshops around the state – to be more “vocal and visible,” as Mexicotte put it. To target issues that might be worthwhile to pursue, Lightfoot suggested asking Robert Allen and his operations team to identify issues that have state implications.

Legislative Action: Next Steps

Putting together a case for amending Proposal A will be the joint responsibility of Lightfoot, Nelson, and Stead. They will be focusing on restoring local levy authority and local enhancement millages. Because Nelson and Lightfoot are already on the transportation committee, it was agreed that it made sense that they pursue advocacy opportunities with AATA.

Communication

Mexicotte felt that the trustees need to be more communicative with the public about what they’re doing and the goals they’re working towards. She asked the other trustees what steps they needed to take in order to be better communicators.

The board president’s report, Patalan offered, could be a useful tool for communicating with the public. During each regular board meeting, Mexicotte has the opportunity to report out as the board president. She has used that opportunity to update the community on the COTW work being done. Patalan suggested there should be an on-going report on progress towards financial goals.

Communication: Next Steps

Mexicotte said she would use the formalized board report to communicate better with the public. Nelson said that until they narrowed their focus, he wanted the narrative of the evening’s work to be that they had a “really good” meeting on discussing what they were going to do.

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, Oct. 10, 2012, at 7 p.m. at the fourth-floor boardroom of the Ann Arbor District Library’s downtown branch, 343 S. Fifth Ave. [confirm date]

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

The agreement provides $380,379 for the 2011-12 school year, and gives the county administrator the authority to sign second-year contracts for the 2012-13 school year. The county expects to be reimbursed by the state for all but $75,370 of the annual cost. According to a staff memo, the WISD would provide two certified teachers and a half-time school social worker for up to 30 youth, based on the program capacities and a ratio no greater than one teacher to 10 youth, as required by state and federal regulations for special education programs. [.pdf of contract with WISD]

This brief was filed from the boardroom of the county administration building at 220 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor. A more detailed report will follow.

At Wednesday’s regular meeting, the highlight was a presentation on the special education millage that will appear on the ballot on May 3, 2011. The proposed tax would renew an existing levy for the next seven years, and is projected to generate $14 million to support special education services in school districts across Washtenaw County. Of that amount, AAPS would be allocated around $5.7 million.

The special ed millage is not the same kind of proposal as the unsuccessful November 2009 ballot proposal – which was to levy a new, additional 2 mill tax to support general operations for districts countywide.

In addition to the presentation, the board heard its usual range of board and association reports during the meeting.

Special Education Presentation

By way of background, at its December 2010 board meeting, the Washtenaw Intermediate School District (WISD) voted to place before voters a renewal of an existing tax that supports special education in all school districts in Washtenaw County. It will appear on the ballot on May 3, 2011.

The funds collected through the millage support special ed services for students with physical, mental or emotional disabilities up to age 26.

First approved in 2004 at the rate of 1 mill, the six-year millage expired after the 2010 tax season. The proposed renewal of the special ed tax, at a rate of 0.985 mill, would extend another seven years – through 2017. A tax rate of 1 mill is equivalent to $1 for every $1,000 of a property’s taxable value. The millage appears on tax bills under the label WISD SPEC ED.

Countywide, the millage would generate around $14 million. According to WISD, the estimated distribution among school districts in the county would look like this:

Ann Arbor                 $5,767,020
Chelsea                      752,360
Dexter                       790,300
Lincoln                    1,464,120
Manchester                   281,540
Milan                        403,480
Saline                     1,349,460
Whitmore Lake                296,100
Willow Run                   542,640
Ypsilanti                  2,163,000
9 Public School Academies    189,980
Total                    $14,000,000

-

Representatives from the AAPS Student Intervention and Support Services (SISS) were present at Wednesday’s meeting to update the AAPS board on the services currently being offered, their hopes for the future and to discuss the importance of the upcoming special education millage.

Special Ed: Addressing Areas of Disproportionality

Elaine Brown, assistant superintendent for SISS, began by discussing the efforts the district has made to address two areas the state had identified about two years ago as disproportional. These two areas were: (1) the disproportionate representation of specific learning disabilities and cognitive impairment; and (2) and disproportionate suspension and expulsion of students with disabilities. In a followup phone interview with The Chronicle, AAPS communications director Liz Margolis explained that “disproportional” in this context means that the state felt the district was identifying a higher number of male African American students as special education students than would be warranted based on their statistical representation in the district.

“Our mission is to ensure that every special needs student has access to, and progresses in, the general education curriculum,” Brown said, reading from the SISS mission statement at Wednesday’s meeting. “Each student with special needs will be provided appropriate supports, interventions, and strategies to afford she or he an opportunity to receive the highest quality education in the least restrictive environment.”

SISS addressed the disproportions by developing corrective action plans that focused on identifying early those students who may have academic or behavioral concerns, Brown said. The earlier identification was accomplished through an emphasis on communication between teachers, administrators and parents.

Special Ed: Corrective Action – Achievement Teams

The chief tool for increasing communication are the district’s achievement teams. Ruth Williams, the interim assistant superintendent of education, said that students with potential issues are targeted earlier through regular meetings of a school’s achievement team, which includes teachers and administrators.

After identifying students who may have potential behavioral or academic issues, teachers can use a range of solutions to attempt a remedy of the situation. These solutions, called interventions, can range from simple disciplinary tactics to regularly scheduled meetings with the student and the student’s parents.

“During these meetings, teachers discuss concerns about the student’s performance and the interventions they have tried,” Williams said. “We also invite the parents – it’s important to keep them informed about our concerns.”

This increased focus on early identification was accompanied by the creation of a database to document what efforts have been made with students, and the effectiveness of those efforts. Teachers can log information about what has and has not been effective while working with a student. This information can help other teachers make informed, data-driven decisions about the best way to deal with a student. Other than interventions, the database includes information such as a student’s test scores or discipline referrals.

“We are focused on success for all students,” Williams said. “We want to make child-centered, data-driven decisions with consistent implementation and team consensus.”

In the eyes of the state, these corrective action plans worked. As of Feb. 18, 2011, the Department of Education deemed the district to be back in compliance in the two problem areas. Brown did add that these corrective plans will help in the future as the state continues to monitor the district.

“We have to make sure we have procedures in place to ensure compliance,” Brown said. “As long as we stay up on our documentation and our compliance processes, we will be okay.”

Brown then moved to show how the district had documented its success by using achievement teams: The number of special education students identified by the district has declined. After achievement teams were implemented in 2008, there was a noticeable decrease in the number of special education students, dropping from 2,215 students in 2008 to 2,170 in 2009 and 2,094 in 2010.

This drop, Brown said, was due to earlier identification of students with potential problems, as well as providing proper support to those students.

Special Ed: Changes in Special Education Numbers

After addressing the trend of a declining special education population, Brown was quick to explain that the decreasing numbers did not mean that funding could decrease.

One segment of the district’s special education population that is increasing is the number of students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2010 there were 241 students with ASD, up from 154 in 2005. In addition, Brown said, supporting these students costs more, and that the trend seen in Ann Arbor is also being seen across the nation.

She added that the district was mandated to maintain their levels of funding, an issue that would be expanded on later in the discussion.

Special Ed: Technology Upgrades

Jeff Flynn, the assistive technology consultant for the district, updated the board on new technology that SISS had purchased with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – widely known as the federal stimulus bill. He also outlined a number of items that SISS was hoping to purchase, but that would have to be reviewed by the board.

Brown added that the role technology can play is immensely important.

“We need to ensure that we align our technology purchases with our curriculum and instruction,” she said. “Providing students with technology is one of the best ways to close the achievement gap.”

One of the larger purchases yet to be approved is the Kurzweil 3000, a server-based piece of software that can convert text to speech so students can be read to, along with writing and editing features. The district is currently using an earlier version of the software, and SISS is looking to purchase an updated version.

“We’re also exited about the software’s web-based licenses that allows students at home to access this support – we find that compelling and exciting,” Flynn said.

Flynn also introduced the board to the “Tap It” 42-inch touch screen monitors. These touch screens, if approved by the board, would be located at Skyline, Pioneer and Huron high schools, as well as Forsythe middle school and Haisley, Abbot, Wines and Logan elementary schools.

Trustee Susan Baskett asked why those schools were chosen to host the touch screens. Flynn replied that they were chosen because they had the groups of cognitively- and health-impaired students who would most benefit from the technology.

The touch screens can be positioned upright to be used for presentations or laid flat to be used as an interactive table for a group of students. Flynn said this technology is great for allowing autistic or cognitively impaired students to communicate with the computers.

Baskett raised concerns over the cost of some of these items, including the ongoing cost of maintenance that will come down the road.

Flynn and the other SISS representatives didn’t have specific figures for maintenance, but said they planned on bringing more specific figures to the next meeting when the board begins to review some of the larger purchases SISS is looking to make.

Special Ed: Helping Students Transition

Cassandra Benion, SISS assistant director, followed Brown by talking about how SISS helps special education students transition from a school setting to life after they graduate.

Benion started by summarizing how the district’s transition services help students enrolled in high school. She highlighted the Practical Assessment Exploration System (PAES), which has been in use for about a year. The PAES program is a research-based assessment that identifies a student’s interests, functional skills, aptitude for community-based employment and workplace strengths and weaknesses.

This program is used along with a number of events, hosted by SISS and other supporting organizations, that school officials believe address important areas of transition by outlining what services are available for special education students and their families.

Special Ed: Young Adult Programs

Benion also discussed the possibility of establishing a Young Adult Program for special needs students transitioning after high school.

YAPs serve special education students who need services after graduating high school. Students usually move into the program around the age of 20 and can be in the program until the age of 26.

Currently, YAP programs are hosted in Saline and in five other locations throughout the Washtenaw Intermediate School District.

Benion said the conversation about starting a YAP in Ann Arbor began about two years ago when parents were looking for an alternative to the program offered by WISD. She added that the WISD program is either near or at its capacity, while the YAP program in Saline offered more space and room for activities.

“Both programs have similar offerings with the exception of available space,” Benion said, adding that students in the Saline YAP are grouped into three tiers. The first tier includes students learning general life skills, the second has students learning about employment and the final tier prepares students for transitioning into society. The WISD program does not have these groups, and a program in Ann Arbor could offer local families a closer, more appealing setup, she said.

Board president Deb Mexicotte added that the parents comparing the programs in Saline and the WISD have found Saline’s program more appealing.

“I believe that many of the parents opted for that site based on evaluations of the WISD’s sites,” she said. “In looking at a range of choices, people are looking for sites like the Saline model.”

Benion said that the next step to be tackled would be finding a suitable location. Representatives from the SISS have visited sites, finding that school buildings provide the best venues. Saline’s program is housed in the former high school, and the WISD has programs at locations such as Eastern Michigan University and Washtenaw Community College.

Once a site is secured, Benion said that discussions can start about program details, such as what sorts of resources will be required.

Special Ed: Importance of the Special Education Millage

After the presentation, much of the trustees’ response centered on how important passage of the upcoming special education millage is, emphasizing that funding these initiatives is mandatory, and not doing so would require the funds to come from cuts elsewhere in the district.

Special Ed: Budget Breakdown

Trustee Glenn Nelson began by outlining the specific figures the district is dealing with and how much of an impact the millage would have. Brown had supplied a breakdown of the AAPS special education costs, which amounted to just over $37 million. Nelson added in other costs related to meeting federal guidelines, bringing the total to roughly $40 million.

Nelson then explained the extensive process of receiving reimbursement from federal and state levels of government. The district is reimbursed for portions of everything – from money spent on transportation to general costs, reducing the final cost.

“It’s important to use the net amount, not the gross amount, when thinking about costs,” he said.

In 2010, the district was left with $4 million to pay from the general fund after going through the reimbursement process. Nelson connected these figures to the impact of the upcoming vote in May to support special education.

“The millage will produce almost $6 million a year,” Nelson said. [Nelson's figure is roughly the amount that would be allocated just to AAPS – countywide, it would generate around $14 million.] “Without the millage, our costs would have been more like $10 million rather than $4 million, so that we would have $6 million less in the general fund for other purposes.”

Nelson went on to say that providing this support is mandatory, and funding for special education services could not decrease.

“This mandate that we must maintain the funding effort has a financial hammer,” he said. “If we don’t do that, we don’t get all the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funds from the federal government. We wouldn’t be cutting expenditures, because we’d be cutting revenues too.”

Trustee Andy Thomas supported Nelson’s comments about the importance of the funding that would be provided by the millage.

“In the absence of the millage, there would be roughly $6 million, in addition to cuts that are accruing from changes in foundational allowance, that we would have to absorb, and it would have to come out of other programs,” Thomas said. ["Foundational allowance" refers to the per-pupil amounts that schools receive from the state School Aid Fund.] “There is kind of a false debate that the special education millage is more money being shoveled into the pot, increasing funding for general education students. By setting this aside, we have a way of meeting the need of the special education students.”

Trustee Christine Stead said that, even with the millage, there would still be remaining costs the district would have to cover, making the millage funds even more important.

“It’s difficult because, even if the millage passes, we’ll still have to make cuts somewhere to maintain our level of services,” she said.

She added that, over the next two years, the board would be hard-pressed to consider funding increases. With coming decreases in education funding from Gov. Rick Snyder’s budget proposal and the effect of declining property values on the millage, approving increases in funding will become difficult.

“This is the context we’re operating in,” Stead said. “We have to be realistic.”

Special Ed: Investing in the Future

Nelson concluded the discussion by emphasizing what this millage will mean to the district, calling the money “an investment.”

“The earlier you make the investments, the greater return you get,” he said. “This $6 million we’re thinking about putting into lives, it will save many times that later on. It’s an investment in the truest form of that word, and it’s time for us as a society to be making the investments rather than cutting them.”

Board Reports

The board has two standing committees. The planning committee consists of: Christine Stead (chair), Susan Baskett, and Irene Patalan. The performance committee consists of: Glenn Nelson (chair), Simone Lightfoot, and Andy Thomas. Board president Deb Mexicotte sits on neither committee.

Board Report: Performance Committee

Nelson updated the board on the March 1 meeting of the board’s performance committee. Nelson reported on the committee’s discussion regarding the possible purchase of Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) software, a new piece of testing and evaluation software.

He explained that the NWEA test could be given in all grades in reading, math, language usage and science. The tests are online and are adaptive, which means they are personalized to students based on their performance on initial questions. The NWEA tests can also be given up to three times per year, which he said make them much more useful for planning than the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) tests, which does not have as fast a turnaround time.

A presentation had been given by Andy Ingalls, executive director of instruction for the Chelsea school district, who attested to the quality of the product during the committee meeting.

Nelson also discussed how the testing data can be aggregated in different ways, grouping students based on performance and identifying the subject areas in which a student may be excelling or falling behind. These student performance measures also include measurements of entire classes, allowing for teachers to be judged on the growth of their students.

Thomas praised the student evaluation portion of the software, saying that having the baseline of a student’s abilities to work with so soon will prove to be very valuable.

Nelson concluded his report by giving the board a general idea of the costs that would be associated with the purchases. According to Nelson, the low end would include leasing 1,100 computers, the minimum they would need to be able to run the program, for $365,000 per year. The most expensive option would be the outright purchase of 3,300 computers for $3.7 million, a one-time cost.

Nelson acknowledged that this program will have to be compared against other priorities when the budget is being created this year, but said he felt it was a strong option.

“The benefits are so large that this may be the best use of our funds,” he said.

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS deputy superintendent for instruction, added that there were other districts interested in the software, and by purchasing it together, a better deal could be reached.

Board Reports: Planning Committee

There was no report from the planning committee, as it had not met since the last board meeting. Stead, who reported from the committee to the board, did say that the committee’s future work will include trying to meet with Gov. Rick Snyder to discuss education funding in the context of economic development.

Association Reports

At each meeting, the board invites reports from six associations: the Youth Senate, the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee on Special Education (AAPAC), the Parent-Teacher-Organization Council (PTOC), the Black Parents Student Support Group (BPSSG), the Ann Arbor Administrators Association (AAAA), and the Ann Arbor Education Association (AAEA). At Wednesday’s meeting, representatives from the Youth Senate and the Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee were on hand to present during the meeting’s association reports.

Association Reports: Youth Senate

Nikila Lakshmanan, a junior senator from Community High School, along with other local high school students, updated the board on the Youth Senate’s efforts. These included an upcoming job search convention they will be attending and work done by the Youth Activist Training and Networking – a group started by community high school students to empower youth interested in helping the community and volunteering.

In addition to summarizing the work of the Youth Senate, Lakshmanan invited the board and the public to join them in their volunteer efforts. The group usually meets every Friday at 6:15 p.m. at the downtown Youth Senate office – at 202 E. Huron St., #101 – before heading out to help feed the homeless with different sponsors. Lakshmanan said that volunteers talk with the homeless while helping set up and serve food.

Association Reports: AAPAC

The report from Ann Arbor Parent Advisory Committee was delivered by Melany Raubolt, the co-vice chair for AAPAC and the parent of an autistic student at Slauson Middle School. Raubolt praised everyone who has worked with AAPAC to enrich the lives of special needs students, adding that her son, an eighth-grade student at Slauson, was fully with his regular education peers and will be transitioning to Pioneer High School next year.

Raubolt also touched on the upcoming special education millage, expressing her organization’s support for the measure. She asked for community support in the formation of a Young Adult Program (YAP), a concept that was discussed during the presentation by the SISS on the district’s special education performance.

“This millage is a special education renewal, serving a critical function in our communities by empowering all students with the necessary tools required for individual success,” she said.

Superintendent’s Report

Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, AAPS deputy superintendent for instruction, gave the superintendent’s report in place of interim superintendent Robert Allen, who was away at a conference.

She noted a number of awards recently received by AAPS students, including awards in math, choir, chess, and athletics. In addition, she reported that students in one class at Pattengill did a service project instead of exchanging Valentine’s cards with each other this year.

Dickinson-Kelley also stated that Allen was a keynote speaker at a recent Ann Arbor Chamber of Commerce meeting, which resulted in chamber members making visits to two AAPS schools. She noted that the participants were very impressed with the schools they visited.

Dickinson-Kelley reported that National African-American Parent Involvement Day (NAAPID) had been a large success throughout the district. Finally, she encouraged all staff and community members to attend the forums and final interviews of the two remaining candidates for AAPS superintendent. [The forums and interviews were held later that week, on March 4-5, and resulted in the board decision to enter into negotiations with Patricia Green to be the next AAPS superintendent.]

Financial Report

Nancy Hoover, the district’s director of financial operations, provided the first briefing for the board during Wednesday’s meeting. Hoover’s brief report touched on grant money received by the district and how it was being used.

Currently, the district is able to cover some salaries of high school teachers with a $1.9 million grant from federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds. This allows the district to remove that expense from the general operating budget.

Trustees took the opportunity to make a point about how budget figures could look artificially low or high because of these funding shifts. Trustee Glenn Nelson warned against reading too much into coming figures.

“When we do the budget for the 2012 fiscal year with none of these grants, these high school salaries are going to come back in, and it will look like the general fund budget has increased,” he said. “This is purely an artifact of accounting, not a real increase.”

Trustee Andy Thomas echoed these sentiments.

“It’s important to realize that, in making comparisons from year to year, there are a number of adjustments such as this that need to be taken into account,” he said.

Pioneer Field Bid Update

Randy Trent, executive director of physical properties for the district, gave the board a special briefing on the progress of collecting bids for work on the Pioneer High School football dressing room and field.

The project includes building new dressing room facilities and putting in new turf for a practice field next to the school’s football stadium. Trent recommended selecting Granger Construction for the bid at a cost of just over $42.3 million. Trent said that past dealings with Granger have been positive.

The board took action on the proposal later in the meeting, voting unanimously to approve it as part of a consent agenda, which also included minutes and gift offers.

Public Commentary: Bullying

The meeting opened with public commentary from Christa Moran, a parent concerned about the presence of bullying in the district. Moran spoke about a bullying situation in which her son was forced out of AAPS by a student who she said was extorting money from him. In her description, the situation was addressed poorly by his school, and resulted in ongoing retribution bullying. Once her son became suicidal, she pulled him out of AAPS, and enrolled him in a local charter school where he is now thriving.

Moran spoke, she said, on behalf of students without a support system, and who don’t have anywhere else to go. She noted that bullying policies are inconsistently applied across schools, and urged all board members and administrators to take the issues of bullying and “predatory aggression” seriously. Moran suggested surveying parents and students regarding their experiences with bullying, instituting a bullying policy similar to the districtwide zero-tolerance policy toward weapons, and training student bystanders about how to deal with bullying episodes they witness.

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

Absent: Simone Lightfoot.

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

About the writer: Eric Anderson is an intern for The Ann Arbor Chronicle.

An Ann Arbor summer tax bill, showing some of the assessments for Ann Arbor schools. For Ann Arbor Public Schools (AAPS), the millage rates reflect half the amount collected annually.

Among Michigan’s public educators, the 2010-11 fiscal year is being called “The Cliff.” Based on a grim downward trajectory of funding from the state, decreasing revenues from local property taxes and expenses like health care continuing to climb, that’s the year many districts are expected to plummet over the edge into the red.

Robert Allen, deputy superintendent of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, described this scenario at a sparsely attended forum last Thursday at Huron High School, where he and superintendent Todd Roberts made a pitch for voters to support a proposed countywide millage on the Nov. 3 ballot. They didn’t claim that AAPS would be among those districts falling off the cliff, but they did say their district faces a $15 million deficit that year. Without new revenue from the millage, they contend that the district would need to make dramatic cuts, and that those cuts would almost certainly affect students in the classroom. Michigan’s financial crisis is hitting hard, they say.

“As the state goes, so goes our funding,” Allen told the group on Thursday.

The state isn’t going so well.

But opponents argue that school districts haven’t done enough to cut costs, and that taxpayers can’t absorb the added burden of another millage. Beyond that, people on both sides say there’s an urgent need to reform the way schools are funded in Michigan, regardless of the success or failure of the Nov. 3 millage vote.

This Chronicle report looks at how Michigan funds K-12 public schools, why local school districts say they need a special enhancement millage and why critics say they don’t, and what that proposed millage would entail. Ann Arbor Public Schools is the largest of Washtenaw County’s 10 school districts, and would receive over a third of the $30 million collected from the millage annually – we’ll focus our coverage on that district.

Background: How Michigan Funds Public Schools

The state controls revenues for local school districts in two ways. First, it collects taxes directly from residential and non-residential property owners – 6 mills each, annually – and pools that money into the state’s School Aid Fund (SAF), which also includes revenues from sales and income taxes, state lottery revenue and other sources. Out of this fund, the state pays local school districts a per-pupil allotment – a variable amount set by the state legislature that can increase or decrease each year.

In addition, state law controls the amount of taxes that school districts can levy directly – those that are not pooled into the SAF. Beyond the 6 mills that go into the SAF, for example, there’s an additional tax on non-residential property owners, but the state caps that tax at 18 mills.

Both the funding from non-SAF local property taxes and from the total School Aid Fund are factored into an amount called the per-pupil “foundation allowance.” This amount varies by district – Ann Arbor’s per-pupil funding was originally expected to be $9,723 for the current fiscal year, which began July 1. With about 16,500 students in the Ann Arbor district, its per-pupil foundation allowance would be roughly $160.5 million – the bulk of the district’s projected $192 million budget for this fiscal year. (Other revenues come from the district’s share of a countywide special education millage and from federal grants.)

The current system stems from the 1994 passage of Proposal A. The goal of that ballot initiative was to create more equitable funding across all districts and to keep property taxes from escalating dramatically. Proposal A took away, to a significant degree, local control over school funding, though districts can still request voter approval to levy local millages for building construction, repairs, and maintenance. Ann Arbor has done that, most notably to fund the construction of Skyline High School.

Proposal A also created “hold-harmless” districts – Ann Arbor is one of only 44 districts statewide that are classified in this way. When Prop A took effect, these districts were receiving revenues higher than a $6,500 per-pupil base level set by the state at that time. Rather than have their funding lowered, the “hold harmless” districts were allowed to levy an additional millage to make up the gap. For Ann Arbor, that amount is $1,234 per pupil, or 4.42 mills. (The millage rate varies depending on property values, in order to generate a fixed amount of $1,234 per pupil.)

Another issue is this: As revenues from property taxes, sales taxes and other funding sources have decreased because of the state’s economy, the School Aid Fund has been shrinking. This year, the state is projecting a $1 billion deficit in the fund – that’s one reason why the legislature cut state funding for schools by $165 per pupil earlier this month. (The legislation authorizing that cut hasn’t yet been signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, however.) And depending on the amount of revenues coming into the School Aid Fund over the next few months, the state might make additional per-pupil cuts early next year.

The upshot? Districts can’t be sure exactly how much money they’ll receive from the state for their current fiscal year, which began July 1. For AAPS, the $165-per-pupil cut means a loss of about $2.7 million, bringing its per-pupil foundation allowance down to $9,558. The school board passed a balanced budget in June, which included tapping their fund balance (the district’s equivalent of a savings account) for nearly $2 million, to help resolve a $7.1 million deficit. But they’ll likely have to make additional cuts in light of the state’s decision to decrease per-pupil funding.

In the past, shortfalls in the School Aid Fund have been plugged by transferring revenues from the state’s general fund. But because the general fund has also faced staggering deficits, lawmakers have been using federal stimulus money in the past two years to shore up the School Aid Fund. Last year, AAPS got about $6 million in stimulus funds to cover what would have otherwise been a $365 per-pupil cut. The district has received another $3 million in stimulus dollars earmarked for special education, and about $1 million for Title 1 programs, which provide reduced and free lunches to low-income children.

Stimulus funds aren’t expected to be available beyond 2010-11, and the state still hasn’t determined how they’ll use those funds for schools in the current fiscal year.

What Ann Arbor Taxpayers Pay for Schools

In addition to the state school tax of 6 mills from residential property owners and 6 mills from owners of commercial and rental property, or of property that isn’t a taxpayer’s primary residence, there are four other school-related millages for the Ann Arbor district:

• 17.97 mills for operating funds – a “non-homestead” tax paid by owners of non-residential property.
• 4.4201 mills for the supplemental “hold harmless” tax.
• 2.0325 mills for debt repayment on school bonds.
• 0.9861 mill for a “sinking” fund, which can be used for school construction, renovations or repairs. The fund was initially approved, in part, to build the new Skyline High School.

Voters renewed the AAPS sinking fund, supplemental and non-homestead operating millages last year.

The Washtenaw Intermediate School District also collects two taxes countywide: 1) an operating millage of 0.0984 mill, and 2) a special education millage of 3.8761 mill.

In total, Ann Arbor homeowners pay just over 17 mills in school taxes. A mill equals $1 for every $1,000 in a property’s taxable value, which usually is considered roughly half of the market value. So owners of a home with a market value of $200,000 are paying about $1,700 annually in school taxes now, and would add another $200 to that if the millage on November’s ballot is passed.

In their public forum on the millage, AAPS school officials noted that since Proposal A passed in 1994, local taxpayers have seen their school millage rates fall. [Link to chart of school millages paid by Ann Arbor residents from 1994 to 2009.]

Brit Satchwell, second from the right, is president of the 1,200-member Ann Arbor Education Association, the teachers' union for the Ann Arbor Public Schools. He set up a booth at the Oct. 17 Ann Arbor Farmers Market, handing out yard signs and pins in support of the proposed countywide schools millage, and talking with residents about it. (Photo by the writer.)

How the Proposed Millage Would Work

Individual school districts are prohibited by state law from levying additional millages for operations. However, under the umbrella of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District – an entity set up in the early 1960s to provide services to all 10 public school districts in the county – an operating millage can be levied and distributed equally, with each district receiving the same per-pupil amount.

The Nov. 3 ballot proposal calls for collecting 2 mill countywide each year for five years, starting in 2010. The millage is projected to raise $30 million annually, to be divided among the 10 districts. The WISD would not receive funding from this millage, nor would any percentage of the millage go to the state.

Here’s what voters will see on the ballot:

PROPOSAL I

REGIONAL ENHANCEMENT MILLAGE PROPOSAL

Pursuant to state law, the revenue raised by the proposed millage will be collected by the intermediate school district and distributed to local public school districts based on pupil membership count.

Shall the limitation on the amount of taxes which may be assessed against all property in Washtenaw Intermediate School District, Michigan, be increased by 2 mills ($2.00 on each $1,000 of taxable valuation) for a period of 5 years, 2009 to 2013, inclusive, to provide operating funds to enhance other state and local funding for local school district operating purposes; the estimate of the revenue the intermediate school district will collect if the millage is approved and levied in 2009 is approximately $30,000,000?

Each district in the county is projected to receive the following amount annually, based on the number of students in their districts:

• Ann Arbor: $11,209,169
• Chelsea: $1,805,447
• Dexter: $2,477,564
• Lincoln: $3,261,427
• Manchester: $865,953
• Milan: $1,778,896
• Saline: $3,748,612
• Whitmore Lake: $841,030
• Willow Run: $1,358,160
• Ypsilanti: $2,663,743

In lobbying for the millage, Glenn Nelson – an AAPS school board member – notes that many taxpayers will be eligible for a state property tax credit and a federal property tax deduction, offsetting a portion of the increase in taxes. Countywide, he calculates that the millage will only cost taxpayers $21.2 million annually, because of the available credit and deduction, while generating $30 million for schools. That calculation assumes that all taxpayers eligible for the credit and deduction actually file for it.

Why Districts Say They Need This Millage

In making the case for an additional millage, school officials acknowledge that it’s a difficult economic climate for residents, and a tough time to be asking for a new tax. They also say they have no alternative.

All districts contend that they’ve already been cutting expenses and consolidating services, as revenues from the state have fallen. Ann Arbor Public Schools has cut $16 million from its budget over the past four years, according to administrators. Those moves included eliminating 66 jobs, restructuring the district’s middle school program to save $2.3 million annually, increasing class sizes, and cutting back on custodial services, among other things.

Officials also point to countywide efforts, including those coordinated by the Washtenaw Intermediate School District. [.PDF link to list of consolidated school services in Washtenaw County]

But costs continue to escalate while revenues fall, they say – even with the millage, AAPS expects to face a $4 million deficit in 2010-11.

Todd Roberts, superintendent of Ann Arbor Public Schools, at an Oct. 15 forum on the proposed countywide schools millage. (Photo by the writer.)

Personnel costs

The biggest portion of any district’s operating budget is personnel. At the AAPS millage forum on Thursday, Robert Allen, AAPS deputy superintendent, noted that 85% of the district’s operating budget goes toward personnel costs – salaries and benefits – and that a $15 million budget shortfall equated to about 220 jobs.

The Ann Arbor Education Association – the teachers union, and the largest of the district’s nine bargaining units – has already made some concessions, earlier this fall agreeing to a salary freeze for the first time in its history for the 2009-10 school year. The new contract contained changes in health care benefits too, including an increase in prescription co-pays for teachers, but also a 15% increase in the amount that the district pays for a teacher’s health insurance, to $12,582. And so-called step increases – automatic pay raises that teachers receive each year for their first 12 years of service – remain in place.

At Thursday’s forum, one of the people attending asked superintendent Todd Roberts how he’d respond to those who think teacher salaries are too high. Roberts defended the salaries that AAPS pays, saying that “our teachers are not anywhere near the top” compared to other districts statewide. What’s more, he said, the district needs to pay a decent wage in order to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

Pay is linked to education and time of service. The average AAPS teacher’s salary is about $72,000. First-year teachers with a bachelor’s degree earn $39,540 – the top of the pay scale for teachers with a bachelor’s degree is $66,975. Teachers with masters degrees start at $44,539 and top out at $79,899. Beginning teachers with a Ph.D. earn $49,919 – the top of the scale for them is $87,774.

Maintaining a quality education

The need to keep the quality of Ann Arbor’s public education high – and the role of the proposed millage in doing that – is an argument made by school officials and others who support the millage.

Steve Norton, a leader of the Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee, which supports the millage, told The Chronicle that there are two choices: Bring in additional revenues through the millage, or dismantle the school system as we know it. An additional investment now, he said, will buy time for public school advocates to lobby for substantive changes at the state level. It’s a millage they might not need long-term, Norton said, but if they don’t get the funding now, the district will suffer.

School officials give a range of actions that would be necessary if they’re forced to slice $15 million from next year’s budget. Layoffs would be necessary, meaning that with fewer teachers, class sizes would increase. High schools would likely cut their 7th hour of classes, and “enhancement” programs like art, music and sports could be at risk.

In stating that the quality of Ann Arbor’s public schools is threatened, Norton, Roberts and others make an economic development argument as well. Education is a pillar of the local economy, Roberts said, pointing to its inclusion in the Ann Arbor Region Success initiative, a countywide strategic planning effort of business and community leaders. From that group’s report:

High quality education systems (from early childhood through post-secondary) are needed to develop skilled workers and attract companies and talent thinking of moving to our region. Companies thinking of expanding or relocating to our region need to know that their children can get the best education possible whether they live in our villages or urban core. This is one of the key factors that site selectors assess when recommending sites for expansion and relocation. High school graduation rates are good in most areas of the county but we need to consistently achieve high attainment levels in all school districts. [.PDF file of entire report.]

Karen Cross, a current former AAPS school board member, told The Chronicle that when people hear what’s at stake, they’re generally receptive to the millage. But that’s not always the case.

An anti-millage sign on East Huron River Drive earlier this year near the home of Ted Annis, a member of the Citizens for Responsible School Spending, which opposes the millage. (Photo by the writer.)

What Opponents Say

Critics of the millage proposal make two main arguments: 1) Districts haven’t made sufficient structural changes to lower their expenses, and 2) residents are in no position to absorb additional taxes in the current economic climate. The 17 mills that residents of Ann Arbor already pay should be sufficient, they say.

In Ann Arbor, some opponents also criticize the “redistribution of wealth” aspect of the millage. Because of how the money is collected and redistributed, Ann Arbor taxpayers will be paying more than will be returned to the Ann Arbor school district. That’s true: AAPS will only receive an estimated $11 million from the enhancement millage, though taxes from the district will generate about $16 million. The $5 million that’s not returned to AAPS will go to other districts in Washenaw County. (AAPS is already a “donor” district for the School Aid Fund, with local taxpayers paying more than the district receives back in state aid.)

Several groups have organized to defeat the millage, but taking the lead is the Citizens for Responsible School Spending, spearheaded by former AAPS board member Kathy Griswold and Ted Annis, a technology entrepreneur who’s on the board of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority.

“Fear-mongering”

Speaking to The Chronicle just before a meeting of CRSS on Sunday afternoon, Griswold characterizes the rhetoric of millage advocates as misleading and fear-mongering, likening it to the tactics that former president George W. Bush used to drum up support for the war in Iraq. She says the per-pupil amounts are misleading, too, and that per-pupil funding for AAPS is much higher – over $12,000 per pupil, not the $9,723 figure that’s quoted by the district. She calculates that amount by taking the district’s most recent audited financials (from the 2007-08 fiscal year) with general fund revenues of $192 million, dividing that by the number of students in the district, and adding another $1,500 per pupil from revenues of the sinking fund and bond millages. [Link to AAPS financial reports]

Kathy Griswold, foreground, attended an Oct. 15 millage forum at Huron High School's Little Theater. She is a former AAPS school board member and a leader of the Citizens for Responsible School Spending, which opposes the millage. (Photo by the writer.)

Griswold says that though the district has cut costs, the overall operating budget isn’t decreasing – the cuts merely mean that the budget is staying flat or increasing less than it otherwise would, she says.

Griswold also takes issue with the approach that public school officials take in pitching the millage to the public. There’s been a strong effort to get the vote out in Ann Arbor, she said, with the implication being that if Ann Arbor voters weigh in heavily in favor of the millage, then it won’t matter if it’s defeated by voters in the rest of the county. If a majority of the total votes approve the millage, every taxpayer will be assessed – even if it was defeated in their district. “That seems like taxation without representation,” she said.

The Washtenaw County Republican Executive Committee also is opposing the millage, and announced the decision on its website: “While the Committee was unanimously supportive of education, they felt the struggling homeowners and businesses in our difficult economy do not need an additional burden. Following a presentation and a question and answer period with the Superintendents from the Ann Arbor, Chelsea and Saline school districts, the Committee felt that cost cutting measures that the districts had not implemented and were still available were the better approach.”

Getting the Word Out

Citizens for Responsible Spending is planning a community forum sometime this week . They’re also providing the research they’ve done to several other anti-millage groups, including the Citizens for a Responsible Washtenaw, backed by McKinley CEO Albert Berriz. That group is expected to send a mailing to all Ann Arbor residents who’ve requested absentee ballots.

AAPS has already mailed informational brochures to 37,000 residents in the district, outlining details of the millage. The Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee sent a mailing, too, funded by private donors and explicitly advocating for the millage. Todd Roberts and Robert Allen held a forum last Thursday, and are holding another one tonight at Pioneer High School’s Little Theater, starting at 7 p.m. And representatives from the Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee have been speaking at PTO meetings and other gatherings in the district for the past several weeks.

Citing advocacy for the millage in schools, Citizens for Responsible Spending has raised the issue of possible Michigan Campaign Finance Act violations on the part of the Ann Arbor schools, a charge that Todd Roberts dismisses. In an email to Roberts and Norm Herbert, co-chair of the Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee, Annis and Griswold cite concerns over the use of school property for advocacy of the millage, and of advocacy in the AAPS brochure mailed to residents. Roberts told The Chronicle that the AAPS mailing was informational only, and that while other school officials are prohibited from using school resources to advocate for the millage, it is within his right as superintendent to do so. Griswold said that her group is still looking into the issue.

Advocates on both sides are meeting with the editorial board of AnnArbor.com, which plans to take a position on the millage. The editorial board – anchored by AnnArbor.com CEO Matt Kraner, executive vice president Laurel Champion and Tony Dearing, chief content officer – has been expanded to include some community members. McKinley’s Albert Berriz is a member of the board, but has recused himself from this issue, according to Dearing.

What’s Next?

Many districts are grappling with a financial crisis, even before the year of “The Cliff.” In Washtenaw County, Willow Run and Ypsilanti school districts are operating under a deficit – by law, those districts are required to file deficit elimination plans with the state, outlining how they plan to resolve the situation. Willow Run has been running a deficit for years; Ypsilanti had a $3.7 million deficit in its current budget, and the district has until Dec. 15 to submit a deficit elimination plan. [.PDF link to list of all Michigan school districts that filed a deficit elimination plan for fiscal 2008]

The numbers aren’t yet in on how many districts statewide are currently running a deficit, but there will be more, said David Martell, executive director of the Michigan School Business Officials, a Lansing-based group.

Tackling the problem is difficult, Martell said, because school administrators don’t have authority to make unilateral decisions about spending. If superintendents could make across-the-board cuts on the expense side, “then we wouldn’t be having these discussions,” he said. Multiple factors prevent that from happening, he added, including the authority of community-elected boards that are ultimately responsible for making tough budget decisions, but whose members might not be willing to take the political heat.

Many school officials and others point to the state as the primary cause of the current financial crisis in public education, and the main target for reform. Steve Norton of the Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee suggested that implementing a graduated income tax or expanding the sales tax to include the service sector would bring in new revenues to support public schools and, more broadly, to help address Michigan’s own structural deficit.

Roberts cited retirement costs – managed by the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System – as being a critical personnel issue that needs to be addressed, and one that local districts don’t control. The state sets the rate that districts must pay to cover retirement costs for its employees, and it’s not a sustainable system, he said. [Link to an April 2009 Education Report article about the impact of retirement costs on Michigan's public school districts.]

Term limits for legislators are another huge obstacle to addressing reform at the state level, advocates of public education say, but they believe the current crisis will prompt change – if only because there’s no other choice.

“This really is a tipping point,” Norton said.

Links to Millage-Related Information

-

Some of the groups against the proposed millage

• Citizens for Responsible School Spending
• Coalition for Taxpayer Relief [Link to campaign finance filing]
• Washtenaw County Taxpayers Association

Some groups supporting the millage

• Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee [Link to campaign finance filing]
• Ann Arbor Public Schools Educational Foundation
• Friends of Education [Link to campaign finance filing]
• Washtenaw Intermediate School District

From the schools

Some of the county’s 10 districts have posted information regarding the millage on their websites (most of the other districts link to the WISD site):

Ann Arbor Public Schools

Chelsea School District

Lincoln Consolidated Schools

Whitmore Lake Public Schools

Ypsilanti Public Schools

The truth is, the homeless are diverse – and a great many are invisible and forgotten.

Each day, I work with homeless families, children and youth as an education advocate with the Education Project for Homeless Youth. You likely won’t see them on the street or the off ramp of I-94. They instead are working or looking for work, figuring out how to get their child to school and how to get a meal on the table.

Many live in our area’s homeless shelters for families or youth, run by SOS Community Services, Interfaith Hospitality Network, Salvation Army, the SafeHouse Center and Ozone House. But of the 412 homeless children and youth served by The Education Project last school year, more than 300 did not stay in a shelter even one night during the school year.

Instead, these families live cramped in motels (where paying week by week with no utilities is cheaper then coming up with a deposit and first month’s rent). They live doubled up temporarily with friends or family – their children sleeping on couches or at times, the floor. Many of the youth we work with bounce from home to home to home, unsure where they’ll stay the next night. And some of the families we work with have to spend a night or two in their car or in an abandoned house with no heat.

You don’t see them the way you see some of the homeless living on the streets. But they’re there. And they need our help.

Families wait for months to get a spot at one of our local shelters, dutifully putting their names on several waiting lists, hoping they don’t burn bridges with their latest host and end up on the streets while they wait. They call agency after agency to string together enough emergency assistance to get into an apartment, but they often find the money isn’t there. They visit thrift shop after thrift shop in search of size 12 shoes for their teen or a winter coat – but too often lately, they find slim pickings. Our families spend hours trying to figure out where to get food and navigating each program’s eligibility requirements and necessary limitations. Is that one meal a month, three times a year? Can you help a fourth time?

To add insult to injury, support services for these families are limited. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (which helps fund emergency shelters in our community) more narrowly defines the term homeless than other federal agencies such as the Department of Education. Thus, by federal law, our schools must work with students living in motels and doubled-up situations, even while HUD only recognizes those in shelters or on the streets as homeless. In the end, the more than 300 children not in shelter lack case management and other supports that could help them end a life of mobility, instability and uncertainty.

Much is riding on our ability to respond to homeless children, a particularly invisible population in Washtenaw County. We know from research that children are resilient, but that the instability and chaos of homelessness take their toll. An estimated 75 percent of runaway and homeless youth dropped out or will drop out, while one in five homeless school-age children repeats a grade, twice the national rate for all children. These students face more developmental delays, anxiety, depression, behavioral problems and poor health than their housed peers, as well as lower academic achievement.

The Education Project, started in the early 1990s at the Washtenaw Intermediate School District, works to remove barriers to school success for homeless children and youth. We provide donated school supplies and pay for school-related expenses, such as school photos, field trips, athletic shoes and equipment, etc. We monitor the school performance of our teens and pay for correspondence classes that allow students to catch up and graduate on time. We pay for emergency transportation to school and coordinate school transportation that allows students to stay in the same school for the school year. And, when possible, we offer housing crisis support to the many families unable to get into shelter. We assess their resources, talk them through their options and offer referrals.

But like every agency serving the homeless, our resources are stretched by the huge increase in need. We are serving 30 percent more children than we did last year with no signs of slowing. For the first time in years, we have no gas cards left to give families to ensure their students miss no school and very little left in our emergency transportation fund. And we know the agencies we partner with are also struggling as needs increase and donations flat-line or decrease.

I have been heartened by the generosity of many this school year. Donations of school supplies hats, mittens and books have flooded into our office – sometimes from people struggling to make it themselves. This is the spirit that will get us through these tough times. We all must make difficult personal choices. Perhaps we must forgo a lunch out, buy more simple holiday gifts or cut costs in other ways. But we must find more ways to give more generously. The needs are too great and for me, they just aren’t invisible.

Peri Stone-Palmquist is coordinator of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District’s Education Project for Homeless Youth.