State House Burns Detroit Schools in Middle of Night Session

While we were sleeping, the State House Republicans pushed through some awful legislation that burns the Detroit schools. (In case you are wondering, the State Senate legislation is better, although in my opinion it is not better enough. But it is bipartisan.)


Pushed through. At 4:30 in the morning. That's a great time for decision-making, right?

Phone lines are open: Feel free to call House Speaker Kevin Cotter and give him a piece of your mind. Phone: 517-373-1789; Email: KevinCotter@house.mi.gov. 

The point, people, is that we would never. ever. ever. accept what they are doing to the Detroit Schools as equitable or just or reasonable or in the students' interests in Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Dexter, Okemos, East Grand Rapids...OR EVEN IN schools with a higher percentage of students of color like Southfield or Ypsilanti. 

Never. Ever. And that's because it's not equitable, just, reasonable, or in the students' interests.

[For instance--would we accept saying that all of the teachers have to apply for their jobs back, no guarantees, no union, and if they don't get them back, or don't apply, we can bring in uncertified teachers to teach our kids? I don't think so.]

And it's the same shameful thinking--death of a thousand cuts--that brings us the Flint lead crisis.

Which--in an educational sense--we will be paying for, for many years, because kids with lead poisoning will need special education services, which are mandated. [And by the way, a little shout out to all the Washtenaw County voters who said yes to the special education millage. Totally off topic, but...phew! We needed that.] Back to Detroit, where the schools probably need that money more.

What we can be proud of, folks, is the House Democratic caucus. There were some outstanding speeches. I am just sorry that some folks are either too thick skulled or too "in the pocket" of special interests (yes, I'm talking about the DeVos family agenda) to listen.

But do listen to the speeches:

Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo of Detroit, and former DPS teacher:

"The package today builds on that foundation of institutional racism."

Rep. Sam Singh of East Lansing:

"Just because you say it's about the kids, doesn't mean it's about the kids."

Rep. Adam Zemke of Ann Arbor:

From his Facebook post:  

In the middle of the night, House Republicans rammed through a partisan package of bills created specifically to set ‪Detroit Public Schools down a path of continued systemic financial and academic inadequacy. 

This package is intentionally designed to provide inadequate debt service to‪ DPS, to incorporate uncertified teachers in their classrooms and to allow the continued proliferation of unchecked, low-quality schools in the City of Detroit. 

It's despicable, low-down and dirty politics to satisfy the sick desires of one family on the west side of the state. The House Republican's plan reflects that they are bought and paid for.

Last, but not least--

Seth Meyers, of Late Night with Seth Meyers, stands with Detroit teachers:

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

AAPS Trustees Lightfoot and Stead Step Into State Policy Debates--Thank You!

I didn't know that AAPS Trustee Simone Lightfoot has been sitting on a subcommittee of the "Coalition for the Future of Detroit Schoolchildren," but she has been--and now she has resigned. Her letter is below, where she articulates why she had to resign.

Meanwhile, AAPS Trustee Stead deserves overdue (from February) recognition for pushing the school board to oppose the Education Achievement Authority and to support local control of public schools--and her memo to the school board is below as well. The entire school board approved the resolution.

Thank you to both of them!

From Simone Lightfoot: 

Today, I submitted my official letter of resignation from the COALITION FOR THE FUTURE OF DETROIT SCHOOL CHILDREN policy subcommittee. The statement needed to made. The Skillman Foundation and United Way along with our Governor and the corporate community are fully committed to destroying public education in Michigan....unacceptable!(See below my official letter of resignation) 

The sole member of a fully empowered, locally elected school board (Ann Arbor Board of Education) has resigned from the Coalition For The Future of Detroit School Children policy sub-committee to: evaluate the current-education related political and policy landscape and developing strategy and policy recommendations for the Coalition as it relates to the goal of transforming education in Detroit - in protest, criticizing the atmosphere of predetermined solutions, prioritized profit centered education, and an unwavering commitment to maintaining the EAA and other practices not evidence, achievement, or solution based. 

Dear Coalition For The Future Of Detroit School Children Policy Sub-Committee Members:
After much deliberation and multiple attempts to consider all pathways and outcomes, it is with great disappointment that I submit my official letter of resignation from the Coalition For The Future Of Detroit School Children policy subcommittee effective immediately.
I did not enter into this role lightly nor am I easily discouraged. I recognized from the outset that the eleven consecutively scheduled, Monday morning meetings would not be without sacrifice, conflict or compromise.
With that, I welcomed the opportunity to join other respected colleagues from across Southeast Michigan to lend my public policy, public education, civil rights and social justice expertise to our stated purpose of “evaluating the current education-related political and policy landscape while developing strategy and policy recommendations toward the goal of transforming education in Detroit”.
However, with just four meetings remaining, questions continue to plague the sub-committee as to our actual charge. This reality is incompatible with advancing thoughtful, sustainable best practices through collective review, consideration and feedback. Further concerns are exacerbated by the fact that no policies have been allowed to emerge from the fragmented, evolving and nuanced process in the manner promised. And which required we look at methodological and evidentiary-based solutions that focus on the unique challenges facing DPS and public education in our state.
To date, our only collective and deliberative action as a body has been to review proposal responses from several lobbying firms seeking to contract with the Coalition. In that process, each participating member had three options to exercise for their final choices, however the selected firm was presented to the body as the finalist without the benefit of witnessing or fully understanding the process by which that decision was made.
Moreover, our sub-committee has been continuously dissuaded from specific, expert, and thoughtful best practice solutions and persuaded toward broad, overarching and non-specific recommendations subject to broad interpretation. When questioned about this approach, we were directed to believe that the issues raised were somehow beyond our scope. In reviewing the charge of “developing strategy and policy recommendations toward the goal of transforming education in Detroit”, it is hard to imagine much of what we wanted to consider to be beyond that scope.
As time passed and multiple media accounts reported out important and relevant information not brought before our full body, more questions were raised. Each time the subcommittees concerns were brushed aside as unwarranted.
And rather than convening this outstanding group of vastly experienced education and policy leaders to cooperate and help shape solutions in a systematic way, those leading the conversation consistently re-directed it toward support for EAA, charter schools and for profit models of education.
At this point, it is without question clear that the direction and narrative dominating our work is to uphold the EAA (although another apparent failure to join the ranks of the other failing charter schools and for profit education experiments fostered on our students in the State of Michigan). I have become less and less satisfied with the apparent predetermined direction, solutions and commitment against public education of this effort and it appears we are no longer tasked with improving public education for Detroit – or anywhere else in Michigan.
Our work should leave Detroit Public Schools stronger and more empowered than before, with greater student learning outcomes and fiscal solvency. This sadly appears will not be the case.
I have a great deal of appreciation for my colleagues and their enormous time and travel commitment. Many of us volunteered for this work because we want a strong, vibrant and high achieving public school system across this state.
Unfortunately, those that lead this effort have prioritized preserving the EAA, for profit education ventures and charter schools over educational expertise, common sense dialogue and student centered, data driven decisions. In doing so they have also squander the educational legitimacy that at one time had been Michigan’s most potent offense, defense, economic and social driver. All while dismantling the largest and most effective institutional structures our nation has known, the public school system.
In keeping with this trajectory, we are straining beyond the limits of both the Detroit Public School and the Michigan education system in order to advance destructive educational outcomes that ensure instability to families, municipalities and school districts.
While it has been a privilege to witness first hand the inner workings of this policy sub-committee, it has become impossible for me to escape the conclusion, that the fervent political and profit centered policy pursuits of the Skillman Foundation, the United Way Foundation, the Governor and others on behalf of the EAA, charter schools and unproven educational experiments are not compatible with the interests I represent. The systematic manipulation of the subcommittee’s expertise intelligence is unacceptable.
I realize the emotion and tone of my letter and ask that you receive it in a manner that conveys my passionate concern and intimate awareness of the outcomes disparately impacting public education, education policy and urban school districts.
It is my contention that both my colleagues and I have extended more credibility than the current structure and destined outcomes deserve. And so, for the reasons outlined, I have determined my continued service on the Coalition For The Future Of Detroit School Children policy subcommittee is not the best use of my experience, public education expertise and time.
Simone Lightfoot
Trustee
Ann Arbor Board of Education

Christine Stead's memo to the school board: 

TO: AAPS Board of Education Trustees FROM: Christine SteadDATE: February 8, 2015SUBJECT: Resolution to Preserve Local Governance of Public Education
WHEREAS the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) maintains a governance body that is designated primarily by the Governor; and
WHEREAS the current school districts that comprise the EAA are the 15 original schools that were part of the Detroit Public Schools, and;
WHEREAS the right to a free and public education, governed by locally elected officials, remains the foundation of public education in the United States, and;
WHEREAS the elected Board of Education for the Detroit Public Schools continues to be excluded from the governance of the EAA, and
WHEREAS a recent academic review performed by the Educational Policy Center of Michigan State University was unable to document any improvement in student outcomes under the EAA1 and;
WHEREAS this same study shows that the EAA continues to exceed cost expectations, while realizing a negative economic return on investment, and;
WHEREAS the citizens of the current EAA school districts have a right to representation in the governance of their schools, which is currently being denied them;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
The Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education
• Stands by the right of the people of Detroit to elect School Board Members for the Detroit Public Schools and upholds their right to be fully empowered to govern their schools and represent their community; and
• Opposes the continued erosion of local governance across the State of Michigan; and
• Opposes any efforts to expand the EAA until the model can be realigned with local governance in a way that enhances public trust and until the model has demonstrated positive educational and economic results; and
• Opposes any further efforts to remove the oversight of education away from education-focused governing bodies, including the Governor’s recent suggestion to move the school reform office (where the EAA resides) out of the Department of Education and into the Department of Technology, Management and Budget; and
• Directs the Executive Assistant of the Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education to transmit copies of this resolution to:
Governor Rick SnyderSenate Majority LeaderSpeaker of the HouseSenate Democratic leaderMinority Leader of the HouseChair, House Education CommitteeChair, Senate Education CommitteeChair, House Appropriations CommitteeChair, Senate Appropriations CommitteeSenator Rebekah Warren, 18th DistrictRepresentative Jeff Irwin, 53rd DistrictRepresentative David Rutledge, 54th DistrictRepresentative Adam ZemkeRepresentative Gretchen DriskellJohn Austin, President, State Board of Education and all members of the State Board of EducationDon Wortuba, Executive Director, Michigan Association of School BoardsLocal print, voice, and internet media.
[1] “Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority and the Future of Public Education in Detroit: The Challenge of Aligning Policy Design and Policy Goals”, Working Paper #3; Mary Mason and David Arsen, The Education Policy Center, Michigan State University, December 2014.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

BREAKING: Education Achievement Authority Looks for Teachers to Teach in a "Christian Setting"

The Education Achievement Authority (EAA), the controversial publicly-funded school system that has taken over 15 "failing" schools that were formerly Detroit Public Schools, is advertising for lead preschool teachers for three schools (Bethune, Law, and Brenda Scott) who will be "responsible for implementing a developmentally appropriate early childhood education curriculum in a Christian setting."

According to a letter sent to the EAA by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, a teacher called the ACLU last week to alert them to this job posting.

Excerpt from the EAA preschool teacher job posting. Found online at http://michigan.gov/documents/eaa/Preschool_Teachers_441799_7.pdf on 2/25/2014.

What's more, because the EAA is the vehicle for the state-run State School Reform/Redesign District, the job posting is actually hosted on the State of Michigan's web site, michigan.gov. [Find other documents from the EAA at michigan.gov/eaa.]

In the letter to Chancellor John Covington, the head of the EAA, from Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, the ACLU notes that:

There is no principle more fundamental to American public education than the requirement that schools be welcoming of all students and teachers regardless of religious or racial background. Our Constitution wisely requires schools to remain neutral in matters of religion. . . 

I hope that you will respond to this letter by explaining that the use of the "Christian setting" language was somehow a mistake and that you will change the job description right away. Even if it was a mistake, however, we are distressed by how many EAA administrators and staff must have read the job announcement without thinking it was wrong or demanding that it be changed. Moreover, we wonder how many excellent teachers who are Muslim, Jewish or not religious read the job description and decided not to apply because they believed they were not wanted. Indeed, how many top notch teachers who are Christian decided not to apply because they thought it was improper to teach public school students in a religious environment?

Read the entire letter, including Exhibit A (a .pdf of the job description) here.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Highland Park: The New Kalkaska?

The other day I was surprised to hear, on NPR, that Governor Snyder was telling the parents of students in the Highland Park, Michigan school district, that the district might run out of money and have to shut its doors even before the end of the school year--and/or he might appoint an emergency financial manager. (Snyder has already determined that there is a financial emergency.)

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. This is a road that Willow Run could be going down as well, as I described a few days ago. Just a few short weeks ago Highland Park got an emergency loan from the state to cover payroll.

According to this Detroit Free Press article,

The [emergency financial review] team found that a financial emergency exists based on factors including ending the school year on June 30 with an $11.3-million deficit, a 51% increase from the previous year.
The district had an operating deficit in excess of revenues for five of the six years evaluated and an average operating deficit of $2.3 million over seven years, [Michigan Department of Education Deputy Superintendent] Wolenberg said in her presentation on behalf of the review team.
The district saw a decrease in enrollment from 1,858 students in 2010 to 1,331 in 2011. There are currently 969 students enrolled, and about 40% of them live in Detroit, Wolenberg said. (1/21/2012)

Based on this determination, Governor Snyder sent out a letter to parents of students in the district. According to district officials,

the letter sends a deceptive message and could be taken as a warning to parents to get out of the district.
"If you were a parent this would be intended to scare you," said Highland Park school board secretary Robert Davis. "This is unprecedented communication with the parents. Why wouldn't you notify district officials?"

That's not the governor's perspective.

Sara Wurfel, a spokeswoman for Snyder, said the letter was meant to address the anger, fear and frustrations of the district's parents.

(Both quotes taken from a 1/24/2012 article in the Detroit Free Press, Highland Park schools 'in jeopardy of closing,' Snyder tells parents.)


Do you even know where Highland Park is? It is a small, impoverished urban community (fewer than 12,000 people) completely surrounded by the City of Detroit.

It also happens to be nearly 93% African-American. Just like many other communities that either have had emergency financial managers assigned to them or have the threat of them being assigned hanging over their heads.

And the city of Highland Park itself has been under emergency management for most of the decade of the oughts (as the 2000s can be called).

Do you even know where Kalkaska is? It is a small, poor (but not as poor as Highland Park) rural community with a population of under 2300, located in Kalkaska County in the northwestern part of the Lower Peninsula. The school district is geographically (and populationally--yes, I know that is not a word, but I like it anyway) larger than the village of Kalkaska, with something closer to 13,000 residents. (I'm not sure of the boundaries so I can't be too exact.) 

Oh, and Kalkaska happens to be over 96% white.

So in some ways, Kalkaska is a mirror image of Highland Park. But they also have a lot in common. This article from the Ludington Daily News of March 6, 1993, "Kalkaska system on brink of early closing as funds run out," explains it nicely.

Kalkaska (and other districts, too, like Ypsilanti!) was under a lot of financial stress--and the district famously closed three months early, at the end of March, in 1993.

And this "shot heard round Michigan," (if not the world) created a lot of impetus for the development of Proposal A. And as we see now, Proposal A solved some problems, but it created a whole host of others.

In 2012, Highland Park is not the only school district faced with the possibility of closing. Only this time, rather than the decision being made by the people who live there, the decision would be made by the state.

And I wonder, will any of this be the necessary catalyst for change? And if not, why not? Would race have anything to do with it?

Taxes and the School Aid Fund

Brian Dickerson's piece today in the Free Press, Don't Call It A Tax Cut, is awesome.

It starts with this:

The intramural haggling among Republican lawmakers is nearly over, and Gov. Rick Snyder will soon sign legislation that changes what state government does -- and who pays for it.
• Businesses will be relieved of much of their current state tax burden.
• Individual taxpayers will pick up a larger share of the bill for state services.
• Michigan will reduce spending on education at every level from pre-K to graduate school.
Many Republicans who supported these changes are describing them as an overall tax cut, on the grounds that, as a whole, taxpayers will pay less.
If you're buying that, please send me a check for $1,000. I'll use the money to make a down payment on a new car , you can keep your old one, and our transportation options -- as a whole -- will improve (although you might be a little short on gas money for a while).
Remember: We're in this together.
On this side of Alice's looking glass, most people recognize that what has happened is a massive tax shift -- one that takes much of the load off employers and redistributes it among those they employ -- or used to employ.

Peter Luke's article on how the legislature will have some 'splaining to do if they cut the School Aid Fund even though there is now more money in the till is quite good as well. 

Not every legislator has a university in his or her district, or a community college. But they all have a K-12 school district populated with currently angry parents of all political persuasions.
That fact is why the idea of cutting schools by hundreds of dollars per student, when there’s a sizable revenue surplus in the main state fund for education, should be causing such legislative angst.

In annarbor.com, Lucy Ann Lance interviews Liz Margolis of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, who explains why she believes that the School Aid Fund should not be used to pay for colleges.

Lucy Ann: What’s the idea behind calling it K-20 funding now?
Margolis: That is what the governor’s calling it. He’s caging the education budget as a PreK-20, and that’s one of our issues. He’s taking some of the money that he calls surplus; but I’ll tell you, Lucy Ann, that it’s really not surplus. It’s money that they pro-rated and took from the public school districts from the past two years in the middle of the school year. They’re calling it a surplus but the governor is proposing that that money goes to universities, and that is very troubling to us because universities raise money and, obviously, can raise tuition. Public schools have no way to gain that revenue. So we’re really unhappy about the move to take that money out of the PreK-12 budget and move it to the universities and sort of cage this as a PreK through the end of college, because it’s apples to oranges.

All of which is reason that we should KEEP the PRESSURE on our legislature to restore funding to K-12 schools. 

Yes, it matters. Less funding translates into bigger classes and fewer teachers. For example, in Detroit, tomorrow teachers find out what exactly Robert Bobb is proposing in terms of the teacher's contract. (Remember, the entire teaching staff got pink slipped recently and Bobb said he was going to unilaterally modify their union contract.)

So, keep the pressure on. Michigan Parents for Schools is putting out action updates, and you can send information to your legislators--where ever you live in this state--at their legislative action center page.

Shell Game?

The Detroit school district is facing a huge deficit.

As it is right now, classes are overcrowded, even in the schools that are not "failing" schools; some teachers have been transferred so often they couldn't even provide grades to their students; there has been a teacher shortage in critical specialties; and there is a new technology initiative paid for by stimulus funds but it is very unclear how teachers will be trained to use the technology or how they will replace it as it needs replacement. (See John Sowash's post about that here.)

Robert Bobb is supposed to be in charge of the finances. And he estimates that if he were to balance the budget now, the average class size would be 62 students. That is what would happen with the deficit elimination plan that he was required to submit to the state. And that would obviously be a bad idea. He also doesn't prefer it.

The Detroit media has been highlighting Robert Bobb's other ideas--one of which involves splitting the Detroit school district in two. At first I thought that this idea was inspired by the division of GM as it went through bankruptcy. With GM (and I know I'm oversimplifying here), the "new" GM got to keep the GM name, and all the "good" assets--and the old GM got stuck with all the "bad" assets, but it has freed up the "new" GM to move forward. OK, that might be a controversial idea, but as Rochelle Riley said in a Detroit Free Press column, it might get people talking. And I'm all for thinking outside the box.

But what, exactly, is he talking about? NOT what I thought. No, according to this Detroit Free Press article, he's talking about

Over the past month, Bobb has also suggested two other proposals that would require lawmakers to amend state law, but he has yet to gain traction in Lansing.
One proposal would securitize $400 million in state tobacco settlement funds to distribute to all of the state’s deficit districts.
The other proposal also would require a significant -- but undetermined -- amount of state funds. That plan would split the district into two entities on paper -- one that would pay off the debts and one that would be debt-free and need start-up funding.

 Huh?

According to Rochelle Riley, Free Press columnist,

One would have 9,000 students and use all of the per-pupil dollars the state distributes to DPS next year to wipe out the debt and to operate.
The other would educate the district's other 66,000 students, using unknown start-up funds.
Bobb declined to discuss the plan, which he's still working up, but his spokesman, Steve Wasko, said the move would be "seamless to parents" and students, and a financial, not academic, step. (Emphasis added.)

Wait--the "good" district gets 9,000 students and the "bad" district gets 66,000 students? That sounds fishy to me.

In that same article,

Keith Johnson, president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers, said his first reaction to the plan was: "Brown v. Board of Education. That was the first thing that popped into my mind, separate but unequal. My biggest fear is ... that you're designating a segment of this community and children as being less than and thus educably expendable.
"We know that the schools that would be debt-free would be those schools that are consistently high-performing and those schools that are being newly built. So we're talking about the Casses, the Bates, the Ludingtons, the Langston Hughes, the Charles Wrights, the Renaissances... Who's going to be left in the debt-ridden district? Those schools that are low-performing, schools like Denby, Osborn, Central High School, some of our low-performing elementary or schools that service children with the highest degree of learning disabilities."

Think this is only a Detroit problem? Think again. We've got our own districts in this situation. You can only cut programs so far, and who would fund this other district? Let's just remember: it's one thing to put "bad assets" into a bankrupt district. But there's this sticky problem. Schools are not about assets. They are about kids. What about the kids?

Cui Bono?

When I was in graduate school, I turned in an early draft of a policy paper in an education class (as was required), and got back the comment from the professor,  
"Cui bono?" 
"Who," she wrote, "benefits from this policy? You need to answer that question."

*********

You may, or may not, have been following the saga of the Detroit school district and its emergency "financial" manager, Robert Bobb. He has come in to "clean up" the mess, improve the schools, etc. For the first year, I liked him. Now, I'm not so sure. And his latest idea (the one I really didn't get, when I read about it in the Detroit Free Press), is to get bonds to build new schools, while at the same time closing half of the city's schools. According to his projections, the number of students in the district is going to drop by half within a couple of years. But even if he's right about that, I still don't understand why you would close all these schools and build new. Detroit is already full of abandoned buildings.

In any case, this week I was asking a Detroit community activist about it. "Look," he said. "This is about the privatization and dismantling of the Detroit schools. That's how it's going to end up." I was stunned for a minute, not able to figure out what he meant, and then the proverbial light bulb went off in my head.

In fact, I wrote about it last week. Here. "When you close a school, who are potential buyers? For whom is a building like a school perfectly suited? Why, for another school."


*********

Coincidentally (I know, that's hard to believe), my husband got an email today from a Detroit architect, who noted that the Detroit school district is selling many, many DPS buildings--and maybe they can be repurposed for good community projects.

So--in Detroit we've got tons of school buildings, going for fire sale prices, and although the Detroit architect is correct, it is highly likely that a lot of them will be bought up by. . . charter schools. Unlike the old days that I wrote about last week (pre-1994, pre-Proposal A), now it really matters financially where kids go to school. Students bring their money with them, and all of that moving around can wreck a district because districts don't know until the middle of September what their actual student counts are, and there is less stability in funding and more difficulty in planning. (And that is leaving aside the "small" matter of the state legislature not figuring out until partway through the school year just how much money each district should get per-pupil.)

In 1985, when the Ann Arbor school district reorganized, and a few private schools bought old school buildings, it created a form of indirect competition. It did not directly affect the amount of money the school district had available to it. And now, it does. Now, every student who leaves DPS takes their money with them. So charter schools create direct competition.

Was John Engler's main goal to dismantle the public schools? Is that the goal of Robert Bobb?
[I know that technically charter schools are "public." But they are not public in the same way as our traditional public schools, and some are more public than others. More on that another time.]


*********

Today, I was thinking: Cui bono?

According to this Free Press article, Robert Bobb let go many administrative staff in the DPS schools, and then hired consultants to do the work for more money. Wait--isn't he supposed to save money? So: Cui bono?

Just now, I got a "tweet" that the Ypsilanti school board approved the closing of Chappelle Elementary, and the reconfiguration of grade levels that goes along with that, on a 5-2 vote. Cui bono?

If the Ann Arbor schools privatize maintenance and transportation, cui bono?

If the Dexter schools decide to follow the International Baccalaureate program, cui bono? 

If the state government doesn't raise per-pupil school funding, cui bono?

You get the idea. Follow the money, and see who gets the benefit.
And here is my related question: If somebody benefits, is it always the case that somebody has to lose? And then--who are the losers? The students? The community? The employees?

The Rest Is Commentary

Here are a few thoughts about events of the last few months.

On the good side:
Maybe things are looking up in the Willow Run schools. I don't say that because their finances have improved (they haven't). At least, though, their school board has finally figured out that it is supposed to make some decisions, and it seems they may be doing the best they can. They shunted their erstwhile superintendent into a side (newly-created) position, in a way that might seem like a waste of money when they have none. Except I don't think it was--if her contract had been written better, they could have fired her for complete and absolute dereliction of duty. But it wasn't, and putting her in this position avoids a potential lawsuit. And people seem to like the principal they've made as acting superintendent, so--all in all--they appear to at least be trying to move in a positive direction.
Lincoln Schools decided not to cut all bus transportation. This probably was meant to keep people from running to charters and other schools. (Is bus transportation the only thing that keeps people in the Lincoln Schools?) Nonetheless, on behalf of all working parents in the Lincoln school district, I thank them.


On the "I thought this was a bad idea but it happened anyway" side:
Detroit school teachers approved a contract that has them taking $10,000 out of their own salaries and loaning it to the school district. The idea is ingenious on the part of Robert Bobb, but if I were a teacher I wouldn't have voted for that. First, if I'm going to loan money it will likely be to my family or friends. Second, bankers everywhere have assessed the Detroit Public Schools as a poor credit risk. Why should teachers take on that credit risk? The whole thing really shows up how weak the unions have become--despite what the press might say.
At the last minute, the state legislature approved changes that could qualify the state for federal Race to the Top money. First, my assessment of the changes--they are a mixed bag, some are good (alternate certification paths for teachers) and some will probably hurt local school districts (more charter schools?) . Don't believe for a minute that the last-minute agreements on this mean that the legislature is acting like a legislature. No--it was the chance to qualify for free money--that got them talking. Don't expect them to be able to act like a decision-making body next year. In any case, in addition to the fact that not all of the changes will be good for the state, there is a better than even chance that we won't get any of the money at all. There are more states competing for the money than there are awards. And--even if we get the money, that money won't go to all school districts, but only a select few.

I'm sure there's more, but I will stop there.