Actually, this particular post is all about how money is wasted on non-educational items.

Perhaps the six-figures spent on "communication" might be better spent on hiring a teacher dedicated to remedial education, or perhaps ESL?

Exactly. Mrs. Greenwell, do not use the word "we" unless you can back that up with data. Maybe you can take a survey and then I can FOIA the results.
Also, please know that this district resident welcomes tuition from out of district families. Our diminshed student population stands only to benefit.

If insulting parental intelligence was not enough, the schools now take it a step further.

The fundamental – and absolutely appalling – premise here is that we want to GROW government. We need to “compete” against private-sector entities. We cannot allow the government’s market share to decrease, so we will use taxpayer funds to limit – and ideally contract – the private sector’s share of the student market.

And we are justified, of course, in this line of thinking. After all, the public schools “own” these kids right. Private sector schools are “stealing” kids.

Mr. Reno,

This is a local school election. You don't live here nor was your name brought up by anyone so your thoughts on government are noted, but please go back to your side of town. Remember we have borders per Mrs. Greenwell!

Didn't you just say the other day in your hollow apology that you were not accustomed to being called rude?  I am finding that harder to believe.

The posts that you and your pals enter here just overflow with hatred and venom.  

Jenny is my friend, and quite frankly it looks like she is being bullied.

Your intellectual xenophobia does not strike me as a sufficient reason to stop being a good samaritan.

I could understand if I was off topic, but I'm not.  Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I was to assume some pseudo name, and pretend I'm from the district?

And I'll add that attempting to squelch or suppress ideas relevant to schools simply because of their origin makes you look intellectually weak.  It's as if you concede that you have no meaningful rebuttal, and can only resort to neener neener. 

Finally, if you think my points are weak, and reflect poorly on Jenny, then you should be delighted that I'm posting them.  The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Government mandated school lunches, special Ed, sex ed (which is not as explicit as you seem to think), testing, etc. are not the fault of the BHSD.

People do move to this area, and do choose between competing districts when they buy their homes. People do look to neighboring districts when they are unhappy with their home district. I do not have the numbers on tuition students in the BHSD, but at $9000/student, my guess is they come pretty close to covering the cost of the marketing effort. I think with solid data, the Board and administration can make a sensible decision on its value. Which, of course, is different than critical speculation in a blog post.

Correction:$11,227 is current high school tuition rate.

Mr. Reno,

More name-calling! Isn’t that what Ms. Maidstone was admonishing people for.

Your justification for speaking the other day on Mrs. Greenwell's behalf was that your name was brought up. Today it is because she is being bullied. If she writes and thinks for herself as you have said before then she should be able to stand up for herself and back up her destructive positions.

My comment has nothing to do with intellectual xenophobia and more to do with what "your friend Jenny" said in her blog about a desire for boundaries. Should you wish to have a debate about government intrusion, as Mr. Jackson has said in the past it belongs in a different place. This conversation is about the Bloomfield Hills School board and Mrs. Greenwell's positions. Your continued commentary is obfuscation.

Enough. Anyone who thinks another is rude on this forum should look at themselves first. This includes everyone, including me, Mr. Pseudonym, Ms. Real Name, bloggers, out-of-district writers......everyone. OK with my vent complete,

Mr. Reno, I do not argue that over the years, schools have been asked to do more and more. Much of this “mission creep” as you say has been foisted upon school districts. Some speak directly to education, like increased standards for math, science, languages, specialized assistance for children who need help and for those who can go farther to mention a few. Some are increased testing or accountability measures like no child left behind and AYP. Some speak to specific economic issues like school breakfasts and latchkey. Some speak to health and safety issues like PE, obesity, bus safety, and yes - reproduction. All this is being done in the BHS district with less purchasing power than it had in 1994, when adjusted for inflation.

were the schools at the correct place with regard to their mission. Are you talking about just teaching the just 3Rs or should we include other things like PE and the arts? Are you saying that the schools shouldn't spend dollars to feed child that is hungry? My guess is that those funds come from Federal dollars anyway. My children have purchased breakfast at their schools. If those breakfasts are there to feed hungry children, I am glad my own can go in and PAY for one as well. I am also glad that the district takes bus safety into consideration when snow conditions warrant it. It isn’t about not dressing properly; it is about child safety on the bus to and from school.
Districts don’t OWN children. Children are entrusted to the care of districts each day and that includes getting to and from school as well as teaching the whole child, including those that love and don’t love being there and those who are hungry or don’t have a coat in the winter. This isn’t about growing government, it is about educating students.

Lastly, regarding xenophobia, look to what Jenny wrote, “We want to operate a district with geographic boundaries, so that our superior funding is spent to educate our own resident students.” She appears to be talking about tuition students and sounds pretty xenophobic to me. Some families who were tuition paying families now live our district. In my opinion, the tuition program is good for both our schools and our community. If promoting our district informs in-district families that we have opportunities comparable to the fine local private schools and entice out-of-district families to move into our community, that is money well spent.

There should be a - When - at the beginning of my second post. Sorry.

Mr. Reno,
Thank you again for your endorsement of Ms. Greenwell; as a voter in BHSD I am curious to hear how many of your opinions she shares? For instance, does she also see the snow day as an indicator of educational decline?

Oh for crying out loud. Jenny, your friend, has put herself out there. She has her big girl pants on and has welcomed and encouraged the robust conversations that her blogs generate. The level of critique and criticism is a LONG way from bullying. Indeed, many in the district have felt at one time or another, "bullied" by Jenny and other 2020 leaders.

I do, however, agree with you...glad you are posting and reminding us at every turn that you are friends with Jenny Greenwell. It does much to bring clarity to the school election choices.

It seems like some districts would, and others wouldn't. Each would make a decision about the benefits of the expenditure, based on the finances of that district.

BHSD might be in a different position than other districts because (1) it actually does compete favorably with the privates; (2) it is considered one of the strongest districts in the state, and therefore can attract new residents; (3) there is a financial benefit to tuition students; and (4) the community demands a very high level of communication.

IF (and it is a hypothetical at this point) each district spent that money, one would have to know what the benefits were to that expenditure to decide if it was unreasonable.

Sorry to say that almost 10 years of solid manipulation has changed our community.
I'm an advocate for public education, and I believe that financial resources should be directed to the classroom. Yet, many people seem to have been "trained" to respond to almost anything I say with venom. Why? What is the purpose in being so divisive?
"Divide and Conquer."
Our students do not benefit when adults behave badly, or when education money is spent on non-education.
Our community has been fractured, and the results of this are evident in comments posted to my blog.
Do our schools exist to educate students or to build political power?
Good schools attract families who desire educational opportunity for their children.

But you have been the source of the division, have behaved badly, have fractured the community, and seem to enjoy your political power. That is what so frustrates many of us.

Mrs. Greenwell,

There is only one of you, correct? Can you please explain what those of us commenting are trying to "divide". The only people who seek to divide are you and your supporters as has been clearly demonstrated over the past 10 years.

Who has built political power via our school district?

This looks like another one of those Jenny questions, where a question is used as a mechanism for an allegation without foundation.

Please clarify for me, Amy, were you on-board with the original Mega School plan (two high schools on one site with tandem programs for bands and sports) that was being developed in 2003-04 by Steve Gaynor and a small group of supporters?
The "top secret" mega school plan was what drove a divisive wedge into our community, and I was fortunate to be among that group of citizens who found out about it in time to put a stop to it! It seems to me that former Supt. Steve Gaynor was in charge at that time, and that you were quite pleased with his
leadership. Is that true?

I know that I was new to the community then, and was shocked by the magnitude of the conflict and the ugliness of the rhetoric. My first reaction was that I had made a mistake by moving to Bloomfield instead of Birmingham. I had never seen people behave so viciously, and left me with the impression that the area was full of irrational, angry people.

That period, followed by three controversial runs for a Board seat, accidentally offensive mailings, vicious public comments at Board meetings, inflammatory statements, and an aggressive recall effort, have all left me feeling like that Jenny Greenwell is not an appropriate choice for the Board of Education. It is exactly that history that is the source of the friction and divisiveness in our community, and it would be good to put it behind us.

Ms. Robovitsky,

No one has argued against openness. In fact this district does a remarkable job of communicating with the public. What people have said is that the methods of Mrs. Greenwell demonstrate an inability to represent the best interests of all of the students and all of the tax payers of this district.

If you could detail what you feel are the steps that Mrs. Greenwell has taken which indicate an ability to be unified it would be appreciated.

Ms. Robovitsky,

The BHSD website is part of the communication budget Jenny is suggesting we eliminate in this post.

I fear no one can claim to "move toward unity" after spearheading a recall of an elected board, implying residents of part of the district are not full-fledged citizens of the BHSD, or throwing around unfounded allegations as opinions or questions. If unity is the goal, surely it is time for a different candidate.

There are two good incumbent candidates on the ballot for the two year term: Rob Herner and Joan Berndt. Both have done good work on the Board, and are worthy of election.