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!

Understanding the Impact of the Governor's Budget Proposal on Michigan Schools

Michigan Parents for Schools has a detailed summary of the Governor's budget proposal and its impact on Michigan schools.

I'm including a few excerpts here, and then you should really read the whole thing. With these state proposals, the devil is n the details.

Per-pupil funding underlines the distribution of school funds. 

The governor's executive budget recommendation is headlined by a modest increase in per-pupil funding. Districts at the current minimum level of $7,391 - which includes some 60% of all students - would receive $120 more per pupil for their general operating needs. Districts at or above the state maximum (currently $778 higher or $8,169) would get an increase of $60 per pupil.

Districts at the current minimum level of funding: think Manchester and Whitmore Lake.
Districts at or above the state maximum: think Ann Arbor.

Compare this to the year my daughter was born (which is also the year Proposal A started): 

Put another way, the small number of districts which were at the bare minimum spending level when Proposal A took effect in 1994 are still doing better than when they started, adjusted for inflation, but they have not recovered the levels they saw in 2010-11. Districts which started out at the "basic" level of funding ($5,000 in 1994) have lost some ground and are below where they started in 1994, adjusting for inflation, wiping out the gains from the first decade of this century. Districts at the higher end have done even worse: if they received what was the state maximum in 1994 ($6,500), they have lost ground against inflation nearly every year since then and the draft budget would let them buy about 17% less now than they were able to 22 years ago. (Emphasis added. Yes, that describes Ann Arbor.)

Retirement funding significantly affects school district resources.

Costs of the state-run school employee retirement system (MPSERS) continue to have a major impact on the budget. Unfortunately, unlike some other states, Michigan does not cover these costs from other funding sources, but instead uses money from the school aid budget. The cost of funding the retirement system has risen astronomically in recent years, and not because benefits are getting richer. As districts shed teachers and other staff in downsizing, and as more services are privatized, there are fewer employees paying into the system while the number of retirees is growing. . . As a result, contributions equal to about 36% of payroll have to be made by the state and school district employers (employees also make their own contributions). Ten years ago, this rate stood at a little over 16%.  (Emphasis added.)

Who was RIchard Headlee and why should you care?
Image used under a Creative Commons license
and taken from here.

Read the rest here. There is much more.

A lot of people think this stuff is a bit boring. And complicated.

Even if you are one of those people, you should know that it's essential for us to wrap our heads around 20j, the Headlee Amendment, plans for Detroit and Flint schools (among others), funding for charter schools, and how funding for higher education interacts with the School Aid Fund.

They are our schools--but only if we claim them.



Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Guest Post: A Parent Reviews Her Child's M-STEP Results, and Learns...

A guest post by Naomi Zikmund-Fisher about the M-STEP results, and what they mean.

Last week, we finally received my children’s scores from the M-STEP test they took last spring. My son, a fourth grader at the time (now 5th) and my daughter, a high school Junior (now senior) both took the test. For more on that decision, you can read here.

In the interest of maintaining some of their privacy, I’m not going to share how my kids did on the test. More to the point, it probably doesn’t matter how they did on the test, as their performance on this first round appears to be being largely discarded.

As a former teacher and administrator, I probably know more about how to read a score report than most parents. Theoretically, I should be able to get all there is to get out of these scores. So, here’s what I learned from looking at my children’s score reports:

1. Last spring, my children were doing about as well in their academic progress as their teachers said they were. There were no real surprises. You could have looked at their report cards and gotten the same information that M-STEP gives you.

2. That information is wildly out of date. They took this test in a window from March to May. I got the scores in January. Whatever new information may have been useful in the scores is no longer pertinent.

3. The science and social studies tests measure curriculum alignment more than anything else. They are broken out by different smaller subjects (e.g. physical science, life science or economics, geography). You can see that in this sample of a child’s 4th grade science scores.

Sample M-Step information provided to parents, in this case for the science test.

When they say a child is proficient, what does that mean?

My children did best in areas that they had studied recently and worst in those from previous years. In other words, this test measured what classes they were taking, not anything about my children or about whether their teachers were teaching well.

4. The target area for “proficient” is, in some cases, shockingly small. Scores are reported graphically (among other ways) on a continuum of four ranges. Proficient is the second to the top and is the smallest area, sometimes by quite a bit.

But shouldn’t “just fine” be a fairly broad range of kids? When did we stop recognizing that “normal” isn’t a single point, it’s a spectrum?

Sample of information provided to parents. Note that the grey "margin of error" overlaps both the "partially proficient" and advanced categories, meaning that a child who scores in the yellow/gray overlap as "partially proficient" might actually be "proficient" on another day. Note also that the green ball of "proficient" is a much smaller area than the bars for not proficient, partially proficient, or advanced.

This picture shows the score graphic for the same student whose subject scores were above. This child is supposedly proficient in 4th grade science [the score is right in the middle of the green bubble]. As you can see, this is quite a feat, since the “Proficient” range is about 5.5% of the total.

What’s more, while it’s great that the score report acknowledges a “margin of error” around the score, that margin is substantially larger than the target itself. This means that three kids who score as “partially proficient,” “proficient,” and “advanced” might all know exactly the same amount of science. We sing the praises of one (and the wonderful teacher who taught her) while wringing our hands about another (and the mediocre educator she had) when there is truly no difference at all.

In the end, what I realize once again is that this data is designed to measure districts and schools much more than to give us any useful information about individual children. Even without the huge delay in score reporting, the amount of useful information, that you can’t find more easily somewhere else, about a single child is minimal.

It’s reasonable to say that the measure of a school or a district is how well its children are prepared for the next phase of life. The problem is, we’re substituting this test for the real answer to that question. We’re asking our kids to take hours upon hours of tests – time they could spend actually learning something – in service of measuring their school system.

If we already know how they’re going to do on the tests, then we already know what the answer we’re going to get will be. And if we don’t already know how they’re going to do on the tests, it’s either a really bad test or a school so out of touch with students that it should be obvious in multiple other ways.

I can say unequivocally, however, as an educator and as a parent, that the M-STEP given last spring was just plain a waste of my children’s time.

[When] Are We on the Same Team?

I'll start with a story I heard from my kids several years ago. I wasn't actually there. Every year my parents run a "grandparents camp" where the parents aren't allowed. (Cool, huh?!) And this story is from there.


Two of my nieces (sisters) used to fight a lot. Now they get along well, but back in the day, when they were closer to 8 and 10 years old, that wasn't the case.
So the story goes that they had been fighting while in the car, and they started yelling at each other,

"I'm telling Mom and Dad on you." "I'm telling Mom and Dad on you."

And my kids intervened (according to them), and said,

"What are you two doing?! You're on the same team! You're on the same team!"

*****************************
Side Note: You might be thinking (accurately) that this tells you something about my and my husband's relationship with our kids, and you'd be right...

*****************************

So anyway, I've been thinking about the relationship between parents, teachers, and the school board. Right now, trust is kind of low (between teachers and the school board/administration, for sure, and maybe between parents and the school board as well), and I've been wondering:

Are we on the same team? When are we on the same team?

Take me, for example.
I'm clearly in agreement with lots of the Ann Arbor school administration and board's initiatives: A2 Steam, the IB program, taking a clear stand against guns in the schools, just to name a few.

But I'm not in agreement with some positions they have taken on testing, on the processes for decisions, and on teacher evaluation.
[Quick summary: I believe parents have the right to opt students out of testing; that the end does not justify the means; and that you'll be hearing a lot about teacher evaluation in the coming weeks.]

But I AM completely in agreement with the school board and the administration on how much harder we need to fight to get adequate funding for schools--not just Ann Arbor's schools, but Flint's schools, and Detroit's schools, and Traverse City's schools, and Alpena's schools.

What's more, I really appreciate when the administration and school board are willing to stand up to the state and demand safe schools and well-funded schools.

********************************************

So I sometimes find myself torn. I want to support the school board and administration's work in Lansing; I want to support many local initiatives.

I don't want to support testing. I don't want to support activities that alienate and frighten teachers. I don't want to support pushing anything through without due process (except in an emergency, obviously).

*********************************************

And as I reflect on my children's interactions with their cousins, I think the appropriate answer is:

Sometimes we are on the same team. And sometimes we're not.  But a lot of the time, we're really on the same team, in that we all want the same thing--excellent schools.

Yet we don't necessarily agree on how to get there.

You know what? I don't think that is a bad thing.

*********************************************

I hope we can remember that when it comes to Lansing and funding or keeping guns out of our schools, no matter what our local differences are, we will need to unite.




Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

ASK ME! An MEA Ad Featuring a Local Teacher

I don't usually enjoy ads, but this one--I did. The theme?

ASK ME.

 Local teacher Patti Smith is featured. See if you can catch her!




 

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

State Legislation: Thank You, Local School Boards, Superintendents, Representatives

I think I would be remiss if I didn't thank the school board and superintendent (and, in fact, not just of Ann Arbor, but of Lincoln schools and maybe some other local ones as well), for taking policy issues to the legislators.

1. Ann Arbor Superintendent Jeanice Swift testified at a Senate Committee hearing against the idea of having guns, whether open carry or concealed carry, in schools. 

Here is an excerpt of her statement:

My remarks today are directed specifically toward the question of allowing concealed carry in pre K-12 schools.  

We recognize the proposed legislation is considered by some as a ‘fix,’ a compromise, an effective way to close the ‘open carry loophole’ that currently exists in Michigan law. Clearly, some consider ‘concealed carry’ as an improvement over ‘open carry.’ 

We understand that the stated intent of the legislation may in part be designed to remove the concerns with weapons that are visibly displayed in school and so prove a disruption to ensuring a safe, secure, learning environment. However, it is overwhelmingly clear that guns, visible or concealed, pose a significant risk to the safety and wellbeing of students, staff, and families at school.

You should read the rest, because Dr. Swift gives some shocking examples that happened in real life, that explain why guns in schools are a bad idea.

2. On the "third grade retention bill," which would provide interventions for struggling readers but also would require kids to be retained, the bill has passed out of the House more or less on party lines. My representative, Adam Zemke, originally was a co-sponsor but withdrew his support. According to this article,

The proposal was approved in a 57-48 vote, mostly along party lines, and now heads to the Senate. Democratic Rep. Adam Zemke of Ann Arbor, an original co-sponsor of the bill and key player in negotiations, withdrew support on the floor and removed his name from the measure.
Zemke had proposed an amendment to allow struggling readers to advance to fourth grade if they were working to improve under an individualized reading plan and had support from school administrators and parents. The amendment was rejected.
"This bill, without that amendment, then tells Johnny none of that (work) matters," Zemke said. "We're going to hold you back regardless. I am not going to remove the hope of a 9-year-old, period."

Thank you Lincoln Consolidated Schools Board for opposing this bill!
Thank you, Representative Zemke! The bill now goes to the Senate.

The bills go to the Senate next. The Capitol is

pretty. What's going on inside? Not so much.

3. The Teacher Evaluation bill passed the House. It's better than it was, but it's still (in  my opinion) bad, and I appreciate Rep. Jeff Irwin's opposition to this bill. He wrote on facebook:

I also have concerns about SB 103, the educator evaluation policy. My opposition stems in part from my opposition to the changes made to the tenure act in 2011. But, my opposition is deeper than my desire to stunt the effect of those changes. Mainly, I'm opposed to the bill because it accepts the toxic notion that education will be improved by more testing and more motivation for the teachers. This bill accelerates the problem we have with teaching to the test. If we want educators to teach to the test, the best way is to approve legislation like this that bases their employment and promotion on testing.
Also, I don't think the tests we're mandating produce consistent and reliable results. In other states that have adopted similar policies relying on testing growth (or value added), teachers are rated highly effective one year and then ineffective the next. The assessments bounce all over and this legislation will provide unreliable information to parents and school leaders. Our students and educators deserve better. (Emphasis added.)

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Lesson Learned? Pb, H2O, EAA & Investigative Reporting

Have you been reading about the scandal with lead [Pb] in the drinking water [H2O] in Flint? 

Maybe you have been wondering who is responsible for this mess. [Hint: start by looking at the emergency manager situation.]

Lead, in the periodic table.

Maybe you have have been wondering about the side effects of lead, and how they might affect a child's learning throughout life. In adults, lead can cause stillbirth, miscarriage, infertility. In kids?

• decreased bone and muscle growth
• poor muscle coordination
• damage to the nervous system, kidneys, and/or hearing
• speech and language problems
• developmental delay
• seizures and unconsciousness (in cases of extremely high lead levels

You know, there is a reason that kids are tested for lead when they go to WIC. 

(Side note: So yes, those kids with problems related to high lead levels could end up with being retained in third grade, if HB 4822 is passed with mandatory retention still in it, and if their learning delays are not diagnosed before then.)

Did you spend last year reading about the EAA, Detroit's "Education Achievement Authority?"

Maybe you wondered who was responsible for the EAA. Maybe you wondered about its staffing, its pay, what kids were getting taught... where the money was coming from, where it was going to...

How did we find out?

Eventually, our standard news outlets started doing a better job covering these stories (see, for example, this story). But in the beginning...in the beginning it was just some activists (education activists in the case of the EAA, and community activists in the case of the Flint water scandal), and a couple of people who were willing and able to investigate these issues. 

Worth noting: These "investigators" were not found where you would normally expect them to be found (by which I mean, the traditional press.)

In the case of the EAA, a state representative, Ellen Cogen Lipton, spent time and money FOIA'ing important documents.

In the case of the Flint water catastrophe, the decision of the ACLU of Michigan to hire an investigative reporter, Curt Guyette, a couple of years ago, made the difference.

In both cases, the links between state-directed emergency management and problems that directly injure kids and their families are inescapable. 

But what's also inescapable is that non-traditional investigations, using tools like the Freedom of Information Act, and with the person or people driving the investigation not being traditional reporters, made these stories see the light of day. 

Lessons learned:

We need more investigative reporters.
If we don't get them from our traditional news sources (and sometimes we do), we need to turn ourselves into citizen investigators.
I am grateful--very, very grateful--for the individuals and organizations that have invested time, effort, and energy into uncovering these stories.

What stories do you think need investigating, that haven't been investigated yet?


Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Reading--The Legislature Is Too Interested, the State Supreme Court Is Not Interested Enough

Third Grade Reading Bill Passes House Education Committee--What's In It?

The "third grade reading bill," as it is being called in shorthand, has passed the state house education committee. To my great disappointment, my representative (Adam Zemke) has signed on as a sponsor.


5) BEGINNING WITH PUPILS ENROLLED IN GRADE 3 DURING THE 2016-
8 2017 SCHOOL YEAR, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
9 (A) IF A PUPIL ENROLLED IN GRADE 3 IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
10 PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY IS RATED 1 FULL GRADE LEVEL OR MORE BEHIND IN
11 READING, AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE READING12 PORTION OF THE GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT, THE
13 BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUBLIC
14 SCHOOL ACADEMY IN WHICH THE PUPIL IS ENROLLED SHALL ENSURE THAT THE
15 PUPIL IS NOT ENROLLED IN GRADE 4 UNTIL 1 OF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS:
16 (i) THE PUPIL ACHIEVES A GRADE 3 LEVEL READING SCORE AS
17 DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH
18 LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT.
19 (ii) THE PUPIL DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH
20 PERFORMANCE ON AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDIZED READING ASSESSMENT
21 APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
22 (iii) THE PUPIL DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH A
23 PUPIL PORTFOLIO, AS EVIDENCED BY DEMONSTRATING MASTERY OF ALL GRADE
24 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARDS THROUGH MULTIPLE WORK
25 SAMPLES.
26 (B) IF A CHILD YOUNGER THAN 10 YEARS OF AGE SEEKS TO ENROLL
27 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY IN 
1 GRADE 4, THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
2 THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO ENROLL IN
3 GRADE 4 UNLESS 1 OF THE FOLLOWING OCCURS:
4 (i) THE CHILD ACHIEVES A GRADE 3 LEVEL READING SCORE AS
5 DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE READING PORTION OF THE
6 GRADE 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS ASSESSMENT.
7 (ii) THE CHILD DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH
8 PERFORMANCE ON AN ALTERNATIVE STANDARDIZED READING ASSESSMENT
9 APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.
10 (iii) THE CHILD DEMONSTRATES A GRADE 3 READING LEVEL THROUGH A
11 PUPIL PORTFOLIO, AS EVIDENCED BY DEMONSTRATING MASTERY OF ALL GRADE
12 3 STATE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARDS THROUGH MULTIPLE WORK
13 SAMPLES.

In other words--typically a student could be held back based on just his or her performance on a state test. 

14 (C) SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (12), IF A PUPIL IS NOT ENROLLED IN
15 GRADE 4 DUE TO THE OPERATION OF THIS SUBSECTION AND THE PUPIL HAS
16 DEMONSTRATED PROFICIENCY IN MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, WRITING, OR
17 SOCIAL STUDIES AS DETERMINED BY THE GRADE 3 STATE ASSESSMENT IN THE
18 APPLICABLE SUBJECT AREA OR BY THE PUPIL'S GRADE 3 READING TEACHER,
19 THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
20 PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL ENSURE THAT THE PUPIL IS PROVIDED WITH
21 INSTRUCTION COMMENSURATE WITH THE PUPIL'S ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL IN THAT
22 SPECIFIC SUBJECT AREA. THIS INSTRUCTION MAY BE GIVEN IN A GRADE 4
23 CLASSROOM SETTING.

In other words, a student might be "moved up" to Grade 4 for math and science and social studies, and then pulled out for reading intervention, but not actually called a "4th grader" unless his or her reading progressed.

24 (6) FOR PUPILS WHO ARE NOT ADVANCED TO GRADE 4 OR CHILDREN WHO
25 ARE NOT ENROLLED IN GRADE 4 DUE TO THE OPERATION OF SUBSECTION (5),
26 THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL PROVIDE A
27 READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM THAT IS INTENDED TO CORRECT THE 
1 PUPIL'S SPECIFIC READING DEFICIENCY, AS IDENTIFIED BY A VALID AND
2 RELIABLE ASSESSMENT, AND ADDRESS ANY BARRIERS TO READING. THIS
3 PROGRAM SHALL INCLUDE EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES NECESSARY
4 TO ASSIST THE PUPIL IN BECOMING A SUCCESSFUL READER, AND ALL OF THE
5 FOLLOWING FEATURES, AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
6 PUPIL:
7 (A) A REDUCED PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO OR 1-TO-1 READING
8 INTERVENTION WITH A VOLUNTEER.
9 (B) ASSIGNING TO THE PUPIL A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE TEACHER OF
10 READING AS DETERMINED BY THE TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM UNDER
11 SECTION 1249, THE HIGHEST EVALUATED TEACHER IN THE SCHOOL AS
12 DETERMINED BY THAT SYSTEM, OR A READING SPECIALIST.
13 (C) READING PROGRAMS THAT ARE RESEARCH-BASED AND HAVE PROVEN
14 RESULTS IN ACCELERATING PUPIL READING ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THE SAME
15 SCHOOL YEAR.
16 (D) READING INSTRUCTION AND INTERVENTION FOR THE MAJORITY OF
17 PUPIL CONTACT TIME EACH DAY THAT INCORPORATES OPPORTUNITIES TO
18 MASTER THE GRADE 4 STATE STANDARDS IN OTHER CORE ACADEMIC AREAS.
19 (E) DAILY TARGETED SMALL GROUP OR 1-TO-1 READING INTERVENTION
20 THAT IS BASED ON PUPIL NEEDS, DETERMINED BY ASSESSMENT DATA, AND ON
21 DIAGNOSED BARRIERS TO READING AND THAT INCLUDES EXPLICIT AND
22 SYSTEMATIC INSTRUCTION WITH MORE DETAILED AND VARIED EXPLANATIONS,
23 MORE EXTENSIVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GUIDED PRACTICE, AND MORE
24 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ERROR CORRECTION AND FEEDBACK.
25 (F) ADMINISTRATION OF ONGOING PROGRESS MONITORING ASSESSMENTS
26 TO FREQUENTLY MONITOR PUPIL PROGRESS.
27 (G) SUPPLEMENTAL RESEARCH-BASED READING INTERVENTION DELIVERED 
1 BY A TEACHER OR TUTOR WITH SPECIALIZED READING TRAINING THAT IS
2 PROVIDED BEFORE SCHOOL, AFTER SCHOOL, DURING REGULAR SCHOOL HOURS
3 BUT OUTSIDE OF REGULAR ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSROOM TIME, OR ANY
4 COMBINATION OF THESE.
5 (H) PROVIDES PARENTS AND LEGAL GUARDIANS WITH A "READ AT HOME"
6 PLAN OUTLINED IN A PARENTAL CONTRACT, INCLUDING PARTICIPATION IN
7 PARENT AND GUARDIAN TRAINING WORKSHOPS AND REGULAR PARENT-GUIDED OR
8 GUARDIAN-GUIDED HOME READING.

Yes, that would mean the teacher assessed as "highly effective" based in large part on test score evaluations. And who is going to pay for the reading interventions? 

[Side note, but totally relevant: The ACLU of Michigan had brought a lawsuit forward based on Highland Park's failure to teach kids to read, and the Supreme Court of Michigan just declined to hear it. People, it's all about funding, and poverty... Go to the end of this piece to read an excerpt of the ACLU statement, or follow the link.]

9 (7) IF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PUPIL'S SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PUPIL'S PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY GRANTS A
11 GOOD CAUSE EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (5)(A) FOR
12 A PUPIL, THEN A PUPIL MAY BE ADVANCED TO GRADE 4 WITHOUT MEETING
13 THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSECTION (5)(A). A GOOD CAUSE EXEMPTION MAY
14 BE GRANTED ONLY ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES UNDER SUBSECTION (9)
15 AND ONLY FOR 1 OF THE FOLLOWING:
16 (A) THE PUPIL IS A STUDENT WITH AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
17 PROGRAM WHOSE INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM DETERMINES THAT
18 THE PUPIL IS INELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE STANDARD GRADE 3 STATE
19 ASSESSMENT, OR THE MI-ACCESS ASSESSMENT OR ANY SIMILAR ALTERNATIVE
20 STATE ASSESSMENT, ACCORDING TO HIS OR HER INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION
21 PROGRAM.
22 (B) THE PUPIL IS A LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENT WHO HAS
23 HAD LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF INSTRUCTION IN AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER
24 PROGRAM.
25 (C) THE PUPIL HAS RECEIVED INTENSIVE READING INTERVENTION FOR
26 2 OR MORE YEARS BUT STILL DEMONSTRATES A DEFICIENCY IN READING AND
27 WAS PREVIOUSLY RETAINED IN KINDERGARTEN, GRADE 1, GRADE 2, OR GRADE 
1 3.

For crying out loud! This implies that you could have 10 and 11 year olds in with your 8 year olds. Think that makes any sense developmentally? 

It's also worth noting that dyslexia organizations are upset this bill was developed without them. Reading disabilities are often not diagnosed until third or fourth grade.

Here's the full bill. 

***********************************************************

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear ACLU of Michigan lawsuit

The ACLU had brought forward a case filed on behalf of eight public-school students in Highland Park who contend that the district has failed to meet its obligation to ensure basic literacy skills among children in the district.

By car, it's a little over an hour to drive from Highland Park to Lansing,
but clearly it's a world away. Screenshot from Google Maps.

As the ACLU writes, "Today the state Supreme Court refused to hear a case that ruled against children whose schools have failed to teach them to read.   While the trial court decided that The appellate court said that the state has no enforceable duty to ensure that schoolchildren actually learn fundamental skills such as reading – but rather is obligated only to establish and finance a public education system, regardless of the quality of that system. Waving off decades of historic judicial precedent, the majority opinion contended that “judges are not equipped to decide educational policy"... 

Dissenting from the majority opinion, Judge Douglas Shapiro accused the Court of Appeals of “abandonment of our essential judicial roles, that of enforcement of the rule of law even where the defendants are governmental entities, and of protecting the rights of all who live within Michigan’s borders, particularly those, like children, who do not have a voice in the political process. 

ALSO (my summary): The Supreme Court ACKNOWLEDGED an abysmal failure of the system, but by refusing to hear the case essentially said, "It's not our problem."

 *************************************************************** 

Connect...the....Dots 

Guess what? In Highland Park, in the lawsuit, a majority of kids failed the state assessment for proficiency in reading. The district had no money. Has no money. Is under emergency management. Can you imagine having all those kids held back, for one, two, or three years?

The state is ABDICATING its responsibility to help kids in poverty-stricken districts, especially, and no amount of "third grade reading bills" that require expensive interventions but don't provide any money for them is going to solve that problem.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley a Champion for Special Education

Last year, Lieutenant Governor Brian Calley held a statewide "listening tour" around the needs of families with
kids in special education.

Today, he made this presentation (short, easy to read) to a very interested Michigan Board of Education.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/CalleyPresentationToStateBoardofEducation_Sept82015_499324_7.pdf

Lt. Governor Brian Calley

Calley's key points:

1) Develop a more inclusive and transparent rulemaking process

Michigan needs to develop a better system for informing and engaging with consumers of special education services before and during the rulemaking process. 

2) Improve access to, and the scope and quality of, services

Many parents reported that there is an expectation that children fit into the school’s structure, rather than the school providing what the child needs. Schools should have services that are better tailored to the specific needs of the child. Individual Education Plans (IEPs) should indeed be individualized. 

3) End the practices of restraint and seclusion

Using restraint and seclusion in schools is far more common than many people believe. Years ago, the state Board of Education established a policy significantly limiting the use of these practices to instances involving imminent danger to a child or their peers. This policy, however, does not carry the force of law and is ultimately voluntary.

Michigan Radio did a nice piece on this part of Calley's report.

4) Create a better dispute resolution process

Too many IEP disputes result in lawsuits and drawn-out confrontations. When a parent believes their child is not receiving the public education they are entitled to, in the least restrictive environment, there should be a better option than litigation. 

5) Support parents more with resources and options

Families need to understand what their rights are and how the IEP process works. Many described being overwhelmed and confused and even feeling "run over" as they went through what is supposed to be a collaborative process to help their child.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!