Ypsilanti Community Schools Superintendent Interviews This Week!

Ypsi's famous landmark. Picture taken from wikimedia,
Creative Commons license. 2007, cmadler.

I know most of my readers are Ann Arborites, but we all know that good schools are key to having a vibrant society. I've been working in Ypsilanti for several years, and I have kind of fallen in love with the place. And the Ypsilanti schools have a very important decision coming up--the choice of a new superintendent!

So here are the list of interviewees, dates, and times--if you live in Ypsilanti, please try to attend!

There are two local candidates: Ben Edmonson, an Ann Arbor principal (he's been principal at Scarlett, Roberto Clemente, and no is co-principal at Pathways, and he's been a candidate for Ann Arbor superintendent in the last go-round), and Sarina Shivers, who is an assistant superintendent at the WISD (she is asst. superintendent of student achievement, and at the WISD I'm not exactly sure what that means--go listen to her interview, and find out!).

POSITION OF YCS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Location: YCS Administration Building; 1885 Packard Rd.; Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Interviews open to students, parents, staff and community members.

Monday: June 8, 2015 @ 7:00 p.m.
Dr. Denise G. Saddler, Assistant Superintendent for Education Services of Berryessa Union School District; San Jose, CA

Tuesday: June 9, 2015 @ 6:30 p.m.
Dr. Benjamin Edmonson, Co-Principal of Pathways to Success Academic Campus; Ann Arbor Public Schools

Tuesday: June 9, 2015 @ 8:15 p.m.
Dr. Josha Talison, Superintendent of Beecher Community Schools; Flint, MI

Wednesday: June 10, 2015 @ 6:30 p.m.
Dr. Sarena M. Shivers, Assistant Superintendent of Student Achievement at the Washtenaw Intermediate School District; Ann Arbor

Wednesday: June 10, 2015 @ 8:15 p.m.
Dr. Terry Barker, Superintendent; Mishawaka, IN

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

There's a New Group in Arbor Town; Parents and Teachers are Riled Up!

There is SO much going on these days. And while I was busy with my life, the school world spun madly on...In the last few weeks, the school board has pushed through two very controversial policies at an hour when most of us were sleeping, and without sufficient notice.

I'm talking about the Prohibited Subjects Policy, which I wrote about here, and Draft Policy 5060, which has gone through first briefing. The Prohibited Subjects Policy was first posted in board docs on the day it was voted on, and Draft Policy 5060--which tries to punish families in "application-based programs" who opt their children out of testing--wasn't even posted in board docs until an astute parent asked what that policy on the agenda was.

June 3, 2015 Update: Point of clarification--board policies do not jump unformed to first briefing. This policy, for instance, was discussed at the May 20 Governance Committee, which was a public meeting held at Skyline at 3:30 p.m. FYI, the Governance Committee is where all potential board policies are discussed. [I don't know that the public was there, but the public IS welcome.]

So, long story short, a new policy is not introduced for the first time at a regular BOE meeting; it goes to Governance first. The public is welcome at these meetings. 

And we, parents and teachers and citizens, have been asleep. I know. I--like so many of you--get up early to go to work; and the school board meetings start with almost two hours of presentations, awards, and public commentary. When people do show up at the meetings, they tend to leave after public commentary. Very few people stay around to the bitter end.

How quiet is it? At the last board meeting, Ann Arbor News reporter Lindsay Knake had this tweet:

The next morning, when I woke up, I laughed at this tweet.

This tweet would, of course, be funny--if it weren't so tragic. That means that aside from the school board members and staff required to be there, Lindsay Knake--who has been the education reporter for the Ann Arbor News for less than a year--was probably the only other (awake) observer in the room.

And that, itself, is a failure!

That is not the only failure.

I reject the fact that the board is not following its own, established, policies and procedures. (I'm not entirely sure if the policies were violated in actuality, because I wasn't at the meetings to see what time they discussed certain items, but I'm quite sure they were violated in spirit. Policies 1200 and Policy 1220 were put in place to ensure that items were discussed while people were still awake, and with proper timelines for giving notice to topics.) I wrote about these issues earlier in an Ann Arbor Chronicle article, Good Ideas, Flawed Process. So if I was calling out the board and superintendent on ideas that I thought were good, but the process was bad, you can be sure that I am upset about ideas that I think are bad, where the process is bad.

And I do think that both the Prohibited Subjects Policy and the Draft Policy 5060 are bad. (Look for a post tomorrow on Draft Policy 5060.)

I reject the idea that either policy had to be created or implemented now.

I reject the idea that either policy had to be brought forward without public discussion, sneaked onto the agenda.

I believe that by acting in this way, the school board and superintendent have unnecessarily inflamed passions with both teachers and parents.

It's puzzling to me--and so, so disappointing--that the board and superintendent have turned to poor process on these issues, when they had such a good model of process, and policy development, for the discussions around weapon-free schools. Why not build on that successful process instead?


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

SO--What Next?

Well, there's a new group in town:

Ann Arbor Community for Trust and Transparency in Schools 

(AACTTS! We hope to have lots of AACTTSion).

Ann Arbor Community for Trust and Transparency in Schools is a new community group focused on how we as citizens and constituents can have a voice in shaping local and state educational policies and decision-making processes. We are coming together to understand and address issues that challenge the values that our community holds as partners in educating our kids.

I don't mind saying that the decisions on these two policies have done a lot to galvanize people. I personally feel that trust in the district is at an all-time low. But it doesn't have to be that way.

If you look at the top of this page, you will see that I have added a "page" to the blog for the AACTTS information. You can click on that tab, or you can follow this link.

Right now we are encouraging people to write to/talk to board members, and there are some sample letters on the page. One-on-one contact is good! Let board members know how you feel--about the policies, about the labor negotiations, about the process the board is using...

You can also sign a petition that is focused on Draft Policy 5060.

Sign the petition here.



Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Missed Opportunities: Ann Arbor and the Washtenaw IB/WAY/ECA Consortium

I wasn't really paying attention to the big brouhaha as to whether the Ann Arbor schools should sign the contract to continue to participate in the International Baccalaureate program, the WAY (Washtenaw Alternatives for Youth) program, or the Early College Alliance. But now I am. And mostly what strikes me is that there have been several missed opportunities. Sure, I know that hindsight is perfect, but looking back and evaluating is also a good way to learn.

So here are five missed opportunities.

1. Missed Meetings: The Ann Arbor News reported that the Ann Arbor school representatives missed many of the consortium meetings. I don't know if Supt. Pat Green or Deputy Supt. Alesia Flye was to blame for that--maybe it was both of them. They're both gone now, so I'm not sure if it matters if we figure that out. Going forward though, if we have a seat at the table, we need to take it. It's pretty clear that we can have more influence if we are there early in the process.

2. Anti-union contract: Someone called me to say that he was worried that the contract the Ann Arbor school board was discussing was anti-union. Given that the contract (click on the link to see it) specifies that if a teacher is tenured in a district and goes to work for the IB, WAY, or ECA schools they are not operating under or accumulating tenure (among other things), you could describe it that way fairly, I think. But here's the thing--this same contract was already voted on by the Ann Arbor schools for this current year in August--and by the other school districts as well. Does the Ann Arbor Education Association or the Washtenaw Education Association not care, or did they just miss this? They probably could have influenced the terms and conditions...

3. Failure to Track: When the Ann Arbor school's Count Day numbers came out, and they were below expectations, much of the attention went to the number of AAPS high school students who were enrolled in the IB, WAY, and ECA programs. And the district seemed surprised by this. To my mind, either they weren't surprised, but wanted the public to feel that they were (which would be misleading), or they were surprised. And if they were surprised, then I have to ask why that is. You might remember that my son applied to the IB program at the Washtenaw International High School--and he found out that he was accepted sometime in late winter or early spring. Now surely, as consortium members, the district could find out how many Ann Arbor students had gotten in to--and later, decided to go to--these alternative programs. The question is, why didn't they take those numbers into consideration as they constructed this year's budget?

4. Transportation Thinking: I don't think the school board and administration really took into account the way that threatening to cut high school transportation could affect the way students looked at schools. I'll probably never be able to prove this, but to my mind, when the district said--at the same time that students were looking at high schools--that high school transportation might not be available, it changed the equation for many parents. I know for myself that I was intimidated by the idea of transporting my son to the IB school. On the other hand, if I lived far from my district high school, and would have to transport my child anyway, then I would not be comparing "drive my child to one school or have him take a bus to the other" but rather "drive my child to school A or school B?" So even the threat of the transportation being cut may have influenced the debate for students at the time when the choices were being made.

5. Going it alone: I believe the ECA, the IB program, and the WAY program are all very worthwhile. But Dexter--which decided to do its own IB program, and which decided not to join the WISD transportation consortium--may have done the best job in looking out for Dexter. I am glad to see the Ann Arbor school board now considering doing its own IB program, even if the consortium IB program continues.



Subscribe to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email

Ann Arbor & Saline: Vote on Tuesday!

If you're like me, the first reminder that there is an election on Tuesday came in a school email that reminded me that there is no school (at least in Ann Arbor) on Tuesday. Many
of the schools are also voting sites.

I think I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that there are some school-related items to vote on (plus some other items, including, in Ann Arbor, city council...)

Taken from wikipedia.org

Saline: Non-homestead Millage Renewal. Find out more here (Saline Schools), and here (Saline Post). If this is not renewed there will be a nearly 16% cut in school funds.

Ann Arbor: Sinking Fund. Find out more here (Ann Arbor schools), and here (Ann Arbor News).

Sinking Fund Discussion

Sinking fund monies pay for infrastructure. I asked Liz Margolis for a complete list of what the sinking fund monies were spent on in the past few years, and was told it would be posted on the schools web site last week, but I don't see it.

The arguments that I have heard for the sinking fund:

• Schools need every penny they can get. Money keeps getting cut from schools.
• Sinking fund monies get spent on things that need to happen anyway (for example, replacing a roof or a furnace) and if the sinking fund isn't supported by the voters then that money will have to come out of operating funds--which is the area that has been hit hardest by state cuts. So by supporting the sinking fund you effectively allow more money for expenses like teachers and you protect the classroom.

The arguments that I have heard against renewing the sinking fund: 

• People are tired of funding "things" around the school (e.g., technology, furnaces). One would prefer to fund personnel, photocopies, etc.
• The school board is going to use the money for things people don't agree with--an example being spending current sinking fund monies on video monitors at school doors.

On the "con" side, as far as the first point goes, let's just be clear--the school board is not allowed to put forward a millage for us to vote on that would support general operating costs, such as personnel. If they could, they would. (Why? Proposal A. Look for a post about that sometime soon. Maybe even this week.)

As far as the second point goes, I personally feel this is a valid point. It is the same issue, by the way, that came up last year with the technology bond. In thinking about the technology bond, here was the issue: Yes, teachers and kids needed new computers; the schools needed updated technology infrastructure; and in an ideal world it would be paid for from operating costs (as ongoing expenses) but as far as school finance goes, we are living in a much less than ideal world. 

On the other hand, by providing those new computers we were making it easier for the district to administer standardized tests which I personally don't support. So even though I did end up voting for the tech bond, I am sometimes sorry that I did.

I wish I had the list of things that the sinking fund has been used for in the past, but I think it's safe to say that for the sinking fund, the majority of expenditures will be a) legitimate; b) necessary; and c) things that most of us would approve of doing. 

Some expenditures, however, will likely be on items about which we disagree. The proposed security measures are one example of this. 

And in a related blog post, you can both read about the added Haisley playground accessibility features (funded by the sinking fund) and--in the comments--some discussion of one person's negative perspective on the sinking fund. I think that essentially shows both sides of the story. 

If you own a house--which I do--and actually, you probably know this even if you live in a leased dwelling--you know that houses and buildings need "refreshing" periodically to run well. But whether a family "refreshes" by making do with some patched-up fix-it job, or getting the low-budget minimum-necessary item, or choosing the high-end marble finish, depends on a mixture of budget and perspective. In the schools, that perspective includes how much heavy use something will get (will kids be jumping on it every day?) and how long you want that something to last. (As an example, we have some very old boilers in the school district, and some of them are still working, and working well. But every time they break, then there are some decisions that need to be made.)

So in the end, I think, it comes down to whether you trust the school board and the administration. Because ultimately they are going to be the ones deciding on the expenditures that will be paid for out of the sinking fund. If you trust them, you will probably want to support the sinking fund. And if you don't, then you might not. But if you don't, then maybe we've got bigger problems.

Testing, Testing, Testing: Tale #3

3. Can I opt my child out of the MEAP?

Many people are finding their way to my blog by virtue of searching for "opt out of the MEAP" or some such phrase. And on our Ann Arbor STOP: Stop Overtesting Our Pupils! facebook group there has been a fair amount of discussion of this--with some people posting their opt out letters.

People have been asking, "Can I opt out?" and the answer is yes, but...

Michigan's Revised School Code says:

THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 451 of 1976   380.10 Rights of parents and legal guardians; duties of public schools.   [M.S.A. 15.4010 ] Sec. 10. It is the natural, fundamental right of parents   and legal guardians to determine and direct the care, teaching, and   education of their children. The public schools of this state serve the   needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil's parents and legal   guardians to develop the pupil's intellectual capabilities and vocational   skills in a safe and positive environment. HistoryAdd. 1995, Act 289,   Eff. July 1, 1996 .

Based on that, the answer would be yes.
But it's never been tested (to my knowledge) in court.

The state of Michigan more or less says that districts can decide if they want to let anybody opt out, but there are only a few circumstances in which if students don't take the MEAP the district won't be penalized. Those circumstances might include a child who is so severely disabled (s)he cannot take even a test that is modified; or a child who is so sick (think chemotherapy or another long-term illness) that they cannot take the test. Otherwise, if a school does not reach a 95% participation rate, the school will be penalized. Financially.

Some reasons that parents have told me they don't want their child to take the MEAP are:
*religious reasons
*their child has been sick and missed the original testing days, and they don't want them missing more instructional time (the MEAP is given during a certain time period, and many of the days are solely scheduled as makeup days)
*they believe that testing is wrong. . . unnecessary. . . evil. . . immoral

And guess what--several of those parents are also teachers.

But this 95% participation rate barrier has districts very worried, because a few chronic truants could bring a school close to missing that 95% participation rate. And financial penalties are, to put it seriously, serious.

One of my friends who decided to opt out her child from the MEAP was told that the only way that she could opt her child out was if her child was kept out of school for the entire three-week period of the test.

If you want to understand what high stakes testing means, this is a great example. Nowhere in the world would it be considered educationally sound to intentionally keep a child out of school for three weeks over what ends up being something like 5-10 hours of testing, right? And obviously, unless you are a person who doesn't work, it would be super difficult to keep your child out of school for three weeks. [Trust me, I know--one of my children was sick for four weeks once, and that was a very difficult time.]

So what is the point of that grandstanding? It's to make it virtually impossible to keep a child from being tested, right? It's to force parents to let their kids be tested.

And it points out the farcical nature of all this testing. The MEAP has absolutely nothing to do with the child in question (for whom being in the classroom and skipping a few tests would presumably be the much better choice). No, all of this testing has to do with school finance. Who benefits? The schools, but not the kids. [OK, I cede your point--if the schools don't have money, the kids do suffer. Nonetheless, I maintain my own point--this is not about whether your child is "proficient" in math. You probably already know the answer to that question and don't need the test to tell you.]

As for the draconian threat of saying, "Well if you don't want your child to be tested you will have to keep him or her out of school for three weeks?" It reminds me of some absurd threats I would make to my preschool son. "Well if you don't do X I will keep you from watching tv for the next five years!"

This showdown is so foolishly theater of the absurd that it reminds me of some people who might force a government shutdown in order to try to derail Obamacare. Oh, wait...

State 1, Local 0: The MEAP and Three Star Holidays

A few days ago I was contacted by someone from the Arab American Parent Support Group, who was concerned that the MEAP was scheduled to be given on one of the holiest days in the Muslim calendar, Eid. Eid is a three-star holiday in the Ann Arbor Public Schools religious calendar, and I was contacted because I recently wrote this blog post about three-star holidays.

You may recall that the guidelines state that:

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS GUIDELINES  I. Holiday observances of major significance to a religious group are indicated on the calendar by three stars (***). The following apply:School district employees may not schedule any of the following during these (three star) holidays.   1. Major exams   2. Reviews for major exams   3. Standardized tests...

And clearly the MEAP is a standardized test. So why was it being given on Eid?

A member of the AAPSG did some poking around, asking the state if the test had to be given on Eid or if a change could be made. She got an email back from the state saying that a deviation could be possible for Eid. But when the Ann Arbor schools administrative staff asked, they got a different answer from the state: No. So they told AAPSG that the answer was no. AAPSG did not like that answer, especially since they thought the answer from the state had already been yes.

At the behest of the person who contacted me, I contacted the school board and administration, and they did a little bit more poking around, and went back to the state Department of Education, and confirmed that the answer was, in fact: No.

However, the district did not formally request a "deviation" and I was a bit confused about that. The MEAP administrator at the state level offered to talk to me about it, and I took her up on it, learning a bit about the MEAP in the process.

1. MEAP testing is given in a time window, with certain dates for certain tests. Then there are make-up days.

2. A "deviation" would only be given by the state if a school is actually closed. (For instance, for Eid I think the Dearborn schools are closed.) But then again, if a school is closed, there are no staff to give a test or kids to take it, so that's rather circular logic there. (In fact, it's not even clear to me why, if a school is closed, you need to request a deviation.)

So basically, Ann Arbor was told that since they weren't closing any schools, they couldn't get a deviation, even though it contradicts their local policy about giving standardized tests on three-star holidays. Thus I say, State 1, Local 0.

(Side note: the schools I grew up in were, and are, closed for the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, even though only about 5% of the kids were, and are, Jewish.)

3. I asked the state administrator why the tests have to be given on certain days, especially given that there are makeup days. Why couldn't the district just substitute a makeup day for a specific test day? The answer: Security.  I said, "but you have makeup days," and was basically told that they have to make accommodations for kids who miss school (because they are high stakes tests), but it would be a "nightmare" in terms of security if, for example, different schools gave the math test on different days. (Think: cheating.)

This is where we see what is meant by "high stakes" testing. If the MEAP wasn't "high stakes," nobody would worry about the implications of swapping days. And unfortunately, the district doesn't have any control over this. And the stakes are high for the district because if fewer than 95% of the kids in any school take the test, then the school won't make adequate yearly progress. And penalties ensue. To the district.

As far as the district goes, this is what I learned:

1. The district did respond to the initial request of the AAPSG, which is good. I think the communication channels still need a little bit of working out, because it appears that the district staff didn't adequately explain the situation (which is how I got pulled into this). Over the past few years I have found several times that even when the district staff are doing the right thing, the communication back to families from central administration is very weak and leaves people confused and upset.  But, I'm hopeful that this is about to change, because...

2. I was very pleasantly surprised by the communication from the top AAPS staff. It was a HUGE improvement over the past administration's practices. I actually got an email from the superintendent (and a couple of board members too--thank you board)! Fingers crossed for more great communication back to parents.

And to the district staff I say: Thank you very much for trying to follow the religious calendar guidelines. Even though you weren't able to do so this time, I truly appreciate the effort.

Read more about the state MEAP policies, if you want...and remember, next year there will probably be a different assessment...and probably even more assessments (go to the same place as the MEAP link in this paragraph, and look at the Smarter Balanced information). Ugh. High stakes testing. There is lots to organize around in the coming year.

Ypsilanti Community School Employee Benefits are Highly Skewed

About three weeks ago, I wrote about reports that I had heard, that while Ypsilanti Community Schools teachers and administrators would be offered both individual and family insurance, support staff would not be offered family insurance.

At the time, I wrote this:

3. At a recent combined board meeting, the head of the (I heard this second-hand, but I think it was the) Ypsilanti custodians' union got up to speak to the board about the fact that they had been told that while teachers and administrators would get benefits for themselves and their families, the custodians, paraprofessionals, office staff, and more would only be able to get individual health benefits. 
According to a May 13, 2013 report in the Ypsilanti Courier, 

Menzel said the most significant difference [in terms of employment] is that some employees won't be eligible for spousal or family coverage. While teachers, administrators, and several other groups of staff members will receive options for single, spousal, or family coverage, other groups, such as paraprofessionals and custodial staff, will only be offered single person coverage.

And at the time, I mentioned that I couldn't really find anything written saying that support staff would not get benefits. I guess the district decided that went too far (or would have left them subject to a lawsuit?). So now, the costs for health care for individuals and their families have been posted. As you can see, there is a huge inequity between what teachers and administrators will pay for family health care, and what support staff will pay.

Support staff will pay up to 4x as much as teachers and administrators for family benefits, even though the support staff group, as a whole, will make much less money. 

Sunday night I emailed Scott Menzel (WISD Superintendent) and Emma Jackson (WISD Director of Communications) asking for their comments on the rationale for this decision. I haven't heard back yet. If I do, I'll be sure to post their answer(s) here. 

[Hint: You could email them yourself and ask about this--or whatever else you want to know about YCS. Emails: smenzel@wash.k12.mi.us; ejackson@wash.k12.mi.us].

Reminder: YCS Board Meeting Packets and Minutes (such as they are--they are not very detailed) can be found here. It appears that almost nobody has been making public comments to the board, but the time is available for those who want to speak.

Part IV: My Commentary on the Superintendent Resignation

First of all, if you want to read what other people think, take a look at these survey results:

Part I: Did you have personal experiences with Pat Green? Based on those experiences, how did you feel about her? Can you give concrete examples?
Part II: Do you have any thoughts/ideas about why Pat Green is leaving?
Part III: Looking to the future, what qualities do you think are important for the next superintendent?

Obviously, I don't agree with every comment in the survey, but much of what was written resonates with me!

Could I see that this was coming? No. I didn't necessarily think Pat Green would stick around for five years, but I was surprised this happened so quickly. However, the school board was about to begin the Superintendent Evaluation. In fact, I think that we can likely trace her resignation to this, as noted in the Ann Arbor Chronicle on March 27, 2013:

Earlier that evening [March 20th], the trustees met in closed session with Green to go over her interim mid-year evaluation. Because it was an informal evaluation, the board did not release an official statement. 

So do I tie Pat Green's resignation to this event? Yes, I do. 

[And by the way, thanks once again to the Ann Arbor Chronicle's detailed reporting--thanks especially to Monet Tiedemann and Jennifer Coffman, present and past Chronicle education reporters. If you would like to support their work, you can do that here.]

Certainly board members had heard from plenty of residents about communication issues. I imagine they had heard from plenty of teachers and administrators about her lack of engagement with the schools.

Publicly, at that same March 20th meeting, board member Christine Stead had suggested they use the evaluation rubric from the Michigan Association of School Boards that looks at these practice areas:

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

At least to me, Pat Green seemed very weak in community relations; staff relationships; educational leadership; evaluation; and student/parent/teacher feedback.

Recent Ann Arbor Chronicle articles gave other hints of trouble (beyond the criticisms about Pat Green's lack of communication with parents, teachers, and principals). At the March 13, 2013 meeting, the Student Intervention and Support Services report was met with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Again, per the Ann Arbor Chronicle:

While trustees were appreciative of the report, their feelings were best summed up by trustee Andy Thomas’s concerns: Trustees were “struck by the complete absence of any metrics” in the report and were disappointed by the absence of clearly defined goals and next steps.

[Oh--and by the way--the lack of data here leads directly into a conversation about how, whether, or when the district can/should reduce certain types of support for students with IEPs. Without data, how can you decide if you're doing the right thing?]

At that same meeting, in a discussion of the Roberto Clemente program (and the administration's recommendation to move the program to Pioneer), board trustees had this to say:

Several of the trustees were appreciative of the work that went into the report. Lightfoot, however, was troubled to have the “same suggestions we had last year.” Thomas said he had hoped the board would receive an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Clemente program. . . The trustees did have some concerns about the future leadership of Clemente. Forty percent of the projected savings, Thomas noted, came from the elimination of the principal position. He was skeptical of Flye’s assertion that the real value of Clemente had more to do with individual teachers and what goes on in the classroom than with the leadership of the school. 

And after the February 27th meeting, the Ann Arbor Chronicle reported the following:

1) On start times:

Alesia Flye, deputy superintendent of instruction, reported on the results of the district-wide survey on school start times. . . Trustees seemed unimpressed by the survey and the recommendation. Susan Baskett said she found the survey confusing and suggested the committee reach out to experts when crafting future surveys. 

2) About trimester vs. semester high school scheduling:

Stead said she was confused about the work of the committee. She said she thought they were looking into trimester versus semester scheduling because some parents had brought concerns about the kinds of gaps that occur in the core subjects. There was no data on the impact of the magnet programs. If magnet programs were so important and valuable, the board needed to see that data. If this was only about the budget, then the report that had been submitted was fine. But if they were trying to figure out which model was best, and if they had substantive data that showed the trimester model worked better for students, then they should move all of the comprehensive high schools to trimesters.

 The trustees took issue with the way the charts broke down the additional costs associated with Skyline. Thomas said he had assumed that the higher cost of Skyline could be attributed to the trimester system, but based on the information presented, nothing showed that it was more expensive to run trimesters than semesters with a seventh hour. The increased cost of Skyline came from its lower enrollment number and its student-to-teacher ratio.

Nelson said using the actual enrollment and the actual FTEs obscures the analysis rather than helps it. 

4) More on high school scheduling: 

Several of the trustees thanked the committee for the “prodigious amount” of work that went into compiling the information. . .While Lightfoot appreciated the work, she was concerned that “the folks on the front line” haven’t really provided the board with solid recommendations. . . Stead had some sharp words for the committee. She said  four members of the committee wrote to the board to ask to have their names removed from the report, saying the report does not represent their opinions. She argued the report did not represent the collective work of all members of the committee. 

5) Budget Shortfall

Allen was joined by Hoover in presenting the second quarter financial report... The board was upset to learn that the district was nearly $2.5 million over budget for FY 2013 and needed to adjust the original budget.

So, in summary, what I believe happened is this: the board had high hopes for Pat Green's financial and educational acumen, and they were willing to pay for it. However, she came into the community with many key positions vacant, and she had to get to know a new community. It took Pat Green a while to fill those key positions, and to get oriented to the district, and the first year was filled with many new beginnings. I think it's a good thing that there was no rush to judgment. 
After 18 months, the board had heard from many people about Pat Green's lack of communication skills. They also began to get full reports and data from the new administration--and what they saw was much less than they expected. Thus, a harsh mid-term evaluation led to an off-the-record discussion about resignation, and that explains the very short "retirement letter" from Pat Green, as well as the letter from Deb Mexicotte--about which my friend said, "It was a fawning letter, and it looked like it took a long time to write. It looks like the kind of letter you write when you are creating a 'no harm' exit. Deb Mexicotte must have known about the resignation for a while."

And all of this, I must emphasize, is just me reading between the lines. You might draw different conclusions. By the way, I'm not asking anybody to confirm or deny anything. I don't think it would be helpful to the district, or to the people involved. There is a reason that personnel decisions are generally not subject to the Open Meetings Act. Soon, look for a post on what we should be looking for in our next Superintendent. In case you haven't noticed, it's a key position.

By the way, don't be too hard on the school board. Setting aside the fact that they are practically volunteers, I think we should recognize that if Pat Green had, in fact, been the "whole package" the Board thought she was when they hired her, we wouldn't have minded her high salary (at least, not very much). 

Pat Green Resigns: Survey Results, Part II

Forty people took my survey! Here are the results. I've split them into three parts. Part II is the post you are reading: Do you have any thoughts/ideas about why Pat Green is leaving?

Part I: Did you have personal experiences with Pat Green? Based on those experiences, how did you feel about her? Can you give concrete examples?

Part III: Looking to the future, what qualities do you think are important for the next superintendent?

And then there is what you could think of as Part IV: My Commentary.

The question we're addressing in Part II is, as I put it, the rumor/innuendo question: 

Do you have any thoughts/ideas about why Pat Green is leaving?

She realized she was not a good fit with "culture " here.

Because she can, and she didn't really ever want to be here.

You have people like the principal at the Dicken that does very little that you need to deal with and justify their high salary.

She is facing resistance and hostility. There are too many overpaid people at Balas who are not listening to ideas and challenges. She has fostered that, and now there is mutiny afoot from within and from the community. There are also a huge number of problems that would take a greater commitment than, perhaps, she is willing to give.

None. 

She is a good person who values education, and doesn't want to be the one to do the cuts. 

To spend more time with family.

She doesn't even live here?

She did a poor job.

She was overly confident when she was hired.  Her management style was inconsistent with AAPS culture and she refused to work with AAEA and AAAA.  She left when it was obvious she was not achieving her goals and could not be successful in AAPS.

She has to make hard decisions on budget cuts and is already unpopular--so decided to retire so she didn't get booed out of town.

Didn't want to face the fallout from upcoming budget cuts?

She recognized very early (probably six months in)  that she wasn't actually a good fit with the board and the community. It's a community that – outside of AAPS – doesn't call her (or anyone other than physicians) "doctor." She didn't care for the fact that she was expected to make herself available and accessible to the community. Meet with upset parents?? Not something she felt was part of her job. Mexicotte's letter, in its commentary on Green's involvement with the community, was generous to the point of creating fiction. Green stayed just long enough not to make it completely embarrassing for herself and the district. This way it was only somewhat embarrassing. 

No idea. There's no doubt that the job would really suck right now. No one wants to preside over the dismantling of a great school district. And with the main problems in Lansing, there's not a whole lot we can do from here. The board may have lost confidence, or they all may have decided that she has become too much of a lightning rod. So she'll be responsible for the massive cuts, and someone new gets to take on the rebuilding. Or there's always family/health issues.

She has lost community support because she appears to be inaccessible to many parents and teachers. She hides behind her minions.

It's a really hard job. I think the board hoped that by paying her a LOT more than her predecessor she would feel obligated to stick around while the state guts public education. If you don't have any connection to the community it is easy to leave. 

Not what she signed on for. Tough budgets, lots of scrutiny, lots of vocal parents with conflicting goals, the whole Skyline white elephant in the room.

"If I had to guess, I'd say she probably felt cutting the budget a further $17-20m was not doable without massively unpopular layoffs and cuts to programs and closing schools. She'd already gotten an icy welcome from the townsfolk and so the landscape ahead probably looked akin to scouring the Shire.
That said, I saw no evidence of her being any sort of transformational leader. Not of the sort that will be necessary to keep public schools together under the massive multi-decade right wing privatization machine.

The budget deficit.  She referred to the elephant in the room.  Realign the attendance areas so that kids could go to their neighborhood schools reducing the need for many bus routes. BOE wasn't willing to listen to her.  She was fighting an uphill battle.

Really don't know, but how nice she got to pad her retirement fund by 55k in two years! I want a job like that. Seriously, I don't know why except that she couldn't take the heat. And what's with Mexicotte's fawning letter? Did she write it or did Pat Green?

She seems old and tired, and frankly if I was her, I wouldn't be up to the challenge in a community that I have no ties to.  There's really no repercussions for her leaving - she's at the end of her career.  There doesn't seem to be any ethical issue for her in regard to not filling out her contract of 5 years or ditching AAPS in this crucial moment.

Ann Arbor turned out to be harder than she thought. Too much micro managing (not a good fit for her monarchy like style) and too much bad news from the state legislature and governor.

Tough to work with the board, didn't like the commute back home to husband, not looking forward to implementing budget cuts.

No.  But polished, professional folks don't just up and leave like this, so there is a story to which we are not privy.

I wonder about the relationship with the board of education - were they really so supportive of each other?  I also sense she did not have the backing of the central administration and other district employees.  It is hard not to be liked.
I am worried about a future selection.  I think we need someone that can hold their own against the BOE - they are powerful and coordinated and there should be a check and a balance for them.  Elections do this to some extent, but we also need more qualified people willing to run.  This of course is a whole 'nother topic!

Nope. I have no doubt she wanted to retire, as she claims. Whether that means she was never truly that invested in the community or the job... that feels plausible, but I have no evidence that it's true.

Teachers showed they were willing to take a pay cut for the students in the district. Once the "what pay cut will you take" ball was in the administrators' court she decided to pack it in. 

Pat Green Resigns: Survey Results, Part I

Forty people took my survey! Here are the results. I've split them into three parts. Part I is the post you are reading.

Part II: Do you have any thoughts/ideas about why Pat Green is leaving?
Part III: Looking to the future, what qualities do you think are important for the next superintendent?

And then there's what you could think of as Part IV: My Commentary.

But first, Part I of the Survey:

As you can see, 2/3 of the people who responded had never seen Pat Green in person or had only seen her from afar. By the way: I didn't take the survey, but if I had, I would have said I had only seen her from afar: at Skyline's graduation; at a budget meeting; and at school board meetings. But I have never spoken directly with her. In other words, don't take not having seen her as a sign of being disengaged with education in the Ann Arbor school district. I think it only highlights her lack of communication with people outside a limited circle. I have met several of her cabinet members multiple times.

You can see that 20% of people who responded had no opinion about Pat Green's work. Nearly all of those (7/8) were people who had never even seen Pat Green in person. On the other hand, 2/3 of the people who responded had a somewhat negative or very negative opinion of Pat Green.

Only two people who had regular contact with Pat Green responded. However, I think it's important to note that those two people had very positive feelings about her.

Can you give any concrete examples of why you feel the way you do?


Very Negative: She didn't really know how to talk about anything other than Pat Green.
Very Positive: She was hired by a bunch of  special interest Board Members. Support their cause and you do fine. Green felt that every student was important and no special interest group is more important than the group as a big hole,. She had the integrity to make that point known and that upset the special interest people. Same thing happended to Todd Roberts.

Very Negative: Her tenure there has been problematic as she is one of three people at the top that have no experience with AAPS, and instead of getting to know the district and variety of programs, she has spent a great deal of time running things from the top. Additionally, she was hired in at too large of a pay package, that is the fault of the school board.

Somewhat Positive: She told someone I know that she supported the arts.  She seemed engaged at the school board meeting.

No Opinion: The district's information sharing politics were centralized, making it necessary to submit formal FOIA requests when making routine requests for information. I don't see that as a step in the right direction.

Somewhat Negative: "The story about using a ""peace flag"" to reduce discipline infractions. The raises given to administrators. The inability to balance the budget. The exorbitant salary that returned mediocre results."

Somewhat Negative: Did not work with AAEA and AAAA [Ed. Note: teachers' union and administrators' union].  Did not understand A2 culture.

Very Negative: Lack of interaction with parent and community. New testing requirements that are not clear

Somewhat Negative: "Discipline Gap," accessibility, disjointed communication

Somewhat Negative: Asking various departments of the administration to give annual reports to the board was well conceived but poorly executed. These reports were implemented by claiming large chunks of board meeting time for their presentation. Guess what: AAPS board members can read (reportedly). The reports should have been distributed publicly via BoardDocs a week in advance. Board members could be expected to do their homework. Five minutes of overview plus 10 minutes of board questions at the meeting. That way you don't have meetings that last until 3 a.m.
         Her letter was poorly executed. She portrayed the decision as just the normal course of events. If you leave 2 years into a 5 year contract, I think you owe some kind of acknowledgment that, things didn't go as intended. At least say: I had intended to stay longer, but ..."" and fill in something fluffy if you like after the ""but ...""  But her resignation letter should have at least owned the fact that this was a premature departure.

Very Positive: I thought she was really committed to addressing some of the problems AAPS faces, especially with regard to serving the most vulnerable children. (Bringing James Comer here was a strong signal.) I also thought that she gave AAPS a much-needed shaking up.

Somewhat Negative: She hides behind jargon. Often to misdirect her real meaning. 

Somewhat Negative: She was a lousy listener--the meetings I attended, all she did was talk about herself. Her role at these meetings was to hear from a specific community of parents (she was not invited to give a presentation) but they never got a word in edgewise. I felt steamrolled. When I compared her to how Todd Roberts interacted with the same group of parents, I was not impressed by her. She had her agenda and didn't listen to anyone else. I actually supported some of her agenda (emphasis on Positive Behavior Plans for discipline, for example) but because there were plenty of things that she advocated that I disagree with, I knew that I wouldn't be heard. I found it hard to work with someone who wasn't willing to listen.
I do think she did a decent job advocating with Lansing, but they are such a bunch of nutjobs that even a steamroller doesn't have much effect.

Somewhat Negative: The invisible woman. So, she has stood and waved at Bands in Review, but that's about all I can say about her, other than her willingness to take a pay cut/forego a raise, whatever that was. It could be the decline of local media that contributed to her invisibility -- we all know the Dotcom would rather highlight car crashes that get clicks -- but in contentious times the superintendent needs to be out front.

No Opinion: I think she had a very high bar of expectations as soon as it was learned how large her salary was going to be. Then the fact that she was not an Ann Arbor local added to a sense that the board believed that the local pool of talent and ideas was insufficient. This put a chip on the shoulder of Ann Arbor and she carried that into the job.
She never shook the façade of being aloof- but that impression of her may have been due to the fact that, not being local, she didn't know anybody.

Somewhat Negative: Her starting salary, I blame the BOE mostly for that.  Took over 6 months to appoint a principal to Pioneer.

Somewhat Negative: My sense was that she wasn't communicative to staff and to families. I don't recall the issue exactly,but I remember her response to a question regarding an issue re:AAPS was that the questioner should just FOIA for an answer. I also thought she was way over paid, that the board shouldn't have bumped the salary up so high. Then it came out that she was the highest paid Superintendent in the State! Not good. I was surprised  to read that she hadn't spent time in each AAPS building. Seems like it should be a priority for most Superintendents. Finally, I know this is petty but she parks in staff-only spots where they hold the AAPS board meetings. Parking is free on the streets, and even if it wasn't AAPS would pay for parking.

Somewhat Negative: I'm a teacher in the Ann Arbor Public Schools District, and I struggle to come up with positive, long-lasting things Pat Green has done for our district.  She may have visited our school once, but I only recall seeing her from afar.  

Somewhat Negative: I have negative impressions simply based on 1)  I haven't seen much in regard to fiscal decisions made, 2)  She did not advocate for transparency, and 3)  Balas still spent much money on retreats and food deliveries while some teachers are buying their own supplies.

Somewhat Negative: I have not heard of her looking to actual teachers for any input on running the district.

Somewhat Negative: She didn't/doesn't seem to have a very open approach to sharing information.

Somewhat Positive: Based on conversations with Dr. Green, she was positioning Ann Arbor not only to take a leadership role in the county but also to provide income-producing services to other Districts and ultimately to position Ann Arbor for a leadership role if consolidation were inevitable.

Very Negative: 1.  Non-transparency of her administration.  This includes meetings that continue into the wee hours to make decisions, information available only through the slow process of FOIA, 
2.  A good leader gets everyone on board so they can be cheerleaders of your vision.  She failed to do this.  For example, the ""discipline gap"" - giving school administrators the education adn training to discipline effectively within the new guide lines and so that they could educate thier communities about why the district is changing course with discipline would have been helpful. 
3.  She did not seem to have a relationship with the BOE or any principal or teacher that I know.  The position is ""political"" and unfortunately, you must do some hand shaking in this position.  She didn't seem to be very good at this.

Somewhat Negative: She seemed to be a very top-down manager--you can construe this as "empowering" her subordinates, or as removing herself from the day to day hurlyburly, but I would prefer to see a more hands-on, more collegial and less hierarchical management style.

Very Negative: Dr. Greene  did not put effort into trying to be a part of the Ann Arbor community.  She physically had a wall built around her office area at Ballas and never lived in Ann Arbor.  She flew home weekly to be with her family.  One wonders if she even worked a full week in order to fly back to be with her family. 

AAPS Superintendent Pat Green Resigns. What Do You Think Of That?

This evening the district sent out a letter from Pat Green, stating that she is retiring.

Here is Pat Green's letter.

The district also sent out a (very gracious) letter from AAPS Board Chair Deb Mexicotte about Pat Green's resignation.

Here is Deb Mexicotte's letter.

Ever since I read an article from Propublica about using embedded Google forms to, in their words, "help power your reporting," I've been wanting to try one.

I'm curious about what you think about Pat Green's resignation. Are you sorry to see her go? Happy? Indifferent? Take my short survey! [Update 4/14/2013, 7 p.m.: I have closed the survey.] I'll share the results.

[Update 4/14/2013: 11:55 p.m. Read the results here:

Part I: Did you have personal experiences with Pat Green? Based on those experiences, how did you feel about her? Can you give concrete examples?
Part II: Do you have any thoughts/ideas about why Pat Green is leaving?
Part III: Looking to the future, what qualities do you think are important for the next superintendent?

Pat Green's Salary Issue, Redux

Christine Stead, AAPS School Board member, recently commented about the Superintendent's salary on her blog, saying, "This topic seems to generate more interest than any of the way more important topics surrounding education right now."  

And, of course, she is right. There are many (many, many) more important topics related to education than the paltry just-under 1/3 of a million dollars Pat Green gets in compensation.

I know, you think I'm using the word "paltry" facetiously. I am not. Do you realize that the Ann Arbor Public Schools budget comes in between 185 and 190 million dollars?! Baby, it's big!

Given its size, not only is Pat Green's salary pretty much a drop in the bucket, but it also provides something of an explanation as to why the board wanted someone with excellent skills, and thought they might need to offer a lot of money to do so. [Do I think they were right? About the skills part, yes; about the money part, no--but I don't blame them for trying to get the right person.]

And as I've said before, it's not Pat Green's fault that she gets paid well. Can anyone out there seriously tell me that if they were offered a job that paid $245,000 that they would say to the person offering them the job, "Oh no, that's too much. I think you should pay me a lot less?" Give me a break. I don't think so. So that's on the school board. 

I'm not sure who negotiated the language in Pat Green's contract that says, 

"The district shall pay the Superintendent a base annual salary of $245,000 (the “Initial Salary”). The District retains the sole right to adjust the base annual salary of the Superintendent during the term of this Contract; provided, however, the District will not decrease the Superintendent’s base annual salary during the term of this Contract."  (emphasis added)

But--it takes two to tango, so I guess that the school board--or their attorney--is also responsible for that.

I felt a little bit differently, too, after hearing from a recently-retired staff person who explained to me the school board's rationale this way. She said to me, "I loved Todd Roberts. I thought he was fantastic. And I thought, if paying someone a lot of money is what is required to get someone who is really great and will stay around, that will be worth it." [Attentive readers may remember that Todd Roberts left Ann Arbor Public Schools for greener pastures--a job in North Carolina that offered more money and was believed to carry a whole lot less stress.]

So is Pat Green that person--the one who is really great? And why, nearly two years after Pat Green joined the district,  are people still focused on a salary that the school board gave her, as if she is the villain for accepting it?

I've been thinking about some things that maybe are, and maybe are not, related.

Consider, for one, the rumor that Pat Green only works 4 days a week. I heard that rumor nearly a year ago. I've read the recent refutation. And to some extent, I believe the refutation. That's because I can't imagine anyone in her position not answering emails and phone calls on evenings and weekends. (She's not alone in this. So, too, do lots of teachers, lots of engineers, lots of businesspeople, social workers, doctors, nurses, hairdressers, etc.) If you are asking, "Does Pat Green work at least 40 hours a week?" I am quite sure the answer is yes. But the rumor that I heard had a slightly different twist. It was that staff people had been told not to schedule any meetings after noon on Fridays, so she could leave early. That, quite honestly, seems more believable to me. It would be easy to put that rumor to rest, and the solution does not involve sending your Director of Communications to refute the rumor for you (which is what she did). The solution involves being in the schools, or deliberately scheduling visible meetings, on Friday afternoons. When, after all, school is in session. 

Consider, for another, the ongoing grumpiness about one of Pat Green's early decisions--to put up a glass wall between her office and the rest of the Balas building. What kind of signal do you think that sent? An annarbor.com commenter named local described it well on 5/10/2012: 

Anyone been to Balas lately, can't get in to see Dr. Green. She had a glass wall built to her office to keep out the same people she works for, the residents of Ann Arbor. Her inability to connect with the people of Ann Arbor is becoming more evident every day.

What about the fact that Pat Green is rarely seen in school buildings or at school events? For instance, last year, when the district proposed closing Roberto Clemente, one of the complaints from teachers and families was that she had only visited the school once or twice. This is a complaint that persists. She doesn't go to many weekend events (Friday night football games, for example)--perhaps because she is often out of the district. That, however, doesn't explain the lack of visits to schools during the school day.

In other words, I think some disgruntlement persists around her pay, not because of the amount, but because people don't see her doing the "public persona" part of her job.

So her salary has remained a flash point, even though it's a drop in the budget bucket. Therefore, it's nice that Pat Green recently said that she will take a pay cut because "as a leader of the school district, you don't ask people to take compensation cuts and not do it yourself."

It's especially nice because, the way that I understand her contract, the school board could not impose cuts if they wanted to (which they could do for some of the other non-union positions) because of the contract language. In the article in which she discloses that she plans to take a pay cut, Pat Green wouldn't talk about what the amount would be yet, and I understand that too. The budget is very much in draft form, union negotiations are going on, etcetera.

But I seriously doubt that she was thinking about a 20% pay cut, which is essentially what the administrators' union just proposed. (They proposed a $50,000 pay cut.) My breath was taken away by that proposal. 

And then I thought about what the recently-retired administrator had said to me, and I thought, "Wow. The majority of the members of the administrators' union (mostly principals) really must not respect or support Pat Green." Because the administrators understand that $50,000 is only .026% of the budget. If they liked her work, they would find value in spending that $50,000 on her salary. They might still propose a pay cut, but it would more than likely be proportional to the cuts teachers and/or administrators will take. 

What is it people say? Actions speak louder than words.

Back in the day. . . Labor Day Weekend 2011, when Pat Green started, I wrote that we should not judge her on her salary. I wrote: 

Do judge Patricia Green on her body of work.
To you, Dr. Green, I have these words of advice: Really listen to your constituents--a lot of the time they know more of what is going on than you will.  Show up at meetings and be present in the community.  Putting up videos and sending deputies to community meetings is no substitute for your presence. 

Prescient, eh? [No, I'm not Canadian. But I do like the "eh."]