I know this sense of "fair competition" for the traditional public school is important to you... leading to the notion that PubEds can "beat the competition" if there is a level playing field.

Perhaps true... perhaps not. But I don't see that as a factor. I really don't think about the institutions... I don't see that as being THE an important part of the equation.

It's the students... and THEIR best interests... that is more important to me.

Why not focus on the potential for the kids instead?

Allowing for selective charters can help those kids who need it, and are not being adequately serviced by traditional public schools. What you view as "cherry-picking" might be unfortunate for the TPS, but good for the child.

Of course, all of this is speculation... and whether it will be better for the kids (as I believe)... or worse (as you believe)... is nothing more than a guess. An educated guess.

THAT is the discussion we should be having. What is best for the kids. Attacking or defending the institution is about the about the adults... stay focused on the students.

"Nothing more than a guess". A confidence inspiring statement if there ever was one. How could anyone be against this proposed structure when Mike speculates that it MIGHT work ... but that's admittedly just an educated guess by Mike.

I also love the attempt to pit the impersonal "school" against individual student. Kids are taught AT schools, whether cyber schools or brick and mortar schools (or any of the proposed new schools). You want to help "those kids who need it" (your words) by setting up a system of SCHOOLS and school financing that may help some select kids, but it does it on the backs of all the OTHER kids. That is, the kids "who need it" will get admitted to selective schools that have- and this is the key point that cannot be overlooked- a built-in financial advantage, while the rest of the kids (you would call them "different", I think) who you apparently don't seem to care about, get relegated to schools that are put at a severe financial disadvantage. Oh sure, some of these schools are good now... but over time? That's a lot of good, smart kids with a ton of potential, that you simply leave behind... but don't worry, the kids "who need it", the ones you care about, will have been taken care of.

This is not an argument against reform or against unclogging the upward educational paths for high-achieving students. It's an argument that this particular proposal isn't the way to do it. This is, and must continue to be, a public education system for ALL kids. It's not a business Mike. We can't close down the division and stop funding the kids that don't perform. Your argument is to cull the herd, separate the wheat from the chaff, cut your losses, invest in winners, not losers. I think we're better than that. We're better than what is in this proposal.

You are making an argument against I point I never made, and inserting intent where none existed.

I mentioned "selective" in response to your comment about "cherry picking". I think there would be tremendous benefit to all of the kids. Those that need additional help are much more likely to get it in a school that is not designed as a one-size-fits-all traditional public school. Look at some of the tremendously successful Alternative Education high schools. Great example of what works.

And can we stop with the "closed divisions, losses cut, cull the herd" nonsense. You can't honestly believe that me or anyone else would want that? It's akin to me accusing you of trying to purposely deny more advanced education to kids. Stop with the hyperbolic accusations... we can have a reasonable conversation.

And you are simply "guessing" that it will cause the problems you mention. How could anyone support this proposed structure when Joe speculates that it MIGHT NOT work ... but that's admittedly just an educated guess by Joe. Why is your guess any better than mine?

I'm not talking about the 5% of kids that need an Alternative High School. Your selective-enrollment charter school isn't going to admit the other 95%. Charter school or Alternative High School are not the only schools in this discussion. This is a discussion about the normal high school that will house the 75%, the mainstream kids that will go to a school that has been cheated out of funding by allowing performance-based funding for Charter Schools that can cherry pick the best students. The Governor (whom I support and will likely support in the future) says "any pace", but McClellan designs a system that says "well, not any pace, if you go a little slower, we defund you." Nice. Frankly, I don't see the Governor supporting this concept ... I suspect it will be modified.

My "guess" is better than yours because my guess is not a guess, but a logical argument based on the actual funding mechanism that is in the proposed law. I think people will draw common sense conclusions from the actual provisions. I support the concept of charter schools, but again, it's fundamentally unfair to allow them to cherry pick students and then be rewarded for good scores while the average kids you rejected are taught in schools that, of course, won't perform as well and will thus be penalized, along with the kids in such schools. There must be a better way to do this... a way that offers more choice and funding that is fair.

You've latched onto the word "guess", and seem to have missed the point.

My defense of this idea is based on logic, just as yours is based on logic.

But your logic is based on all kinds of suppositions, such as what sort of charters are going to be created, and who they will or won't admit. You assume "75% in mainstream" which would imply and assumption of 25% moving. You assume "a school that has been cheated out of funding" (which is presumably based on the assumption that they will not successfully achieve a year's academic growth for many children). You assume "if you go a little slower, we defund you" (well, that might be a misinterpretation, not an assumption), but is obviously based on the assumption that the only kids who will be left in the schools are those who are unwilling or unable to learn.

Lot's of guessing, Joe.

It is simply not possible for you to make any sort of accurate assertion about how many kids will -- or won't -- chose alternatives.

In the end, the public schools are not getting the job done for a lot of kids. It's time to try something new.

I'm "guessing" and "assuming" that charters, especially the ones run by for-profit companies, will do that which is legal and most likely to lead to their success. Hardly "all kinds of suppositions". The market will react to this and such a distinct advantage will be taken advantage of.

Also, I said a little slower, not "unwilling or unable to learn". You may find this hard to believe, but some kids might grow 9 months in a period where others might show 1 year's worth of growth and I don't find that to be a compelling reason to penalize such a kid or his/her school, especially if your not rewarding that same school for the kid that grows 15 months in the same period. If the point of this is "any pace", why are we not continuing our investment in a slower-learning kid. Section 6(E)6 says that districts will lose, proportionally, their funding for kids that don't achieve the required performance. In BHSD, we would invest in a reading recovery professional (costs money) and get this "unwilling and unable" kid back on track.

As far as trying something new, I agree with you. Very few are arguing against any reform...but let's try something that makes more sense. Off to kids stuff, have a good evening.

I think I've expressed before that I would prefer to see that particular provision tweaked.

Let's first be clear that the law does not TAKE the property... it requires the district to sell or lease the property. The theory is that the building has been shuttered for at least two years, and why not use it to educate children... and make money for the taxpayers.

Having said that, I don't like the heavy hand of government intervening, and am not an advocate of this particular bill.

But if it is on the table... then why not propose changes to it? For example, require that a decision to keep the building shuttered be put to the vote of the people? That way, if they approve keeping it mothballed, then it stays mothballed.

Your own Lasher high might be a great example. What if Brother Rice or some yet-to-be-created charter wanted to lease it and renovate it? Your board, fearing competition, might say no. It might be in the best self-interests of the public school, but might be a good choice for the community. If put to a vote, the general public might say, "Why not?" It would generate revenue for the district, and would benefit a number of students in the process.

Again, not trying to be a big defender of this, but this might at least offer a little perspective.

And lets put the curriculum to a vote too... and whether or not we hire or fire the superintendent. Soon enough, we will be voting directly on everything from maintenance contracts to bridges to Canada.

I prefer the republican form of government. We elect talented and qualified people to do this for us. It's tempting, I get it. I would love a direct vote on Obama Care, but I think it's right to avoid the temptation to micro-manage as much as we can.

And, of course, we don't need yet another series of elections within individual campaigns filled with "Say no to the Farm" or "Sell Lasher" signs ... ugh.

The answer is to recruit and elect good and smart people. If they fail you, vote them out. B/t/w, I think you will see that the district will take a thoughtful approach to the use or disposition of Lasher.

If Lone Pine is the best building ( think you mean Pine Lake) why isn't it being used instead of shuttered? That is the better question. BHSD has been overcapaticized for some time.....someone has to do the job our board refuses to address. by the way what's so wrong with an empty building being used as another school anyway...better transitin empty.

Actually, it is not just about the union. There are those of us who believe that charters will be responsive to parents, because if they are not, then we can move our children.

Keep your union... keep your administrators... keep your policies... do whatever you believe is best for your child. All we ask is the same level of respect and freedom to move our children (and public education dollars allocated to them) to a school that will be more appropriate for their needs.

Interesting hypothetical. You say, "Under your model, if every parent that is able to move their child to a Charter School, and that child is accepted, you leave in place the students that can’t get it into a charter school. "

First, do you really think every parent would move? Would you? Would Joe? Would Ken Johnson? I think there are many people who are perfectly content with what they get out of their traditional public school.

But let's say that they did leave in great numbers, and "all the lowest learners will stay in the public system where they need more and more resources" Wouldn't those schools adapt their teaching approaches to better address the learning needs of those children?

And as a compassionate society, you don't think we would find ways to provide the additional resources they would need? We did it right here in Oakland County with the Special Education millage.

Well said Noah.

Ms Robovitsky, your anti benefits view are well documented. You have sided with Jenny Greenwell in another failed attempt at getting someone elected who, like yourself, has no real world experience about what happens on a day to day basis in any classroom. Personally, I choose to trust in what I have seen and learned first hand from my wife after her 20+ years in an elementary classroom. You don't really want to fix education, what you want to do is throw out the union and all the adminsitrators. Are there changes that should have been made yes, has the MEA sold the teachers and Lansing down the river, Yes. The real fact is you don't think you should have to pay for anyone else's benefits. Well madame, next time that Social Security Check arrives in your checking account, or you pop over to the docter and medicare picks up the tab, maybe you should be a little more thoughful about your comments. I would remind you that your medicare and social security are both paid for by those of us behind you. Regardless of what you paid in and you will get more then you ever paid in. So if you are ready to sit any pay for all your own benefits yourself, and take no social security please feel free to do so. Then you can preach about the unsustainable health and pension and administration costs traditional public schools incur. Because at last check, Medicare and Socail Security are also unstainable. I don't think I have heard you once advocate cutting any of those programs.

The post by R Gibson is the type of post that is one reason why many don't want to comment on Patch. This man does not know me or my work history .. but repeatedly tells the readers what I supposedly think, do, and "preach". I don't need false information said about me and I don't need a lecture by an angry man. Take your own advice: "....maybe you should be a little more thoughful about your comments."

Kudos to you Marcia for pointing out the conflict between "any pace" and "performance funding". It really means keep up or lose money and this concept needs to be reformed. I do still think we can have meaningful elements of performance funding if we are careful about how it is done and if (a big "if", perhaps) we figure out the testing (very tricky it would seem, can't over-test the kids and don't want too much "teaching to the test"), but it has to be done with stick AND carrots and on a level playing field. Also have to get rid of the provisions that would allow the State to waltz into Bloomfield Hills and take property (even, if with compensation)... unconscionable from a conservative's perspective. Reform is needed, but we need FAIR reform.

Furthermore, what's puzzling here is that "R" doesn't seem to have a problem allowing you to spend your Medicare dollars at these greedy "for profit" doctors. It's only when you want to have a choice in where you spend your education dollars that it becomes an issue.

The level of hysteria over A PROPOSAL is incredible.

Marcia, one other comment. I'm not sure one can suggest these new schools will be entirely public if they are run by private companies that can take a profit. The building, the right to exist, statutorily, other aspects such as teacher certification, speak to it being "public", but if its operation is through a private company that can take a profit, then there's a very meaningful, core "private" component as well. It may be fair to say that neither description, either entirely public or entirely private, is entirely accurate.

Your Right Ms Robovitsky, I don't know anything about your work history. If you have educational experience please feel free to correct me, and I will be the first to apologize. However, you were very vocal about your support for Jenny Greenwell. You are obviously supporting, strongly, the Oxford Foundation and their proposal. You make several statements that strongly suggest that teachers who are part of the union and our current administration are to blame for many of our ills. However, when someone like me, who comes from a family that is directly involved in the day to day activity of being an educator, you just want to dismiss me and call me angry. You know as little about me and my family as I do about your work history. You have no idea what a classroom teacher goes through on a daily basis. Lastly, you suggest that you hate posting on the Patch because of people like me. Well why do you do it then? You are awful fond of putting things out there. You have done your fair share of patching yourself, far more than me.

R Gibson. This is necessarily NOT an all-encompassing discussion. I don't think we know Marcia's position on the reform of social security or medicare and simply because she may benefit from them hardly makes her thoughts on the financial sustainability of teacher benefits hypocritical or unwarranted.

I respectfully disagree with her in the sense that she suggests fear of losing benefits is what may be behind this opposition. I think the opposition come mostly from the scope of the reforms, the way they are being passed, the infringement on local control, the built-in advantage for privately run (if not owned) charter schools, the potentially negative effect on the average to below average, academically speaking, students, the difficulty in planning year-to-year under such a fluid system with huge financial fluctuations possible and with everything, financially speaking, riding on testing.

Wow, that last sentence was a mouthful Joe...couldn't have said it better myself though!

For crying out loud... I don't think I've mentioned costs or the MEA even once.

This is 100% about improving education, and has nothing to do with costs.

There is a demonstrated need for better education systems. New options will be created and OFFERED to parents/students. New options will be better tailored to the individual needs of students.

Reread any of the dozen posts I've made about this stuff. Joe and I have had a number of exchanges on this. They have all been about education... none have been about your union.

Patty, its more reason to slow down. It's the single most important legislative package that will have been passed in a long, long time and yet 2 parts of the 3 part legislative package will be passed during a lame duck session. Necessary?

Joe you are 100% correct, The only urgency is in Lansing. Get it done, before anyone catches on.

It does seem that Snyder and the legislature are keen on doing this very fast during the holidays where it's hard to fight it. It's a little "too" fast based on how important it is. Running it through a "lame duck" session in the holiday season makes me think it's something the powers that be want hidden. I would suspect that if folks were surprised by the electorate refusing to keep the emergency manager law they would not be surprised by how people will vote on schools throughout the state. I'd much rather see a more open cautious process than have to do the ballot initiative route.

PubEd Inc is fabricating the urgency of this "crisis". Here is from the Oxford Foundation's website:

Posting of first draft of the new Michigan Public Education Finance Act of 2013: November 19, 2012

Public Comment Period: November 19, 2012-December 14, 2012

Send revised Draft of the Michigan Public Education Finance Act of 2013 to Gov. Rick Snyder for review: Before Christmas 2012

Gov. Snyder may use some or all of the draft in his February budget message: February 2013

Mike, you are about to be the "house by the side of the road", as Ernie would say. Things are happening TODAY. 3 pieces of legislation (HB 6004, HB 5923 and School Aid Act rewrite). 2 of them are likely to be passed in the lame duck session.

Recall our conversation of yesterday about the State being able to take property here in Bloomfield (which also apparently troubled you)? That piece of legislation (HB 6004/SB 1358) is being taken up and passed by House and Senate Committees on Education TODAY. Soon enough for you? Full votes and to the Governors desk will happen in the very near term, I suspect. The law on New Forms of Schools (HB 5923), which contains the right of charter schools to selectively enroll, is going through this year too.

You are referring ONLY to the third piece of legislation, which will not get passed until next year.

Really Mike, you must know that the Oxford Foundation's funding bill is the last piece of the legislation puzzle. The other pieces are currently in committees on education in the House and Senate and it appears that they will likely be acted upon before the year ends. Once that is done, the last piece (the OF funding bill) falls into place.

Honestly, with the length of that bill, I question if anyone who is unschooled in reading legislation will be able to understand it with the necessary clarity to be able to respond by December 14th. I applaud Marcia for attempting to do so (and maybe she has achieved it), but for the rest of us who work and have children to get off to school and activities it is a monumental task. I took the better part of one day Thankgiving weekend and my mind was numb by page 133. Please, cite all the bills when writing about timelines and education reforms.

So this "crisis"... this "call to arms"... is over HB6004/SB 1358 and HB 5923?

Perhaps you didn't read the article.

The lead sentence says, "Area superintendents, including Rob Glass of the Bloomfield Hills Schools, collectively expressed grave concerns Tuesday regarding a 300-page bill drafted for Gov. Rick Snyder that would overhaul how public education is administered in the state of Michigan."

I saw his "conspiracy theory" letter.

These guys are over-the-top.

Who is over the top?

As I have said before, you and I differ in our opinions on this issue. But for you to only address the lead and not address all that is in the article which includes the bills currently in the Committees on Education in both houses is an omission on your part.

Happening NOW. Here's the info I have from a well-connected friend: "Senate Republicans are planning to ignore Senate rules and bypass a vote by the Senate Education Committee on the EAA bill. This means that the full Senate could be voting as soon as the next hour on the bill."

The provisions regarding the right to take property (the provisions I really care about) and give to charter schools are apparently still in there.

Happening fast enough for you Mike?

Well Marcia, you have my sincere apology.

Accepted.

I agree lets make government bigger and implement a statewide district that is void of checks. There are problems with the current education system and recent laws have been passed that make it truly easy to get rid of bad teachers. The idea that a unproven system that has no way to compare its future success to current schools, i.e. they won't take the meap, is just further proof that this is a money and grab by the Mr. Snyder.

FYI:
Peter Marik, Detroit Online Learning Examiner
Peter Marik has more than 10 years experience in online and distance education as a student, faculty member and content developer. As the founder of Online Pathways, Marik provides the online learning community with a focused source of news and information regarding training, technology and...

I am for (most of) the reforms the Governor is proposing, but it is guys like Marik that is giving the movement a bad name.

Problem with your statement is the indictment on the teachers and administrators! Fact is the main indicator of child achievement is parental involvement. Good and bad teachers exist in both public and private schools. Private schools as well as some charter schools have two factors going their way; higher parental involvement and the ability to oust students who do not live up to their standards. I am a product of private schools from grades k-12 and I can say my parents involvement had more to do with my success than the private school system.