Pages

Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Ypsilanti Community Schools Perspective: Election Day Blues

A guest post from Ypsi Anon:
Unlike Russell Brand , I vote. 


I vote every chance I get.  I am convinced that my vote is the most important of all the votes cast, and that if I miss an election, bad things will happen and it will all be my fault!

I also believe that if I don’t vote, I don’t have a right to complain about politics, regardless of whether my candidate or issue won or lost, and I really don’t want to hide my opinions.

I like the concept of being represented in local government by someone who’s “one of us.”  Even when I disagree with the representative’s position, I try to convince myself that each person voted in is trying to make our community a better place.

One year ago, the voters in Ypsilanti and Willow Run took a bold leap of faith—or was it of desperation?—and cast their votes in favor of consolidating the two school districts.  Also on the ballot were candidates for the school boards of each district.  They became winners with an asterisk, never serving a single day in the old districts, because our elected school boards were quickly dissolved as part of the consolidation process, and a new board was appointed by the WISD board.

Citizens had (and still have) varying degrees of understanding of what would happen during the transition to a new school district.  One big change was that we lost our locally-elected representatives.  Many people knew this would happen, but not as many knew that the next chance we would have to vote for our school board would be TWO YEARS LATER.  Yes, for two years our appointed school board has no accountability to the public, but to the superintendent instead.  That was made clear from the start. 
 
In frustration, some people said they couldn’t wait to vote in a new board in November, then were stunned to learn it wouldn’t be THIS November. [Ed. Note: New state law says that school board elections can only be held in November of even-numbered years. That is just one more example of the micro-management of the state legislature when it comes to schools.]

Two years.  Two years of being disenfranchised (and I mean that both in the sense of not being able to vote and of feeling powerless).  Two years of people giving up hope that they have a say in what happens to our schools.  Two years to crush any lingering activism that remains here.  A lot of damage can happen during these two years.  Who will want to run for the board by the time we have that election?

Today is Election Day.  There is nothing and no one to vote for in Ypsilanti.  We have no voice.

It is going to be a long year.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

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?

Saturday, January 14, 2012

MLK Day and the Emergency Manager Law

By now you may have heard that a group of African-American pastors is organizing a protest at Rick Snyder's house on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. And you probably know that Rick Snyder lives in Washtenaw County.

What you might not understand is this--

Why schedule this protest on MLK Day? What does the emergency financial manager law have to do with civil rights or racial justice? 

In this article in the Ann Arbor Chronicle, Brit Satchwell (the head of the Ann Arbor teachers' union) explains the relationship very well:
Satchwell urged everyone to advocate for the repeal of PA 4, and pointed out that the state is considering sending emergency managers to Detroit and Inkster. “If those two cities fall,” Satchwell pointed out, “over half of the African-Americans in this state will have lost their vote and be under authoritarian rule – no mayor, no county commissioners, no school board … If you’re an American this has to bother you.” (emphasis added)
In an interview with Chris Savage of Eclectablog and Blogging for Michigan, Pastor David Bullock (one of the event organizers) said it was even worse than that.
“If Detroit gets an Emergency Manager,” he told me, “over 75% of the African American elected officials in Michigan will be essentially useless” as the Emergency Manager pushes them out of the job they were elected to do.
So. . . If you are looking for something to do. . . If you want to put your principles into action. . . if you want to have a real discussion with your kids about what, why, and when it is worth protesting. . . and (naturally) if your schedule permits. . . I would encourage you to show up at this protest. (And yes, DO bring your kids.)

NOTE: Snyder lives off of Geddes Road, and there's no parking on the road. You can park at Washtenaw Community College, and buses will take you to the protest. The march starts at 4 p.m. Get there a little bit early to get a shuttle.

For more information, you can visit the event's facebook page.

P.S. I know that a lot of people say, "Well what was Snyder supposed to do? The old emergency manager law was a mess!" Just remember that somebody can correctly identify a problem, and yet not find the right solution. In my opinion, that's what happened here.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Time and Time Again

Lately my son has been getting a lot of bar and bat mitzvah invitations. A bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah (bar mitzvah for a boy, bat mitzvah for a girl) is a Jewish ritual rite of passage marking the transition from being a Jewish kid to a Jewish adult (ritually speaking). (My son has not had his bar mitzvah yet.)

As you might or might not know, generally when kids have a bar or bat mitzvah they get presents. And then they have to write thank you notes. When I had my bat mitzvah, the thank you notes seemed endless.

Which led me to the following recent conversation.

Me: "Joe got his thank you notes out really quickly! His bar mitzvah was just last week!"
Son: "Well, it takes less time if you do it quickly."
Me: "It doesn't take less time. Whether you do it quickly or slowly, it takes the same amount of time."
Son: "No, if you get them done in a week instead of two weeks, it takes less time."
Me: "But if every thank you note takes 5 minutes, and you have to write 20 notes, it takes 100 minutes altogether, whether you write 2 a day for 10 days, or do all 20 in 1 day!"

[We'll leave aside the fact that you might achieve efficiencies if you do a lot of them at once. Because you also might get writer's cramp.]

The math on this--which my son did understand--goes like this:
5 minutes/note x 20 notes = 100 minutes
2 notes/day x 10 days = 20 notes/day x 1 day
And yet, my son insisted: "No, it takes less time, because it's a shorter amount of time."
And here, my son is referring to the difference between 10 days, and 1 day. In other words, he was thinking of time as a spatial entity, and I was thinking of time as a quantity. [Mathematicians might have different words for that, by the way.]

I know, you're thinking, "That's a cute story, Ruth, but what does that have to do with schools?"

When I was in elementary, middle, and high school, we had to go to school a minimum of 180 days/year. So school was scheduled for 183 days/year, in order to account for snow days and other unforeseen events.

But now, school is scheduled with a minimum number of minutes as a requirement. A few years ago, when the legislature increased the number of minutes that students had to go to school, most districts just distributed those minutes over the school days, rather than add days to the school year. Typically, just a few minutes a day really added up.  All of which led to the following exchange that I thought was very funny with an elementary school teacher.

That year, we were chronically late to school with our oldest son, and the teacher commented on it.
Me: "I guess I had the time school starts wrong. What time is the bell?"
Teacher: "Well, the first bell is at 8:08."
Me: "OK, what time is the second bell?"
Teacher: "It used to be at 8:14, but now we don't have a second bell any more."

Does it make a difference, minutes or days? Is time a quantity or a spatial entity? You be the judge.

Update 12/13/11: Honestly, I did not know when I wrote this that annarbor.com had just published an article on the idea of using a balanced calendar at Scarlett and Mitchell. Nothing has been decided yet, and you can read the article here. As I've written about before, I myself am not interested in a balanced calendar for my kids. I know that other people are. I think the balanced calendar would be fine if people can opt in or out of it. So if Scarlett/Mitchell becomes a K-8 magnet with a balanced calendar, I'm sure some people will want it. Others won't, and they should be able to go elsewhere.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Administrative Cuts: Easy to Be Hard

Recently, I had two conversations with people who are actively involved in the school district about the district's administrative costs. Neither person works for the district.

One person told me that he feels the district is very hard pressed to get anything done because they have cut so much administrative staff, perhaps too much.
Another person said to me, at one of the recent budget forums, "What do all these administrators do?" [There were an awful lot of administrators at the budget forums. I assume they had been directed to be there.]

I don't know this for sure, but I think that the second commenter's opinion is more common in the district, and of course, I've been curious myself as to whether the district had actually cut a lot of administrative staff.

So, back in the summer, I asked the Ann Arbor school district for information on administrative staffing during the 2005-2006 year and the 2010-2011 school year. It was my first ever FOIA request! (And it really wasn't that hard to submit--thanks Ed Vielmetti for all those FOIA Friday posts.)

The reason that I picked 2005-2006 as my baseline was that I had heard that it was the year that the district got the most per-pupil funding. (Not true, as it turns out--that was 2008-2009.) It also gave me a five-year span to compare.
In 2005-2006, per-pupil funding was $9,409;
in 2008-2009 per-pupil funding was $9,723;
and in 2010-2011 per-pupil funding was $9,490.
But per-pupil funding has fallen to $9,020 in 2011-2012, which brings us back to 2001-2002 in actual dollars (not taking into account inflation).

Anyway, I digress. I asked for information about administrative salaries during 2005-2006 and 2010-2011--everything from the assistant principal level on up. As you shall see, I might have asked for the wrong thing. It's still interesting data, though! What I got was the district's "Cabinet" (Superintendent plus top administrators), all the principals and assistant principals, and the athletic directors--who are considered to be at an assistant principal level.

By using 2010-2011 instead of 2011-2012 I got actual staffing expenses rather than budgeted expenses. I also have the (lower) Superintendent's salary of 2010-2011.

In 2005-2006, the district had 20 elementary schools, 1 K-8 school, 5 middle schools, and 5 high schools. Five years later, the district has the same configuration, except that now Skyline High School has been built and has three of its grades.  And based on my notes below (which I put into a table for you), it doesn't seem like very much administration has been cut at all. But that might be due to me asking for the "wrong" things.

First of all, it's hard to compare the Cabinet. Each superintendent decides who should be in the cabinet, and the cabinet has been significantly reconfigured. For example, currently there is a Director of Physical Properties in the cabinet--that is Randy Trent. His position was made cabinet level after two lower-level positions (of which he had one) were combined into one position following someone's retirement. In 2005 there was nobody from special education services in the cabinet, and now there is--which is definitely a good thing for special education services. In 2005, I believe that all legal work was done on contract. Now we have a legal voice (David Comsa) in the cabinet. All cabinet positions are non-union.

But--why do the cabinet level position pay increases exceed the increases of the unionized administrative staff?  That seems wrong. And I believe that the district just filled at least two fairly high-level administrative positions. I wonder how their pay compares.

Second of all, I only asked for the positions of assistant principals on up.
There were, I believe, several positions in administration cut, but they were obviously at levels below what I requested in my FOIA request. At the levels I requested, it doesn't look like there has been very much administrative cutting at all. It does look like the raises--below the cabinet level--have been reasonable (and at a rate less than inflation).

What happens when one gets raises at a rate less than inflation is that one constantly feels like one is getting cut. While this is true in terms of adjusted dollars, in terms of actual dollars it is not a true cut. The same thing is happening with principals, in a different way. I know that Pioneer and Huron *feel* like they have lost a lot of asst. principal positions. Really, those positions have gotten transferred to Skyline, and the ratio of principals to high school students at the big schools is fairly stable. 

In this data, it is also possible to see some areas where there could--and probably should--be changes.

1. Skyline has an athletic coordinator and not an athletic director (therefore, he doesn't show up on this chart) because I was told that the plan is that, after one of the other ADs retires there will only be one AD and two athletic coordinators. Here's how I think about it. The Athletic Directors are at the level of Asst. Principals, and every year there are asst. principal positions open. Why not move one of the ADs into an assistant principal position now and replace her or him with a lower-level athletic coordinator? Why wait until someone decides to retire? If we only need one athletic director, why wait?

2. Should a couple of schools be closed? Candidates that would come to mind to me: Pittsfield (size--disperse the school. Downside:  it does draw a huge number of kids from the neighborhood); Mitchell (make Scarlett a K-8); Scarlett (without Mitchell--disperse the school to the other middle schools); Ann Arbor Technical School.

3. Could assistant principals be only part-time principals and work in the classroom?

4. Now that the comprehensive high schools are so much smaller, do we need as many assistant principals as we have? Could we live with one principal and only one or two assistant principals at these schools?

5. Does the preschool need a full-time principal?

 

2005-2006

2010-2011

Changes

Comments

 

 

Number of Students


16,879

16,552

Down 327 students
The preschool nearly doubled in size from 95 to 162 but that doesn’t show up in this per-pupil funding count. It does, however, have separate funding. Both times, Pittsfield is the smallest elementary school and Scarlett is the smallest middle school.

Per-Pupil Funding


$9,409/ student

$9,490/ student

+$81

That increase does not cover inflation

Number of Cabinet Level Staff


8

8

See text

The Superintendent chooses who should be in the cabinet. All these positions are non-union.

High School Principals


5

6

Skyline opened

Huron, Pioneer, Community, Clemente, Stone, and then Skyline

High School Asst. Principals


11

11.5

+.5
In 2010-2011, Huron had an asst. principal who retired partway through the year and wasn’t replaced. Both counts include Athletic Directors at Huron and Pioneer. Skyline has only an Athletic Coordinator.

Middle School Principals


5

5

--

Middle School Assistant Principals


5

5

--

See elementary school notes

Preschool, Elementary, K-8 Principals


22

23

+1

In 2010, the Mitchell principal was pulled out of the school to organize the Mitchell/Scarlett K-8 program for a year and is still counted in this count.

Pay Range for Assistant Principals


$86,660-$97,705 (103,200)

$91,420-$103,690

+5% to 6% over 5 years

I think in 2005-2006 one asst. principal was getting a principal’s salary based on past service.

Pay Range for Principals


$94,600-$103,200


$96,875-$109,515

+2% to 6% over 5 years
2005-2006 Comprehensive HS principals: $120,470
2010-2011 Comprehensive HS principals: $127,840

Pay Range for Cabinet


$101,430-$132,640

$109,515-$132,000

Increases up to 12% for staff who were in the cabinet at both times.



*Excludes Director of Communications who sits on cabinet but is paid significantly lower rate.

Superintendent Salary

$144,200 (Fornero)
$175,000
(Roberts, then Allen)

+21%

Roberts left part way through the year and the interim supt. was paid the same rate. 2011-2012 Supt. Green’s salary is about $245,000. Compared to 2005-2006, that is an increase of 70%.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Anti-Bullying Action

Ann Arbor's Superintendent sent out a very nice letter wherein she lays out how it is that some anti-bullying legislation at the state level now has a loophole so large you could drive a truck through it, that essentially allows bullying if it is based on your religious beliefs.

[So...you think Jews will rot in hell?  I guess it wouldn't be considered bullying if you called an 8-year-old Jewish kid "Satan's spawn." You think homosexuality is morally wrong? It would be ok to call a gay kid names if it was motivated by religion.] Yes, it's that bad.

What is nice about this letter is that she also gives phone numbers to take action. And, the information is applicable to every school in this state, so don't let the fact that you live in Saline, Chelsea, or Ypsilanti deter you from opposing this bill. Here is the letter:

Dear AAPS Families and Community Members,

I was recently informed by the State Superintendent of Schools of a major change in the proposed anti-bullying legislation. The passage of State legislation regarding bullying (SB 137) had been anticipated as a tool to help enforce and protect students from any form of bullying in schools. Instead, recent language changes in the proposed legislation is turning it into a bill, and potentially a law, that would permit bullying a student if it is “a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.” This recent change in the legislative language by the Michigan Senate is disturbing and potentially dangerous. It clearly makes exceptions for bullying behavior based on religious beliefs or moral convictions.

I will be writing to Governor Snyder and the Legislature to voice my concern regarding this “exception” in the legislation and I encourage members of the community to let the Governor and legislators know your opinions on this legislation as well.  I believe this new language can endanger students by justifying bullying behavior. It is my belief that bullying cannot be justified in schools and that intimidation and harassment of students are unacceptable. As Superintendent of Schools, I am alarmed to see the inclusion of this new language, which can be potentially harmful in allowing and/or justifying unacceptable behavior in a school setting. Please let the Governor and state legislators know your opinion of the language added to Senate Bill 137.  Their addresses are attached for your convenience.

Sincerely,

Patricia P. Green

Patricia P. Green, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Ann Arbor Public Schools

Governor Rick Snyder
P.O. Box 30013
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 335-7858 - Constituent Services    Rick.Snyder@michigan.gov

Representative Mark Ouimet
S-986 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, Mi  48909-7514
(517)373-0828
 markouimet@house.mi.gov

Representative Jeff Irwin
S-987 House Office Building
P.O. Box 30014
Lansing, MI  48909-7514
(517) 373-5808
 jeffirwin@house.mi.gov

Senator Rebekah Warren
Lansing Office
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
(517) 373-2406
  senwarren@senate.michigan.gov
 

Update 11/11/11: Steven Colbert has something to say about this legislation:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Bully Pulpit
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Cheating

Two weeks ago, I spent the weekend at a kids' baseball tournament. In a shocking turn of events, one of the teams got expelled for playing a young man who was two years older than the rest of the kids. Yes, that's illegal according to the rules of the tournament and the league.

It's also stupid, in my opinion. These kids were not even playing for medals, let alone money or athletic scholarships! And--as two coaches on two of the other teams voiced to me, "What kind of message does that send to the kids?" That you kids need an older kid to help you out because your team wouldn't be good enough otherwise? That cheating is ok?

Sometimes we don't have very much clarity about what "cheating" exactly is. I recall letting a friend copy off of me during a high school French test. I didn't think of it as cheating, because I wasn't the one copying...

In college I got more clarity. My college had an honor code, and exams were unproctored. (How is that for trust? I once saw someone go up to another student and say, "I saw you cheating. You can turn yourself in, or I will turn you in." They turned themselves in.) In any case, at the end of a test, we had to write the words, "I have neither given nor received aid." So apparently, giving aid (letting someone cheat off of you) was still cheating.

What surprised me about July's baseball cheating incident wasn't that there was cheating in baseball. Every baseball fan knows the story of baseball's infamous 1919 Black Sox. But that was the World Series! The stakes were high! No--what surprised me about the tournament cheating episode was that people cheated even though the stakes were so low--no money, no prizes, just being named the winner.

Maybe that shouldn't have surprised me. After all, if my friend had failed that French test, she probably still would have had a B in the class--it wasn't a big test!

But when the stakes are higher, can we expect more cheating?
Apparently the answer is yes.

And it's not the kids, but the ADULTS, who are cheating. Those principals and teachers are setting some kind of crummy example.

Look at these national educational scandals, focused on test results and whether a school is making adequate yearly progress.

Atlanta

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

Miami

At the same time, let's not forget that some of the educators refused to cheat. (Although I still wonder why they didn't turn their colleagues in.)

In a 7/17/2011 article, the New York Times writes:
Principals, in turn, humiliated teachers. At Fain Elementary, the principal, Marcus Stallworth, had teachers with low test scores crawl under a table, according to the report. At Parks Middle School, teachers who refused to join “changing parties” that were organized by the principal, Christopher Waller, to doctor answer sheets were isolated or let go, the report said.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed this column by Robert Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing,  APS cheating scandal reflects U.S. trend, which says in part:
The Atlanta cheating scandal is likely the largest in scope in U.S. history in terms of the number of people implicated. But it is hardly an isolated incident.

For more than two decades, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest), has tracked reports of cheating from across the nation. The number of cases has exploded in recent years, with new reports nearly every week.
In the past few months, improper test score manipulation have been uncovered in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando and many smaller communities.
The Georgia Office of Special Investigators’ report on the Atlanta scandal provides a particularly cogent analysis of the causes of the problem. If politicians who mandate school policies heed its findings, it should have powerful implications for both federal and state testing requirements.
Here’s what the Georgia investigators found:
“Three primary conditions led to widespread cheating on the 2009 CRCT. The targets set by the district were often unreasonable, especially given their cumulative effect over the years. Additionally, the administration put unreasonable pressure on teachers and principals to achieve targets.”
Unreasonable score gain targets coupled with unreasonable pressure on educators is standard operating procedure for testing programs across the nation. Independent analysts conclude that nearly all public schools ultimately will be declared “failing” under the No Child Left Behind mandate of 100 percent proficiency. Teachers and principals face stern sanctions, including job loss, if they do not boost scores.  “A culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation spread throughout the district.”
Read more about ways to make evaluation better at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing's web page, FairTest.org.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Online Learning Question

In my last post I expressed some concerns about online learning. John Sowash asked why, and I started to respond, but my answer got too long. Better to just put it in its own post!

He also references a post I haven't read yet, but you might want to look at:
Clayton Christenson, author of Disrupting Class, put up a new post recently in which he says that online learning is continuing to expand rapidly in the K-12 sector: http://bit.ly/bXoMeH
Regarding the role of online learning: I think it is fabulous for people who can't learn any other way--for instance, kids in northern Alaska wouldn't have good access to advanced science classes without online learning. Soldiers on duty around the world can now pursue college courses. And I imagine that online learning works really well for highly motivated students in any location. (Those students, of course, can probably learn under most conditions, so they may not be a good sample.) If you are motivated to (for example) learn Portuguese, and you live in northern Michigan, then an online course may be the best way to go (or the next best, after being an exchange student).
On the other hand--my daughter's friend had the experience this year of signing up for an online course to replace her 10th grade English class. She told my daughter she wouldn't do it again. Even though she is a high-performing student, she found that she was not motivated enough to do the work regularly.
Most of the studies of online learning, to date, have been done with highly motivated students. I predict that as you open the doors to less motivated students, you will see diminishing returns. It's a lot harder to identify, and motivate, slacker students in an online class. It may also be hard for students who find material difficult to get the additional help they need.

As for this prediction:
I believe that a hybrid model will emerge as the most effective solution. Students will go to school 2-3 days a week and work from home the other days. This will save districts a tremendous amount of money in heating, electricity, busing, and janitorial services.

From a parent's perspective: I have no doubt that there is a lot of interest on the part of school administrators for the very cost-saving reasons that you mention. Nonetheless, as the parent of three children, two of whom are teenagers, this makes me feel very queasy. Don't we already know that the most likely time for kids to get in trouble is after school, before parents are home from work? Aren't most high schools even afraid to create "open campuses" (students can leave school during open blocks) instead of "closed campuses" (students are restricted from leaving) for fear of the students getting into trouble? If I were to leave my kids home all day while I was at work, five days a week, year round, I would spend the whole day worrying about them.  How would I ensure that they were doing their work, and not (best case scenario) sleeping until noon? Worst case scenario? Alcohol, weed, sex... As far as I am concerned, that old quote, "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" has a lot of currency--even though I don't believe in the devil!

And let's think about the costs to families: Am I then responsible for making sure that each child in my house has a computer? That the house has a working printer? That I have a reasonable-speed cable or DSL connection? Essentially, that is a transfer of costs to me--and that may not be feasible for poorer families.

Last, but not least, there is a philosophical question: do we want kids tied to the computer all day? I have one child who loves it, and would probably learn well that way, one child who is agnostic about it, and one child who hates time on the computer.


I'm not saying that these problems are unsolvable. I'm just saying that they haven't yet been solved.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Charter School Evaluations

Western Michigan University has spent a lot of time on charter school evaluation. I went back to the very first report, and a lot of what they had to say is still true today. In any case, if you are interested in charter schools, here are some links:

Western Michigan University Evaluation Center
First Evaluation of Michigan Charter Schools (1999)
Second Evaluation of Michigan Charter Schools (2000)
Great Lakes Center for Education and Research (Charter Schools). Scroll down for the section on  Evaluating the Impact of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Longitudinal Look at the Great Lakes States (2007)
In particular, Appendix D focuses on Michigan, and says this:
Aside from the cap on university-sponsored charter schools, the Michigan charter school law is generally seen to be among the least restrictive. The Center for Education Reform consistently rates Michigan’s charter school law among the most permissive.2 Chi and Welner (in press)3 rated Michigan as one of the weakest charter school laws, because of issues related to equity of access, accountability, and proliferation of private interests. Michigan’s charter school reform is unique in that three-quarters of its charter schools are operated by for-profit education management organizations. Michigan is also somewhat unique in that the average size of charter schools in approaching the average size of traditional public schools.
Here is a Free Press article about Charter Schools and Segregation, and another one that suggests that charter schools (overall) do not live up to their promise.  What have your experiences been? I am hoping to look at each of the county's charter schools over the next few months.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Unintended Consequences

I know you've all been waiting for this post. 
At the end of the 1985 reorganization, several schools were closed: Bader, Clinton, Freeman, Lakewood, Newport, and Stone schools. In addition, the K-6 elementary schools became K-5 schools; the 7-9 middle schools became 6-8 schools; and the grade 10-12 schools became 9-12 schools. In addition, the Open School got a School Of Its Own, at Bach.
Now, back in the day--pre-proposal A--decision-making did not take into account the number of students in the district the way that it does today. Of course, overall the size of the district population mattered, but ten students here or there did not make any significant difference. In fact, the five-year forecasts the 1985 committee used showed the elementary school population growing slightly, and the middle and high school populations decreasing slightly. The 1984 total head count was 13,772 students, and the Committee on Excellence used a 1990 projected head count of 12,741 students.
After the decision was made to close the schools, the district had to decide what to do with them, and the decision was made to sell some, and keep others.
Bader (which is in Ann Arbor Hills) was bought by a preschool, the Ann Arbor Hills Child Development Center.
The district held onto Freeman (which is in the Dixboro area), and gave a long-term lease to Go Like The Wind Christian Montessori. Side note: Rec & Ed soccer games are still sometimes played there.
Clinton (which is halfway between Stone School and Bryant, and which abuts Clinton Park) was bought by the Jewish Community Center, and both the JCC preschool and the Hebrew Day School are located there.
The district held onto Lakewood School (on the west side of Ann Arbor near Dolph Park), and reopened it in 2001--at which point it got some fairly extensive renovations. After being closed for 15 years, it probably needed them.
Newport School (on Newport Road) was sold and became the Rudolph Steiner School.
Stone School (at the corner of Stone School and Packard) has been used by the district for various things over the years--for Rec & Ed, for the New School (an alternative high school), and now for another alternative high school, Stone School.
When you close a school, who are potential buyers? For whom is a building like a school perfectly suited? Why, for another school. 
One of the unintended consequences is that, in selling schools to other schools, the district set up competition for itself. This doesn't seem to have been anticipated at all, and in fact--pre-proposal A--what mattered most was whether the community would support the schools, and not the exact number of students in the public schools.

So, for instance, the Rudolph Steiner School started in 1980 with a handful of students, and grew slowly until 1986, when it was able to occupy Newport School. By 1999, the Steiner School had 298 students--the vast majority in their K-8 lower school (313 students K-12, 2009).
In 1985, the Hebrew Day School was in very inadequate space, and had under 50 students. By 1999, the Hebrew Day School had over 100 students (87 students K-5, 2009).
Go Like the Wind Christian Montessori school, which only opened in 1987, had over 100 students by 1999 (101 students K-8, 2009). 
And Ann Arbor Hills Child Development Center goes through age 8, with a K-2 primary school program that in 1999 had 35 students (33 students K-2, 2009).

Of course, not all of those 500 or so students live in Ann Arbor, but probably about 75% of them do. (That is an unscientific number, based largely on the people I know who send their children to these schools.) In addition, at least three of these schools have feeder preschools, so children who get started there are likely to stay there.
Certainly, all this was an unintended consequence.

All of this didn't matter so much then, but it matters a lot more now, when per-pupil counts matter so much--and I feel that in some sense, we gave these schools the freedom to expand. Sure, they might have found space anyway (several of the charters have), but we made it easy for them. Obviously, excess capacity can be a drag on the system. However, there were estimated savings at the time--have they come to pass? I don't know, but if you include the per-pupil costs, I think the closings probably haven't saved money.

And in the "this might be too far-fetched to consider" category, I will add one more possible unintended consequence: the building of Skyline High School and the building of the Ann Arbor Preschool and Family Center. Regarding Skyline, I say this because, today, we still have significant excess capacity at the middle school level. (Remember, this was also true in 1985, and one of the proposals that wasn't implemented included closing a middle school.) At the time, putting sixth graders in the middle schools kept the middle schools at essentially the same size, and adding the ninth graders to the high schools put Huron and Pioneer essentially at capacity. I say that the building of Skyline as an unintended consequence "might be too far-fetched to consider" for two reasons: first, the estimates of student enrollment only went out five years, and the estimates were essentially flat. This turned out not to be the case, at least ten years out, when the fall head count had grown by 1500 students. The other reason is that educational trends can be like bulldozers, and the trend to move to having ninth graders in high schools reached its ascendancy many years ago. I don't think there would be much traction for moving ninth graders back to middle school--at least, I never heard it entertained as a serious suggestion during the whole time that building a new high school was discussed.

In a similar vein, it seems to me that the building of the AAPS preschool center admits the importance of having feeder preschools to the K-12 AAPS program--something these private schools figured out years ago. Yet, at the point at which this was identified as a need, there was no obvious building for locating all of the preschool programs.
[As to what I think about the excess middle school capacity--I think that there is a lot of demand for K-8 schooling, and one of the middle schools could become a K-8 school. But that is a subject for a different post.]

Last, but not least--the planners did not (and I would say, probably could not) have anticipated the ascendancy of charter schools. Charter schools have undoubtedly had an impact on some of the schools' enrollment, particularly in the elementary schools. The Committee on Excellence had a goal of ensuring that all elementary schools have enrollments over 300. In 2009, three elementary schools fell short of that (I'll give Abbott a pass at 297), with Pittsfield School having the lowest enrollment--and my understanding is that at least some of the reason that Pittsfield is so small is due to the fact that charters have attracted many "potentially Pittsfield" students.

So--unintended consequences--is this what you thought I would say?

P.S. Because this is the last post I will write on this for a while (at least I think it is), I just want to say that I believe the Committee on Excellence did a really good job with the information at hand, and the reason is that the process was good. The process was used to the advantage of the school district. The process involved a citizens' committee gathering input from the larger community, bringing a proposal to the School Board, with the administration serving as support for the committee. Read about that process in the report itself. That was then, this was now--let's learn from our past. And if you see any of the members of the Committee around town (some have passed on, but some are still here), you can thank them, because I'm posting the list of members:
1. Mary Austin
2. Ronald Bishop
3. Vincent Carillot
4. Patricia Chapman
5. Susan Doud
6. Cheryl Garnett
7. Leonard Gay
8. George Goodman
9. Charles Kieffer
10. Norma McCuiston
11. R. Griffith McDonald
12. Bettye McDonald
13. Melinda Morris
14. Merrill Nemiroff
15. Duane Renken
16. Ingrid Sheldon
17. Joann Sims
18. Estelle Titiev
19. James Wanty
20. Ronald Woods

Monday, March 15, 2010

Desegregation Outcomes

The primary focus of the 1985 reorganization was integrating the schools--in particular, integrating the black and white populations. The Asian, Latino, and Middle Eastern populations were much smaller than they are today.
I was interested in the immediate impacts of this reoganization, but unfortunately I did not have time to dig through the microfiche and find the 1986 enrollment numbers. As a result, this post takes a much longer view of this reorganization. On the one hand, this is somewhat unfair, since the committee that developed the reorganization was only able to estimate out about five years. In taking the long view, I also need to recognize that there have been some (relatively minor, with the exception of the re-opening of Lakewood and the opening of Skyline) changes to the individual school boundaries over the years.
[By the way, his post gets a little numbers-heavy. I think the numbers tell the story, but if you don't, skip to the end. Also, for the purposes of counting here, I count Ann Arbor Open as an elementary school.]

At the time of the report (1985), the AAPS African-American population was 17% of the total schools population, and the state considered a school out of balance if the African-American population was + or - 15% points compared to the district average, which is how the state recommended a 2-32% guideline for Ann Arbor. The Committee on Excellence chose a more restrictive +/- 5-15% range.

If we look at the racial makeup of the schools today, the African-American population average is still between 12 and 27%, the goal of the committee. In September 2009 it was at 14.5%. Some individual schools are much higher or lower.  Angell School, for instance, has an African-American population of only 3.6%, and in total, the following schools fall below 12%: 9 elementary schools (give Logan a pass at 11.8%), 2 middle schools, and Community High School.

On the other end of the spectrum, Roberto Clemente's African-American population is 82.3%--but I should note that this was true back in 1984, and I guess because Clemente and Community were and are magnet schools, the committee was unable to address the numbers through redistricting--though they did say they hoped to reduce the achievement gap. (In fact, lawsuits against the schools, and Proposal 2, have limited options on this front even more.

So, aside from Clemente, the schools that are over the 27% number today comprise a much smaller number: Mitchell, Scarlett, and Stone.

[In 2002, by comparison, 8 elementary schools and Community High School were below 12% (Not including Forsythe, at 11.7%). No elementary schools were above 27%, but Scarlett, Clemente, and Stone were above 27%.]

If we look at the 2009 African-American AAPS population percentages, however, we only get part of the story. 
For while the African-American school population has shrunk slightly as a percentage of the school population, the Asian, Latino, and Middle Eastern populations have increased greatly. Where the fall 2009 headcount counts African-American students as 14.5% of the population, the Asian population comprises 14.2% of the population.
So, using a broader lens, let's take a look at Angell School again:
3.6% African American
32% Asian, 
4.2% Middle Eastern, 
5.8% Multi-ethnic, 
.3% Native American, 
.6% Other, 
4.9% Latino/Hispanic, and 
48.5% White. 
In other words--even though Angell doesn't meet the criteria of 12-27% African American, it clearly is diverse.
You might be surprised to know that the district, on average, is now 52.8% White. If I were to say that a range of 42-62% White was acceptable as a range for desegregation, these schools would be below 42% White: 7 elementary schools (at 41.9% I will give Thurston a pass), Scarlett Middle School, and Clemente and Stone high schools. These schools would be above 62%: 4 elementary schools, Forsythe Middle School, and Community High School.

And if we were to set up a committee to strive for racial balance today, we would find that the Asian AAPS population is highly concentrated in some schools, and barely present in others. Using that same 12-27% range, there are 10 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 3 high schools that that come in under 12% Asian population, and there are 5 elementary schools that are over the 27% number.

It is worth noting, however, that the 1985 reorganization had at its core, not 1, but 2 significant goals related to racial integration. One goal was "the elimination of racial isolation," which was considered an important value in and of itself. Although I hesitate to call that the "primary goal," it was in fact the driving force behind the reorganization. And although the reorganization was not, and is not, perfect--from the point of view of eliminating racial isolation, I think the work of the committee stands on its own, and 25 years later, it stands pretty well.

At the time, the Committee on Excellence of Education noted that
On a district wide basis, the academic performance of minorities lags far behind that of the majority population. Minorities are significantly overrepresented in lower curricular paths and significantly underrepresented in advanced courses of study. Disproportionately high numbers of minorities are the subject of disciplinary action. . . Measured by the critical index of progress toward educational opportunity, the Ann Arbor School District, in this regard, is in crisis.
The second goal, then, was the goal of reducing the achievement gap. Twenty-five years later. . . countless policy papers later. . . many efforts later (and whether these efforts have been wrong or inadequate--or both--we'll leave for another time). . . this goal remains elusive, and has not been achieved.

AddThis