State House Burns Detroit Schools in Middle of Night Session

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But do listen to the speeches:

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

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

Rep. Sam Singh of East Lansing:

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

Rep. Adam Zemke of Ann Arbor:

From his Facebook post:  

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

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

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

Last, but not least--

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

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

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

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

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

Here is an excerpt of her statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bills go to the Senate next. The Capitol is

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

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

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

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the full bill. 

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

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear ACLU of Michigan lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connect...the....Dots 

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

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

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Things I'm Reading about the State of Our State's Education

The Best Piece of the Week goes to Lindsey Smith at Michigan Radio.

Reporter’s Notebook: State needs to be more transparent about the schools it’s running is breathtaking, and at the same time damning.

Here is just a snippet:

The Emergency Loan Board is a public body. It should act like one 

Here's the thing about the Emergency Loan Board (ELB).

It has incredible power to keep schools and municipalities out of bankruptcy court. It can lend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars – repeatedly – to schools that are going broke. It even has subpoena power.
Yet there’s very little transparency.
Its three members all head state departments. Each handpicked by the governor.

 ELB members (L-R) Department of Technology, Management and Budget Director David Behen; Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Mike Zimmer; and state Treasurer Nick Khouri. CREDIT STATE OF MICHIGAN

The board has no webpage. Its meetings in Lansing are open to the public, but there is no schedule. Meetings are sporadic.
Meeting minutes aren’t available online, a common practice for public bodies. So you can’t just go somewhere to see what the board has been up to lately.
Meeting notices are sent via email. But there are no agenda or documents attached. If Michigan’s Department of Treasury doesn’t want you to find out ahead of time what it's going to approve, you won’t know.
Any decision the board makes must be unanimous, according to state law. Is that why it functions mostly as a rubber-stamp board?
The decisions the board makes are “vetted” and reviewed by Treasury staff, according to Treasury Department spokesman Terry Stanton.

Read the rest here.

Runner Up: Eclectablog's piece on some state legislators' agenda for schools.

An excellent post at Eclectablog calling out the agenda of some Republicans in our state legislature, for example Rep. Tim Kelly of Saginaw Township, who believes in "publicly-funded education," just not "publicly delivered."

Third Place: A New York Times Article, 'Opt Out' Becomes Potent Political Force.

You might not have seen this article because it is a New York Region article (and I found it courtesy of Diane Ravitch).

Key information:

At least 165,000 children, or one of every six eligible students, sat out at least one of the two standardized tests this year, more than double and possibly triple the number who did so in 2014, according to an analysis by The New York Times.As the vanguard of an anti-testing fervor that has spread across the country, New York’s opt-out movement has become a political force. Just two months ago, lawmakers from both parties, at the behest of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, increased the role of test scores in teacher evaluations and tenure decisions. Those legislators are now tripping over one another to introduce bills that guarantee the right to refuse to take tests.

The maps are really interesting to look at, they show the opt-out movement's growth over time.

Honorable Mention: From the Washington Post, Will Schools Lose Federal Funds if Kids Don't Take Mandated Tests? 

Here's how the article starts:

I’ve recently published a number of posts on the growth and impact of the standardized testing opt-out movement. As more parents choose against allowing their children to sit down for new mandated tests, the pushback from administrators is increasing in many places, with some of them threatening consequences to students who refuse to take the assessments.
Here’s a look at what is true and not true about the consequences attached to opting out from standardized testings. It was written by Monty Neill, executive director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, known as  FairTest, a nonprofit organization that works to end the misuses of standardized testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, educators and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally sound.

And I'm re-reading: 

I've gone back to an excellent series of articles by the Detroit Free Press, on how charter schools are not held accountable.



Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Bringing Guns to School: Legal, Yes; OK, No; Kids Can't, Teachers Can't, But Others Can

By now you know that on Thursday night, March 5th, a man named Joshua Wade--grandson of a former deputy superintendent in the Ann Arbor Public Schools, William Wade--brought a gun to a choir concert at Pioneer H.S.

By now you know that the police were called, that they learned that Joshua Wade had a license to carry concealed weapons, which gives him license to carry openly (but not concealed) in schools. The police concluded they could do nothing.

As the Free Press explains:

MCL 28.450 provides that a person with a concealed pistol license may not carry the weapon in a pistol-free zone, including a school or school property, except a parent or legal guardian who is dropping off or picking up a child and the pistol is kept in the vehicle; a public or private day care center; a sports arena or stadium; a bar or tavern; a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship; an entertainment facility with seating capacity of 2,500 or more; a hospital, and a dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university.
However, the statute applies to concealed pistol license holders carrying a concealed pistol. If the holder is carrying a non-concealed pistol, the statute does not apply. (Emphasis added.)

By now you know that the Ann Arbor Public Schools are trying to figure out what their options are. They are, of course, constrained by state law.

It's true. You can follow me on twitter. @schoolsmuse

You might or might not know that state law requires that schools have, essentially, zero tolerance for kids bringing weapons--on purpose or accidentally--into schools. 

Read:

Student Advocacy Center: Michigan's Brand of Zero Tolerance: Is There Another Way?

Ann Arbor Public Schools Rights & Responsibilities Document

From the State Law: 

(2) If a pupil possesses in a weapon free school zone a weapon that constitutes a dangerous weapon, commits arson in a school building or on school grounds, or commits criminal sexual conduct in a school building or on school grounds, the school board, or the designee of the school board as described in subsection (1) on behalf of the school board, shall expel the pupil from the school district permanently, subject to possible reinstatement under subsection (5). However, a school board is not required to expel a pupil for possessing a weapon if the pupil establishes in a clear and convincing manner at least 1 of the following:
(a) The object or instrument possessed by the pupil was not possessed by the pupil for use as a weapon, or for direct or indirect delivery to another person for use as a weapon.
(b) The weapon was not knowingly possessed by the pupil.
(c) The pupil did not know or have reason to know that the object or instrument possessed by the pupil constituted a dangerous weapon.
(d) The weapon was possessed by the pupil at the suggestion, request, or direction of, or with the express permission of, school or police authorities.

It's true. You can follow me on twitter. @schoolsmuse

You might, or might not know that school policies generally prohibit employees from bringing weapons onto school property, even if the employee in question has a permit to carry concealed weapons.

See, for instance, the Ann Arbor Education Association's Office Professionals contract, which states that having a weapon on school property is grounds for dismissal for an employee. (Similar language can be seen in other contracts.)

DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE This article shall not pertain to probationary employees with fewer than ninety (90) days of employment in this Association.  

Section 1- Just Cause  

A. No employee shall be disciplined (written reprimand, suspension, or discharged for disciplinary reasons) without just cause. For purposes of this Agreement, just cause shall include but not be limited to:
1) Refusal or failure to accept or perform work assigned during regularly scheduled hours, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement;....
8) Possessing a weapon on the Employer’s property;  (Emphasis added)

You might or might not know that the majority of workplace and school shootings happen with people who have a prior relationship to the workplace or school and are known. These might be co-workers (think disgruntled employee), relatives of co-workers (think domestic violence), "customers" (think students or parents).

You might or might not know that schools throughout the county are being trained in the A.L.I.C.E. protocols, which states that when you have an active threat, you Alert; Lockdown; Inform; Counter; and Evacuate (if it is safe to do so). All of the county's districts are doing trainings with teachers and administrators, and students are being taught ways to respond, particularly as far as evacuation goes.

I recently went through the ALICE training at work, and I can therefore state quite confidently that:

1. ALICE protocols were not followed at the choir concert (police were called but the people present were not alerted to someone having a weapon), and
2. How are you supposed to know if someone walks into a school building, openly carrying a weapon, whether they are or are not an active threat? I think you would have to assume that they are.

The very *idea* that somebody--known or unknown--can open carry into a school building, and NOT have the schools react, is ridiculous. What kind of confusing messages are we giving to students and parents and teachers? When does ALICE apply, and when doesn't it?

Schools in Michigan are struggling with these contradictions.

Obviously, the easiest thing would be for the state legislature to make it illegal to carry weapons--whether concealed or carried openly--into schools--just as they are banned at places of worship and bars.

While Representatives Schor and Hoadley have introduced this type of legislation, given our current legislature, I'm not holding my breath.

In the meantime, some school districts are trying other things. I believe that the Huron Valley Schools ultimately decided that if anybody brings in a weapon, they will invoke ALICE protocols.

Meanwhile, in Clio, near Flint, somebody is suing because he wants to open carry into his daughter's school. Let's give support to the school district, whose former superintendent explains things this way:

Former Clio schools Superintendent James Tenbusch said in September 2013 that the district adopted the philosophy of being a drug-free, weapon-free environment and that it understands state law and the U.S. Constitution allow firearms to be openly carried on school property.
He had said the district has the right to ask individuals to leave the school if they disrupt the academic process.
Tenbusch said following the incident the school goes into lockdown when a weapon is found on its property, and those lockdowns cause a disruption in the school. He said those disruptions justify the district's demand that those with weapons leave.

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Keep the Pressure on Legislators!

It's a fast changing universe with lame duck session. Two groups that are following the details: Michigan Parents for Schools and the Tri-County Alliance for Education. Here is the latest update from MIPFS.

Final hours of lame duck - your voice needed now!

Dear Ruth,

 

The lame duck session of the legislature is drawing to a close, and two important measures that would hurt our local schools are still under intense discussion. We've reached the point where we need you to call your legislators personally.

The first measure, as you know, is funding for roads: while the state Senate opted to simply raise money directly with the gas tax, the House was afraid of raising any taxes and chose to take road funds from money that normally goes to schools as well as cities and towns. They have been negotiating over this for many days now, and as the deadline nears, the pressure to do something - anything - will grow.

Whatever solution they find must not remove funding from schools, period. Simply leave our kids out of it.

The second measure is the school district "deficit early warning" package, or, as we like to call it, the "Defund 'Em + Take 'Em Over" package. These bills do nothing to help local schools in financial trouble but do greatly expand the power of the stateTreasury Department to take over districts with budget problems. While the state bleeds funding from our schools, these bills would require districts to dedicate staff to write a whole slew of new reports to describe how they are in financial trouble. Bill sponsors weren't interested in the concerns of parents or school officials and pushed their punitive bills through the Senate. They may come up for a vote in the House today.

We really need you to call TODAY. Ask your lawmakers to:

• Fix the roads, but leave our kids and schools out of it. (HB 4539, 5477, 5493)

• Oppose the "Defund 'Em + Take 'Em Over" package (SB 951-954, 957)

Please CALL

Rep. Adam Zemke - (517) 373-1792

Sen. Rebekah Warren - (517) 373-2406

 

Thank you for your efforts to protect our local schools!

 

Steve Norton

Michigan Parents for Schools

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

Legislative Whack-a-Mole: Lame Duck Session Activities

I am reposting this alert from Michigan Parents for Schools, written by Steve Norton, which sums up all the problems with this lame duck session and suggests some action.

Let's play "Legislative Whack-A-Mole™"!

We're in the legislative "lame duck" session, so that means it must be time to push a lot of bad ideas into law while Michigan voters are getting ready for the holidays. And we have a great assortment of bad ideas this year:

Bad Idea #1 - Let's pave the roads with our children's education:
Everyone agrees that our roads need help. The MI Senate passed a straight-up increase in the gas tax to pay for it. But in their continuing effort to duck responsibility for, well, anything, the state House leadership breathed new life into a discredited plan to pay for better roads with - you guessed it - money from schools. To the tune of $700 million per year - $500 per student. And then "We the People" would have to vote on a referendum to raise taxes just to keep the school funding we already have. Sweet!

This is utter nonsense and displays not courage but the exact opposite. Read news coverage here and here and then use our advocacy system to let your Representative know what you think of this plan (use this link:http://www.capwiz.com/miparentsforschools/issues/alert/?alertid=62630721).

Bad Idea #2 - Cut school funding and then take 'em over when they have budget problems:The "deficit early warning" bill package sailed through the Senate and now has to gain the approval of the House. It has not improved with age. Here is our write-up on the bills; please use our action alert here to contact the Governor and House members - http://www.capwiz.com/miparentsforschools/issues/alert/?alertid=63971481

Bad Idea #3 - Cut school funding and then force them to flunk 3rd graders who don't test well in reading: We do need to make sure that every child can read well, and as early as possible. But that's not always easy, and helping kids who struggle with reading can't be done on the cheap. Simply branding kids (and schools) as failures by flunking them after 3rd grade won't make the challenges go away. Even Florida, supposedly a success story for this flunking idea, only made real improvements by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in early reading intervention programs. The Michigan version? Not a dime.

Read our issue brief here, and then speak out on this proposal to your State Representative with this link:http://www.capwiz.com/miparentsforschools/issues/alert/?alertid=63971576!

Bad Idea #4 - Cut school funding, and then slap a simplistic letter grade on them to show how badly they're doing: In Lansing and in Washington, there is a fetish about judging schools on the basis of a handful of test scores. This proposal would make things worse by using narrow test scores to "grade" schools - on a curve, no less. Does a grade of "C" make you think "pretty decent, middle of the pack'? Me neither. And how about that big red "F" (they really want to be able to Fail schools) - does that make you think "schools struggling with a history of poverty, discrimination and instability"? Not exactly. But this bill would make sure that schools with the lowest test scores always got an F. 

Trying to sum up a school's performance in one letter grade, based on scores from tests we haven't even picked yet, is not a solution. It's just shifting the blame, and rewarding schools that care about nothing but test scores.Read our issue brief here, and then speak out on this proposal to your State Representative by using this link:http://capwiz.com/miparentsforschools/issues/alert/?alertid=63971636!

(You may have noticed a common theme: cut school funding, and then make a fuss about how public schools can't "do their jobs." Like a good magician, make sure your audience is only looking at what you want them to see.)

What can you do? Pick the ones that disgust you the most and make your voice heard. If you're like me, that will be all of these bad ideas. The folks behind these bills are hoping no one is watching; they are hoping to keep us looking in the wrong direction. Let's show them that we see through their magic tricks. Take action today!

Steve Norton

MI Parents for Schools

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!

State Budget Discussions: School Implications, Again

Budget Season is Back

Steve Norton of Michigan Parents for Schools wrote last week:

After a three-week break in April, the State Legislature is back at it again. It's budget season in an election year, which means that lawmakers will be trying to satisfy voters by showing some support for key programs such as our public schools -- or at least give the appearance of doing so.

He notes that the state's revenue projections, coming out this week, will have a major impact. The first projection came out today (two more coming tomorrow and Thursday), and at least the first projections don't look too good for schools--given that they are clearly an afterthought for Snyder and Company.

According to this article, the House Fiscal Agency projects that "The state will bring in about $400 million a year less in revenue than officials estimated in January." [Note: revenues are growing. Just not as much as the projections from earlier this year, which were revised to be ever more optimistic.]

Further, according to the article,

Net state revenue is projected to dip just under 1% in 2013-14, the report says. While general fund revenue is expected to dip 3% — or $290 million — to $9.3 billion. The net School Aid Fund revenue is expected to increase about 1.5% — or $169 million — to $11.4 billion. Net revenue still is expected to increase significantly in 2014-15 and 2015-16, just not by as much as projected earlier.

And--there is significant competition for any money that is seen as "extra" for road funding and the Detroit bankruptcy. And also--the Detroit News is reporting that the Education Achievement Authority administrators are jet-setting around the country while the rest of the state loans them money.

Big, beautiful Michigan does not want to fund its
schools properly. (At least, its government doesn't.)
Map taken from:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Relief_map_of_USA_Michigan.png

School Funding Proposals

According to Michigan Parents for Schools, the current proposals for school funding are as follows:

Governor's proposal	House version	Senate version	Inflation projections
Minimum: +$111 (to $7,187), 1.6% increase Basic (maximum) +$83 (to $8,132), 1.0% increase	Minimum +$112,1.6% increase Basic +$56, 0.7% increase	Min +$300,4.2% increase Basic +$150,1.9% increase	2014 forecast: 1.3% Avg. 2011-13: 2.3%
These increases do not reflect other changes, like "best practices" and pension plan cost changes, which may raise or lower the per-pupil funding available.

Or, as Christine Stead (AAPS school board member) succinctly states in describing the impact on Ann Arbor schools (this helped me visualize the numbers)

One would think that our FY15 will be much better [ed. note: due to the economic recovery] and we can look forward to investing again in one of our most important economic drivers: high quality education. Until you review the state’s proposals ($$ shows the impact for AAPS):
Governor’s proposal: $55,000  Senate proposal: ($2,171,000)  House proposal: ($1,276,000) 

There is a serious disconnect in how our schools are funded, the state of our economy, and any local community’s ability to do anything about it (currently).

Multiply that by schools around the state. 

Talking Points

Michigan Parents' for Schools talking points:

At the very least, all districts deserve an increase in per-pupil funding that allows them to keep up with inflation. 

These increases should be calculated after the impact of other changes such as shifts in state pension costs, not before.  

Current law specifies that school districts should get a supplement in their per-pupil funding for every student from a family living below the poverty line. But we have never fully funded this provision, and the current spending level only covers half of what the law requires. We need to give our schools the resources they need to fight the impact of poverty, and all schools should be eligible for these funds. 

Right now, local school districts must take money from their general education funds in order to meet their important (and legally required) obligations to provide special education services. Our schools should not have to choose between meeting their moral and legal obligations to students with disabilities and having sufficient resources for all their students.

It's hard not to feel despairing about the impact we can have. 
But we need to keep trying.

Giving Input on Proposal A

Christine Stead is asking for some specific input. Here's why:

John [Austin, President of the State Board of Education], and the State Board of Education, has started a process to seek input from different organizations on the impact of Proposal A and the general funding experience for public education.  The process will shift to take input from community members and school systems over the next few months.  Presentations made so far can be found here.

I will accompany the Superintendent and CFO from the AAPS on June 17th to submit the AAPS experience and recommendations for changes to Proposal A.

If you have specific suggestions, Christine Stead would like to hear from you with your suggestions about changes to Proposal A. She writes, 

Folks can either email me or submit comments/questions to this site [k12christinestead.com]. I’ll do what I can to get answers to questions. I also don’t mind submitting folks’ comments to the State Board of Education as part of our testimony – especially if they lead toward solutions. You can use either email for me: steadc@aaps.k12.mi.us or christine.stead@gmail.com. 

Consider subscribing to Ann Arbor Schools Musings by Email!