I was responding to Ken directly. He made the statement in another blog he wrote here on the Patch and he knows it is not a "blantantly false statement".
No retraction necessary.

Mary L? Which blog of Ken's? Ken? If you know could you say? I'm not interested in saying Mary made a false statement if it's not true, if it's not true I absolutely believe this should be known. Saying she was responding to Ken directly isn't that responsive but she could be correct.

"Our top rated districts will be obligated to give up money to all kinds of charters" only if the parents CHOOSE to have the money transferred to Bill and Tony's Math Academy. Considering we have a pretty educated parent population here I highly doubt they are going to put their kid in some newly opened store front "education business".

If people were over fed in Birmingham and starving in Alpena but they had the same amount of money in their pocket (state student allocations) I sure as heck would open my restaurant in Alpena before Birmingham.

Even if the kids in Birmingham walked in with the high test scores you need to keep your charter?

Joan,
Thanks. I am trying to get other media interested -- but there is considerable resistance. Outside the Eccentric we really don't have a "local" paper (a topic for another blog post). Oakland County School Superintendents have been trying but they are in a difficult spot. If you want to hear a convincing and powerful response tune in to the Birmingham School Board meeting from last night (if available) and listen to Mr. Lawrence (one of Mr. McCready's opponents in the Republican primary). I have never met him and I doubt we would agree about too much but on this one he is spot on. Taxpayers there should be grateful some elected official is willing to talk openly and forcefully about the potential.

Linda,
Please read first without reacting. I rarely listen to superintendents; but BHSD has a good one and Bham just hired (after what to my mind was a disaster) what appears to be a quick study. You are, of course, no parents will flee this year if this goes through. They will, however, when the District loses funding to charters as soon as next year (they will) and this compromises programs and quality. BHSD and Birmingham will become indistinguishable from Roseville in terms of funding, with the situation getting worse every year. The Oxford Foundation will recommend outlawing if not restricting hold harmless millage to at least 3 m. That alone will transform things. So even if you and all of those who think BHSD is in bad shape woke up one AM with the epiphany that you wanted to pay more taxes to support BHSD you couldn't. I would indeed take another look beyond the glance. This is not your standard pay more or less for public educaton debate. For simplicity sake, again: 1) there is one chunk of K-12 change 2) the Governor wants "incentives" for charters -- please note, BHSD already has to give up 300 k this for not becoming a "school of choice." That is the road to The Oxford Foundation future.

Margaret, right now there isn't a lot of information, and not a lot of press. Since nothing is firm yet, it's unclear whether or what action is productive. There is an impression that this is somewhat intentional, and that when a proposal does "gel", it will pass so quickly no one will have time to react.

Right now, Mr. Jackson does a better job of keeping up with this than any other outlet, so keep an eye on his posts. Subscribing to Facebook or email updates from the Oxford Foundation has been a good source of information:

http://oxfordfoundationmi.com/2012/07/18/school-aid-act-rewrite-meeting/

I suspect a website, Facebook page, or email list getting information out to BHSD stakeholders may emerge soon.

Bottom line, the information now is vague and occluded, but when legislation is drafted it will become concrete very suddenly, and it will quickly become clear what action stakeholders might want to pursue.

You really think that Sam Adams would be opposed to citizens exercising freedom of choice, and would instead prefer to have the state monopolize and control the education of our children?

My guess is that he'd be igniting the Oxford spark plug.

Nothing wrong with reasonable discussion on this topic.

But is this really a discussion?

Ken hyperbolically mocks “whatever education business venture that comes down the pike”, as if it will be random and illegitimate. Yet the Oxford document calls out, “A pupil and his or her parents can select from a curated list of courses that are appropriate (and will) will meet the requirements for a state-authorized credential” Sounds like everyone will need to meet the same standard.

Ken fear-mongers that ed ventures will “go under in a year or two”. Does he mean MANY will go bankrupt? Or MOST? And how is a charter supposed to counter that fantasy prediction? For that matter, how can they prove they are not run by witches?

He continues with more unsubstantiated accusations, sarcastically predicting the demise of arts and music. He ignores the FACT that there are EXISTING charters specifically dedicated to Fine arts.

How is it any sort productive conversation to condescendingly belittle and insinuate – no, downright state as fact – that institutions like this hypothetical academy will know nothing about their subject matter, and be taught by demoralized adjuncts at ridiculously low sums who can’t assess student progress and communicate it to parents? Heck, the only thing he left out is the rumor that they’re all child molesters… (an accusation normally reserved for outsourced bus drivers and custodians.)

This is hardly a conversation starter.

And regarding the Oxford document you reference… is more of a vision statement; a starting point, and is NOT (as you note) legislation.

But Ken is not rebutting it… or probing for weaknesses in it.

He is simply ignoring it.

He mocks non-traditional classes, as if they are substandard. Yet the document talks about meeting state credentials. It specifically says, “Even an unbundled education program must comply with Michigan Constitutional constraints”

Ken trash-talks anything that is not traditional public ed, hinting at incompetence and bankruptcy, implying that you’ll get stuck with “whatever comes down the pike.” Yet from the Oxford document, under “The Elements of An Unbundled High School Education, it says, “The following is a summary of the functions that must be provided to a student in order to achieve a high school diploma: A government instrumentality that Approves (but does not necessarily employ) Michigan certificated teachers and other instructors to teach the approved courses.”

Ken’s work is hyperbolic – much like Rush Limbaugh’s – and should be viewed in the same light: as entertainment, not a thoughtful and objective news source.

It isn't just the Oxford Foundation's New School Aid Act. It is all the others being introduced and put into committee. Individually, each may seem like it couldn't affect us (us being BHS - I am not sure about Rochester Schools). But when you start adding all the individual bills up they become reform that will affect all districts and change public education as we know it. If it will affect all districts, it will most likely change the dollars each district gets, whether it comes to the districts or through the students. Few dollars means the extras will begin to erode. That could mean music. This erosion, all in the name of choice will end up taking away many of the choices our students in BHS currently have.

Yeah… and the state does what, exactly, when a public school does not perform? Draconian measures, like demanding a performance improvement plan? Even in a few isolated cases, like the takeover of Detroit, they never finish the job. They make a few positive changes, only to hand the asylum back over to the inmates.

Meanwhile, the kids are still held hostage by the monopoly.

But you raise an interesting point, Mac. Do we really think the state is going to be the best judge, jury, and executioner? Why do we have such little faith in the ability of parents to decide?

There is a very powerful shutdown mechanism for charters… people (parents and students) can voluntarily leave.

And if the performance of the charter is not so stellar… then perhaps you should ask yourself why people are willing to voluntarily move their children to an institution like that. Could it be that they have concluded that the charter – as bad as it is – is better than where they are now?

And if we are going to quote from the article… let’s stay balanced:

“Looking solely at an operator's academic track record "doesn't always tell the whole story," said Joe Rosseau, director of the school-university partnership at Saginaw Valley.

The university authorized the other charter school EMAN runs, Oakland International. Rosseau said they've been "very focused, concerned about being compliant with requirements of the university, and we have excellent communication with them."

"Is their student achievement where it should be? No," Rosseau said. "But they're working with a high percentage of English-language learners and a transient population. And that's a very challenging population. We understand the challenges of working with that population. And given those circumstances, I'm satisfied that they're doing a great job."

AND

Leona, an Arizona-based charter management company with 70 schools in five states, challenged Education Trust's findings.

"Leona schools have graduation rates ranging from 85-98 percent, all of our schools have achievement rates higher than schools serving comparable communities, all of our schools have fund balances, and nearly all have waiting lists," said Mary Marshall, a Leona spokeswoman.

Mr. Reno,

When the state designated some schools as "Focus schools", there was no room for the sort of explanation Mr. Rosseau offers ("But they're working with a high percentage of English-language learners and a transient population. And that's a very challenging population. We understand the challenges of working with that population. And given those circumstances, I'm satisfied that they're doing a great job.") The focus school designation was based on numbers and test scores, and a "focus school" designation fell out of the calculation.

Either both public and charter schools need to be held to the same (sometimes absurd) measurement standards OR both public and charter schools can ask for understanding based on softer explanations for why it was hard to educate a particular population. But one certainly can't ask public schools to be measured by an unforgiving hard-and-fast standard while giving charter schools a pass if they can offer a rationale for their performance. That is not a fair playing field or real competition.

Mike,

Careful about using inflammatory descriptions................

"Even in a few isolated cases, like the takeover of Detroit, they never finish the job. They make a few positive changes, only to hand the asylum back over to the inmates."

That is pretty blatant inflammatory language.

Elizabeth... you are right. It could've been worded more politely. So how about the underlying point?

Mac... so a school is designated as a "Focus school." So what? Maybe the school needs to bus the handful of kids that want to switch to another school? Aside from perhaps some stigma -- which wears off quickly -- there is really not much in the way of TRUE consequences. Hypothetical penalties, of course, but nothing ever really happens. Do you honestly think the state would take over Bloomfield if there were too many "focus schools"?

And schools are FOREVER asking for understanding, and trying to rationalize low scores. If I had the time, I could probably find such a plea from your own district. In Rochester, I would sit through presentation after presentation that attempted to slice and dice demographic data in order to "explain" relative performance. In particular, they would tiptoe around mentioning higher populations of ELL, and special needs, and "inbound transfer students".

The point is that there is really little accountability in public education today. In fact, I would argue a point counter to yours... that charters have the ultimate accountability... the students can voluntarily leave. In public schools, not much choice, other than maybe the opportunity to go to another public ed in an entirely different community.

Mr. Reno, we're clearly looking at this from very different perspectives.

My entire point was that the same performance measures need to apply to all competing schools. You can't apply hard rubrics to one sort of school, and accept excuses from another. (To your point on focus schools, bussing "a handful of student to another school" is expensive, and not a great use of educational funds). Whether you prefer rubrics or explanations, it needs to be applied across the board.

Second, I just don't see those captive students. Anyone in BHSD can switch to another school in BHSD. They can also go to Pontiac, Southfield, Berkley, or West Bloomfield for school (I won't take the time to look up if Troy or Birmingham are school-of-choice options). We have an embarrassment of private school options, to the point where the choice is almost parallelizing. And all these options are available to people who chose to buy a more expensive house in the BHSD so they could have the option of BHSD schools.

This is not about choice. It's about profit-making ventures siphoning money from the School Aid fund. At the very least, they need to be measured the same way public schools are. Any school taking public funds should be held to the same standards.

Mac, aren't the same rubrics applied to all schools? How else would we be able to compare the performance of charters to traditionals? The "excuses" you mention are being used to explain the charter's performance against the same metrics.

And at least in the recent past, the privates would also take the same silly state tests, such as the MEAP. For the most part, it would be just another day for them... and I don't think many of them viewed the tests as "high stakes". After all, it is just a test to see if the children are achieving to some MINIMUM standard. Most of the private schools do not focus on the minimums.

Mr. Reno,

Which private schools MEAP? And in what way are they held accountable for those scores? Can a private school be a "Focus school"?

As I said... in the recent past. I just randomly picked a few.

Academy of Sacred Heart
https://baa.state.mi.us/oeaa/directory/index.asp?DCode=63080&BCode=06086

St. Hugos
https://baa.state.mi.us/oeaa/directory/index.asp?DCode=63080&BCode=03727

Holy Family in Rochester

https://baa.state.mi.us/oeaa/directory/index.asp?DCode=63260&BCode=02285

These stop at 2006/2007. Not sure if that was the end of the reporting, or if they are reported in a different way. Back when I was arguing these issues as a Board Member, the data was readily available.

Mac, at this point I think we are drilling down to some sort of tangential point. I get what you are saying... that you want privates to have to test to these same minimums as publics. My experience is that they really don't have any sort of problem with it. They generally just have the kids come in and take the test. They score well, and move on.

As far as consequences... you need to help to to understand what true consequences a district faces, aside from shame and some extra paperwork. Out of the 550 public districts... and thousands of schools... how many have been closed due to poor academic performance? And if so... was it justified?

To be honest Mike, you SHOULD have worded it differently.

And - I am not exactly sure what your underlying point is. Here is what I think it is based on your writings..........

1. Schools where students underperform on standardized test scores are failing even though testing is like straightjacket on public schools.
3. Offering a new choice of schools will fix the problem of underachievement.
4. Opening a new school (charter, private, for profit) will provide the choice.
5 After 3 years or so if the new choice in schools is only doing marginally better, parents can leave. If they don't leave, at least it is better than they had before.

Really? ........and go where?

You need to look beyond the one demensional view of why students are not testing higher. You and many others need to look beyond the one dimensional view of market placed competition as the “fix” for education. It is a one idea fix that tends to be punitive. Frankly, I would have thought we would be more creative as a state.

Mike,

You cannot assume private schools "Score well and move on", any more than I can assume public schools "Score well and move on". That is the point of the tests.

Many private schools do not test. Again, I managed to find one that had pretty much no one on grade level, once they decided to check.

And private schools only have to take the kids they want to take.

I think you’ve misjudged a lot of what I say.

Choice is no silver-bullet… there isn’t one.

And the repeated theme here is the supposition that every option to the public schools will fail. You yourself presume that the new option will fail after 3 years or so. Ken gives it 2. Whatever. As long as you are convinced that they will fail – and nothing is going to change your belief – then every other aspect of the discussion seems a bit pointless.

I don’t think they will all fail. Some will. Just as some public schools fail. And I don’t see “fail” as just not getting higher percentages of children to achieve the minimum. I am as much worried about the “high performing” districts failing to challenge our kids, graduating kids that are not fully prepared for college who the drop out discouraged, or need remedial work and a longer time in college. I worry about the graduates that are accepted at their third choice of schools, not their first.

Whether you look at the efforts of Doug Ross at University Prep, or your own International Academy, there are success stories from choice. It breeds hope.

It is unclear to me how you improve the existing monopolistic public education model, that is perpetually hungry for money, and pits parents against parents. It just breeds division.

It's that attitude toward existing public schools that seems an unfortunate starting assumption, and where I can't agree with you. I don't see a perpetual demand for money, and do not feel pitted against other parents. BHSD graduates 98% and sends them to good colleges, while spending half the money Cranbrook spends per student, and without being able to choose their student population. Public school funding has decreased as private tuitions have gone up. It's not that I think nothing could be improved; I just don't see how removing money improves them.

Yes, IA is a success story. They get only the kids who are willing and able to take on the challenge, and get only the base per-pupil foundation allowance. Is there a provision in the new legislation to allow them to spend more, from any source? Since they are successful, shouldn't we reward them with greater funding? Or at least allow parents to pay in? Is there a reason they are required to do what they do on 1/3 of the private school tuition rate?

Mike, I am not assuming all the new choice schools will fail in 3 years, I was responding to your idea of what could happen should one of these schools fail and selected 3 years based upon some of the wording in the HB-6004 the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) and School Building Redeployment Act, that if a public school is one of the lowest achieving for 3 years it will be a part of the EAA. Three years seems to be a State threshold.

I was responding to what you wrote........
"that charters have the ultimate accountability... the students can voluntarily leave."

Unfortunately, that is not always possible. And my point is, providing the ability to leave isn't nearly the accountability which is being placed on standard public schools.

It has been an interesting discussion, but I have lots of other pressing things to do, just so you know why if I don't respond.

School district's have plenty of say in spending. I served on a board with a $160 million budget. I think most boards spend poorly. There are plenty of choices; it's a matter of priorities. Technology, curriculum, remediation, maintenance, human resources, and so on. The state doesn't intervene in any of those decisions.

I agree in an ideal world, less state oversight and intervention would be preferable. The rationale for intervention at the state (and federal) level is that many believe the locals were not (are not) getting the job done.

We appear to have two different solutions. You seem to prefer the “collective” approach, utilizing local elected officials and bureaucrats. I prefer parent control – individually.

The pure "local control" model pits parents against parents. In the "collective model”, I need to fight with parents that have different perspectives on what is important. You want more spent on sports, while I want more spent on academics. So… we duke it out at board meetings, elections, and so on. In the end, someone loses.

In the “individual model”, I will cluster with parents who have similar priorities, and you will too. You can go build your sports-centric school community. If you need a little help with academics, then you are welcome to buy services from my academic school. I can pay you to include my athletes.

I don’t need your children to achieve my model, yet your model requires my child? How is that fair?

As usual you are dead on Joan. The new HB- 6004 known as the Education Achivement Authority has a second portion to its title - & School Building Redeployment.

Here is a link to the Legislative Summary of that bill:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/House/pdf/2011-HLA-6004-1.pdf

Read the portion titled "Statewide School Building Inventory; Leasing; Sale" on pages 7 & 8. While this won't affect our district for a couple of years, it will eventually affect us. I think this aspect of the bill is flat out wrong. I do not believe the state will do any better and I believe there is something else in some other bill that will address choice which will mesh with the Statewide School Building Inventory; Leasing; & Sale in this bill.

Mr. Reno,

I would like to donate money to my child's public school to ensure they can continue their music instruction. Should I be able to do that?

I would like to pay additional tuition to my child's public school to keep class sizes down. Should I be able to do that?

I am willing to pay higher property taxes to improve my local public schools. Should I be able to do that?

Should my only option for controlling my child's education be to choose a private school, or can I choose to support my local public school? Right now, public school budgets are legally capped. Would you support removal of that cap?

Mr. Reno,

BHSD does have many inbound, tuition paying students. You clearly haven't been paying attention, as our schools are full. We have swarms of new families every year coming from less successful districts. Some are buying houses while they can afford to buy into Bloomfield; others are paying tuition.

Yes, you can school of choice out of Bloomfield. People don't generally buy BHSD real estate to opt out of the schools, but it is not restricted. No one is is going to BHSD because they aren't allowed to do school of choice to Pontiac.

The empty elementary schools are the direct result of a land locked municipality (no new subs), an aging population, reduced birth rate, and a lousy Michigan economy. BHSD has a large population aging in place, and nowhere to build the new subs that keep new families coming into exurb districts.

Please understand that I did CHOOSE Bloomfield Hills Schools. I chose to move my family to this state, to bring my family's business-generating abilities to this area, because I could find an acceptably serious public school district for my child. Now Michigan appears to be willing to gut my strong school district to turn education dollars over to for-profit businesses. Michigan will not draw or keep business here if its educational system is a wild west of private enterprise, or if there is effectively a $25,000/child after-tax tax to send a child to private school.

Mac... I think you misunderstand what school of choice means.

Here, from your district's website:

Q: Is Bloomfield Hills Schools a School of Choice district?

A: No. Bloomfield Hills Schools is a tuition district. As a tuition district, BHS accepts qualifying non-resident students. For enrollment and fee information, please refer to the Non-Resident Overview or call 248.341.6380.

http://www.bloomfield.org/prospective-families/faqs/index.aspx

Yes, but you asked if I was sure I could take my BHSD child to a school of choice district.

Yes, I can.

Thanks Mary, you said precisely what I am thinking.

I don't think a Bloomfield/Birmingham merger is likely or viable, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. Combining two hold harmless district into a larger, similarly funded district is not the current issue. I suspect if such a merger were doable, it would result in as much programming as we have now.

The current issue is deflecting state school aid funds from our local schools to for-profit charters. This removes money from both BHSD and Birmingham, leaving both with less programming.

The current issue is about removing districts as we know them today, which would result in the combining of services for the public schools, such as if Birmingham and Bloomfield Hills were to combine

No. None of the proposed legislation proposes combining Bloomfield and Birmingham.

Combining all Oakland County districts is more likely. Simultaneously, taking money out of the traditional public system for charters and statewide school district is proposed.

While a merger between BHSD and BSD is not likely it sure could, in my opinioin, produce significant benefits. The same arguments made for the combo of Lahser and Andover could be made in spades for such a merger.....get rid of the district boundaries....i.e., many township households are already in the Birmingham district, and oh the savings in administrative overhead. It was never pursued because the admins of both communities didn't pursue it for obvous self preservation reasons...

In exchange for choice... I'd certainly consider the option of uncapping.

The problem with uncapping, while maintaining a monopoly, is that schools essentially blackmail the community. "Our schools will be decimated -- and your children doomed -- if you don't approve this millage increase."

If parents (and the community as a whole) don't feel threatened and scared, it will then be incumbent upon the schools to instead SELL the idea, rather than FORCE it.

Mike,

I'm glad to hear you (and hopefully likeminded legislators) would consider uncapping.

The parents who can be trusted to choose can be trusted not to be intimidated or blackmailed. Parents are not smart free agents when choosing charter schools, but uninformed, intimidated dupes when choosing and supporting a public school district.

It does always make me smile when people worry about Bloomfield parents being intimidated. Perhaps you haven't met us? :)

Yeah... I see plenty of determination here for sure.

I feel like Neo.

That pretty much sums it up.

Well, Mr. Charness, one could begin tracing that by considering the Governor's EAA schools in DPS and look at the 15 schools, including 3 charters under the EAA's authority. Assorted businesses benefit from this kind of school "reform."

It does matter... And ee are letting the governor know that we appreciate his leadership.

This legislative effort isn't popular with patchies, but is is very popular with parents who have faith in themselves.

I have not been to a single republican function that hasn't wildly supported the idea of putting parents in the drivers seat.

No Amy, I don't go to the big ticket events. These are all just grassroot.

This speculation on funding logistics, and the potential negative impact on districts is just that... speculation.

And what you describe sounds way too simple for a government operation. They will require substantial paperwork, and hoop-jumping, and various other contortions, I'm sure.

Let me add that this crowd here loves to assign all kinds of sinister motives to this effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There are all kinds of posts here that talk about profit motives, and union busting, and so on. Rampant and wild fantasies about the demise of public schools, and the resulting ghost towns.

I understand that the political process necessitates those sorts of fabrications and hyperbole... opposition pep rallies. I get it.

But what I hear when I talk to people is a much more simple desire to find better opportunities for our children. I'm not in the education business, and I have no financial ties to any private education folks. I have no friends that are eduprenuers.

I am simply a parent frustrated with the public school experience... Looking for something better for my kids.

Amy, I liked reading your post. We do have some common ground.

I too absolutely believe in a high-quality "free" public education. And I believe it should be adequately funded.

I also am in complete agreement that every child should receive a stellar public education. It would indeed create an attractive job force. It will improve our standard of life, and strengthen our communities. And I also believe it adds something that has not been discussed much, which is the “relocation factor”. If a company wants to expand into a state, they often need to ask key people to move. A state that is perceived to have a strong education system is going to be appealing to potential transferees. A mediocre system is going to be an equally strong repellent.

We agree that we need on the need to educate our children, and to adequately fund that education.

So, how should traditional public schools proceed? First, they should acknowledge that individual choice for parents is a good thing.

Second, they should try to be the schools that parents will choose. Examine why parents would choose charter schools and provide that in the TPS. Are the public schools failing to educate most students? Improve them so they are better. Are parents wanting foreign language immersion, STEM emphasis, IB curriculum, or gifted education? Provide it via magnet programs. Are parents concerned about the lack of discipline? Take a page from the KIPP Academies and implement character education. Is communication and cooperation between parents and teachers an issue? Fix it.

I don't claim that these changes will be easy. They will require hard work and sacrifice from teachers, administration, parents, students, and the community. But they will improve our public schools, which is a win for everyone. They will make TPS the schools of choice for most parents and probably even win back parents who are sending their children to charter, private, parochial, or home schooling.

The answer must not be to prevent the challenge. The answer must be to rise to the challenge by becoming better. One is a coward's way. The other is a winner's way.

I may be the only person in this discussion who has actually met with the Oxford Foundation. Much of what they are proposing is actually great legislation.

First, there will be a change from solely proficiency to incorporating yearly growth. This means that the students who will never pass the MEAP or enter a grade already able to pass the MEAP will not be overlooked.

Second, schools - TPS, charter, and cyber - will be judged on their performance and be rewarded or penalized. That charter school isn't performing? It will now have a financial incentive to do so. And the same will be true of TPS.

Third, there will be more choice for parents. Tell me why kids from Southfield, Pontiac, or other impoverished areas should be kept out of BHSD, Birmingham, or Rochester. Because their parents aren't as wealthy? Because they didn't have the same opportunity for preschool? Because people in these areas pay higher taxes? Sounds to me like these aren't truly public schools, but state-funded private districts.

And why shouldn't parents be able to take the money allocated to their children's education and spend it in whatever school they choose? Because it's your tax money too? Well, their tax money is helping support where your children are attending school. Unless you are willing to not let them contribute to the pot of money, don't complain when they take money out.

Are some charter schools failing? Absolutely! The Stanford CREDO report showed that nationally 37% were below demographically-similar TPS. But 63% weren't. Why shouldn't parents choose those 63%?

The CREDO report also showed another interesting statistic. It shows that charter school students underperform significantly their first year there, are about equal with public school students after their second year, and are ahead of TPS students after three years. As charter schools are growing rapidly, the average is weighted to first year charter students, skewing which schools are actually underperforming. Most charter schools are succeeding when given the chance. Thankfully, we don't have a governor swayed by scare tactics.

Many clearly believe that public schools need to change. Some districts are being innovative in techniques and methods and providing choice to parents to meet charter schools head on. Others are trying to prevent change, internal or external, and trying to head off the challenge through legislation. Which one is your district? Which district do you want to send your children to?

Here's one concern I have. If private schools can pick and chose their students and yet get public dollars, how is the playing field level for the public school that can't do that. I don't know that the final legislation will allow such cherry picking, but let's assume it does, would you agree in such instance that this isn't fair? Let's assume the Math Academy turns out to be less Bill and Tony and more MIT, more prestigious, can they take only the best math students? The public school can't do that. MIT Math academy then gets rewarded for good performance and brain-drained public school gets less funding. The first step in leveling the playing field, it seems to me, will be to say that if you take public dollars, you have to take anyone that enrolls regardless of their scores. Agree? To use your auto-analogy, you can't give one manufacturer the ability to pick superior parts, the other must take inferior parts and then have the audacity to say their playing on a level field. Can we agree on this point?

Joe, there are already public schools that can pick and choose students. Webster in Livonia does this. The International Academy has an entrance exam. Why haven't the school districts shut down the IA for cherry-picking their best students? Or do they recognize that some students need a bit more than the TPS can offer them?

Selective charter schools have been raised as a possibility in Michigan, but they do not currently exist. Right now a charter school has the same admissions standards as a standard TPS.

The districts that are most scared about selective charter schools are the ones that have done little for high ability students. Grosse Pointe Public Schools has magnet gifted classrooms and draws students from private and parochial schools back into GPPSS. Livonia's Webster Elementary attracts students from other districts. They aren't worried about a selective charter school opening up in their districts. Their parents are happy.

Rochester Community Schools has no gifted program and differentiation varies wildly from school to school. Right now they are losing kids to other school districts, charter schools, home schooling, private, and parochial schools. They know that a selective charter school will have some students leave. They are fighting strongly against this legislation. Many parents are unhappy.

TPS can either provide the opportunities or stay out of the way while others do. It is immoral for them to block success for students they refuse to educate.

But the GPPS Magnet classrooms are PART of the public school system- they are housed in public school facilities, as is the International Academy. In those cases, Gross Pointe and Bloomfield Hills aren't worried because they can control the deployment of those resources WITHIN the district to meet the needs of the gifted and non-gifted kids. Let's see Gross Pointe's reaction if you say you will take away 25% of their funding (the hold harmless millage) and allow their best students to be cherry-picked not by their OWN programs or schools within the district, but by a private school that doesn't have to take kids of every academic level.

Choice is good, competition on a level playing field is good, charter schools (can't cherry pick) are good, magnet classrooms are good, the IA is great! However, setting up a system where a private school can take our tax dollars and cherry-pick our best students OUT of the district doesn't seem so good, seems unfair, don't you think? Love private enterprise. You and I are competing. You have to take any part put in front of you to make your product. I get all the best parts, because I can screen out the bad ones. How do I lose? How could you ever win?

Among other things, you at least HAVE to level the playing field (private schools taking public money must take all applicants, like a public school) and second, you have to let districts have their hold harmless millage to maintain local investments and local control.

This "must accept all" is a completely misunderstood, and overused straw man argument.

It’s self-defeating. "We don't want any students to leave... we want them all.", followed by, "We can't perform well because we are expected to accept all."

And I'm still struggling to understand this "even playing field" concept in the context of doing what is best for children.

We don't want to offer better options for children who are being underserved because those who offer them aren't expected to take all children?

Joe, are you referring to charter schools as private schools? We haven't been discussing vouchers and charter schools are public schools.

Are you also saying that it is OK for TPS, like Webster in Livonia or the International Academy, to screen applicants, but it isn't OK for charter schools to do the same? This seems like an unlevel playing field with an advantage for TPS to me. You can't claim that it is only OK for TPS to be able to do this simply because there is another TPS nearby that will take them, because the same is true for charter schools.

I have no problem with districts keeping their special millages. If a community wants to provide additional funding for its students, fine with me.

Since your district has special millages, charter schools actually work in your favor. Let's say that you have 6,000 students and you get $60,000,000 from the state for educating them. You have a special millage that provides an additional $30,000,000, totaling $90,000,000. Per student, this is $15,000. A couple of great charter schools start up nearby and 1,000 students leave. (They would have to be great because BHPS won't lose many students to poor charter schools.) Your state funding dips to $50,000,000, but your millage still provides $30,000,000, totaling $80,000,000. For 5,000 students, this is now $16,000 per student. Your total funding went down, but your per pupil funding is actually up and you can do more for each student.

Great example, Joshua. And don't forget that the cost of operating the school would've gone down by something in the vicinity of $3.4 million. (Assuming 1000 fewer students, at 1 teacher per 30 students, and $100K cost for teachers that includes salary, edulevel healthcare, and a defined benefit retirement plan funded with a 24% payroll tax.)

Of course, this only works for a hold-harmless district, because of the local millage.

Joshua: I don't mind charter schools, per se, because they theoretically can't cherry pick students and the concept of level competition and choice, especially in some of the lower performing districts, is a good thing. The entire movement toward choice is, generally speaking and IMHO, a good thing. My question for you and Mike is, because we have an obligation to educate ALL children, which schools, public, charter or private MUST take the average to lower performing students? Somebody has to do it. Who. Don't dodge the question. Who HAS to take these students? If you answer the question (you won't, I suspect) and say the Public school MUST take all student while the new selective charter school or private schools does not, then clearly you are setting up an unfair system. A fairer system would be to permit public dollars to flow to a charter/private/specialty school (an "anywhere" school) that says "give me the same kids and because I operate better, have better teachers, am more focused, etc.", I will do a better job with the same students. That's competition on a level playing field and good school districts, like the BHSD will win that competition, while poorer school districts will either lose it over time to the "anywhere" schools or reform and become better.

I want to address your other points too, but it's "Friday Night Lights" (soccer at Ultimate) and I have 2 anxious boys looking over my shoulder. I appreciate the conversation. We'll talk again.

"which schools, public, charter or private MUST take the average to lower performing students?"

None of them. A public school DISTRICT must take all students. However, an individual traditional public school does not.

For example, Webster in Livonia is half gifted, half special education. Livonia does not have interdistrict schools of choice with the exception of Webster. Students from outside of the district that don't qualify for Webster's gifted program cannot go to Livonia's schools without paying tuition. And Webster draws students from many other districts. Webster's scores go up, the rest of Livonia's and surrounding districts go down. They are doing exactly what you don't want a charter school to do, but completely in compliance with state law.

If they were to put all the charter schools in one "district", does that solve the issue? Very few charters will be selective schools. They have to meet certain criteria.

Some people think that charter schools are just there to make money. Educating the top students is not the way to do that. If it were economically easier, every district would be doing it. The Davidson Institute in Nevada is a gifted charter school and relies on donations to cover expenses. A selective school is most likely going to be started by parents whose kids aren't having their needs met in TPS.

We've talked a lot about why you don't like the idea of selective charter schools. My questions for you: What is your solution for all the students who aren't having their needs met in TPS? What legislation are you supporting to have their needs met? Given that traditional public schools have been around for decades and many have ignored top students, what change do you believe will happen in the next couple years to meet these needs?

I wish I could wait ten years for my district to settle on a superintendent, get its act together, and provide necessary education for high ability students. Unfortunately, I can't put my kids in stasis and a selective charter school is the best opportunity I've seen in a long time.

It's a good question and of course I won't solve the state's educational problems in my short reprieve between soccer games... so forgive me. It's complicated. That being said, having now taken an interest in this issue (and I feel for the situation you're in), I will try to start formulating a better framework. I think I'll end up somewhere between you/Mike and Ken, the author of this blog (whom I respect, but don't always agree with). I think the general movement toward choice is correct. So more choice would be a fundamental principle. Fairness would be a guiding principle. Local control and the ability of a district to support their district through a hold harmless millage would be part of that framework. If the taxpayers of BHSD choose to support their schools over and above the per-pupil allowance from Lansing (which they currently do), that should be allowed. I'll think more about it and hope to write again.

It's not about everyone making the team and having equal playing time. It's about starting a travel team with public dollars, only allowing the better kids to play on it and then rewarding (with more money) the travel team for, guess what, being better ... what a surprise! At the same time you're looking at what's left of the rec team and pulling their funding and saying they're just "different".

To put it into the context of education, it would be like saying we should pour money into the IA at the expense of the other participating districts. The IA is a great thing, but it's not fair to steer money away from Adams to the IA on the basis of performance. Of course their scores are high, they are a concentration of the smartest students. But the IA is great thing,so there has to be a way to do this, but do it fairly.

There are other issues. I've been focused on funding and fairness. The OF proposal (what we know of it so far) raises a number of other issues that I haven't been commenting on yet... but we'll get to those I'm sure. Mike, there must be a structure that works. The key is to not to punish high performing districts like BH because other districts are "different."

Forgive me if I don't further reply, guess where I'm off too ...:) (this time actually Total Soccer). Never ends.

Your use of the word "different" is classic doublespeak. If little Sally loves art and wants to go to the new private art school (with public dollars), I could agree with the statement that she's choosing a "different" school or a "different" educational path. Now, if you ask her to submit a portfolio of her work and then turn her down for admission, but admit Tommy, who has the obvious talent, I would say you took Tommy because he was a "better" artist. Plain and simple. Maybe there's a place for using the word "different" to soften the rejection ("your not a bad kid Sally, you just have 'different' talents and need to find a 'different' school"). There's no room in an intellectually honest conversation to use the word "different" to mean that you want to allow publicly funded private schools to cherry pick the BETTER students for a "different" educational focus. It's clever doublespeak ... ain't buying it.

Again, not saying I'm against charter schools, or private schools or more choice for parents. A lot of worthwhile concepts in this, just have to be smart about how we do this so that we aren't locking in the long-term demise of the public school.

Joe, i see your point; perhaps I did not explain well. It's not doublespeak... I was making an honest effort at trying to explain.

And if little Sally is interested in art, but has not demonstrated artistic talents, then maybe an art elective is more appropriate for her. Having her enroll in an art academy is going to force the rest of the class to go slower, so that she can keep up, and might frustrate her to the point of being completely turned off to art.

Maybe "specialized" or "targeted" might serve as more appropriate descriptors?

And I think I understand your point... It is a common theme in almost every one of your posts.

You want everyone to make the team... and everyone to have equal playing time.

I see how you think that is the most fair thing to do.

However, I believe it is not fair to the kids who play at a higher level. If they cannot afford to pay to join the select soccer travel teams, then they are relegated to being the team star in a mediocre intermural league.

I hadn’t really been thinking of an art academy as being elementary age… I believe those that do exist are secondary. When I read Joe’s story of “little Sally”, I inferred that he was simply referring to a student, and not some 1st grader.

And nobody is trying to discourage Sally. On the contrary, it is about helping to develop Sally’s interests, but not at the expense of developing Tommy’s demonstrated aptitude (and interest; after all, we’d hope he would not seek admittance unless interested).

Even present day traditional schools have prerequisites, and they normally have them for a good reason. And if little Sally continues to show interest, and does have personal drive, then she’ll put together a portfolio and get in the following year.

But let’s put these same two hypothetical kids in a present day school. At best, both Tommy and Sally might be able to explore their artistic side during the one hour elective art class, and perhaps after school in a club. Neither of them – not the aspiring and hopeful Sally, nor the talented Tommy – have any additional support.

But with choices – and selective charters – they both might have the opportunity to get into a school that specializes in the “right brain” type kids. Of course, they would be much more focused on art. Beyond that, they’d still have math, but imagine how a creative teacher might be able to better tailor this “left brain” subject matter for a classroom populated with these righties, a possibility that presently does not exist with the one-size-fits-all TPS. And they’d be with other artist types, who are, as you note, likely to help and support each other.

Mr. Reno,

It it fair to understand from your posts that you hold that education is best when students are educated with people most like themselves? Would you consider the best system to be one where the troubled kids are in one school, special ed in another, "math kids" in one place, "art kids" another, gifted kids another, single religion schools, etc.? Or are you saying kids and parents should be offered the option to gravitate in their own directions?

Those who are looking for something different... Something more... Should be allowed to gravitate.

I see your point... and the risk of homogenous education.

Mac, kids learn differently, at different paces, and starting from different levels.

There are learning styles such tactile/kinesthetic, auditory, and visual. Each of these students will learn better in a classroom geared towards them.

There are different interests. As Plato wrote, "Do not train a child to learn by force or harshness; but direct them to it by what amuses their minds, so that you may be better able to discover with accuracy the peculiar bent of the genius of each." Some students will learn better through art and music and others through math and science, because of aptitude and interest.

Gifted learners also are quantitatively and qualitatively different. They start out ahead of the class, learn quicker, and learn differently. A teacher that tries to differentiate for one gifted learner may feel that she just doesn't have the time. If they don't have training, they may not understand how a gifted learner can think. For example, my dad, my second daughter, and I "see" math. If I am working on calculating tips with my first daughter, I may take her through multiplying by 0.15. For my second daughter, she naturally grasps at a very young age that calculating a tip is chopping off the last digit, dividing that in half, and adding those two together. Asking her to show work is pointless because her mind doesn't work like a typical first grader's. It skips steps.

For my first daughter, she needs math processes taught her. For my second daughter, she needs math concepts explained to her and the math processes flow naturally from that. A teacher not used to gifted students may try just giving her harder math processes, not understanding how her mind works.

This type of thing happens in varying ways for gifted learners. Some start reading at age 3, never having been formally taught letter sounds. Others can plink out a tune after hearing it once. Some can visualize a running engine in their heads. Gifted learners are as different from typical learners as gifted athletes are from typical athletes. Coaches make qualitative changes in their coaching methods for these kids, not just quantitative changes.

Unfortunately, the factory model classroom just doesn't adapt well for many kids. A lecture doesn't help a tactile learner as much as as physical activity. A harder worksheet isn't right for a kid looking to understand concepts.

There is also important social skills that can flourish better in a homogenous group. Science kids aren't geeks. Smart kids aren't nerds. Art kids aren't weirdos. Tactile learners aren't troublemakers. When you are with similar people, you can belong, learn easier, and not stress out so much socially. When I was with 20 kids who thought like me, I grew so much more than when I was singled out. Kids need peers, even more than adults need peers.

I'm certainly not saying to force kids into different groups. Some want a wide mixture. Others desire and thrive in a class where the discussion is at their level and interest. In high school, you can have honors and AP classes to help, but elementary they rarely get this. Some TPS districts have selective magnet schools because they benefit their students, but there are so many districts that believe that all schools need to be the same and do not acknowledge the differences in learners. If parents want these options and TPS won't provide them, why are we not letting independent public schools to meet the needs?

Joshua, I'm more than aware of all that. I'm up on my gifted education. I wasn't expressing an opinion, being somewhat agnostic on this question myself, just asking for Mr. Reno's perspective.

For all the reasons you state, I see benefits to having kids group together with like-minded people, which happens fairly organically by high school age if there are decent opportunities. On the other hand, I have experienced instances where people's worlds were significantly smaller, and they were in fact less educated, by being around people like themselves throughout their education. And I know there is significant benefit to my child from being in a school with mainstreamed special Ed, international students, and students of various religions. So I am questioning (but not opining) whether the segmentation of the educational system would be entirely good.

Like both you and Mr. Reno, I don't see any benefit to slowing smart kids down to the average pace, which happens in many public, private, and charter schools. Perhaps allocating more money and resources to gifted education makes more sense than spreading current funding thinner. Less public school funding will certainly not increase opportunities for the kids on either end of the bell curve, and I don't think we can promise a gifted charter school in Alpena and Escanaba.

Mac, sorry I misinterpreted your questions.

I would love to see money spent on the gifted at public schools, but that isn't happening in most districts. Many states mandate gifted identification and education, but Michigan requires neither. Districts can legally choose to do nothing.

Joshua,

It sounds like you and I could commiserate for hours on the sorry state of gifted education in Michigan. We are in strong agreement on that issue.

Performance based funding is straight from the Governors 2011 message on reform. How that translates is to be seen. Appreciate that you see the potential for inequity in how that issue might be handled.

Mike, I'm going to enjoy the rest of the weekend with my family. You understand my position. No cherry picking ... level playing field. Monday, a draft of the legislation will be out and we can all consider the specifics.

Mary, we are in Rochester Community Schools. I've actually recommended parents of gifted students looking at RCS to look at Bloomfield schools instead. Your schools are far ahead of most of ours when it comes to gifted education. I've got a friend whose son is 5 years ahead in math and RCS administration told her they couldn't do anything for him.

Joshua,

You are edging close to the concern many of us on this Bloomfield Patch have. If the BHSD is doing a relatively good job of educating gifted students, based on current funding levels and the demands of the population attracted to the district, how will the Oxford Foundation proposal make things better for BHSD students? We are all speculating, but it appears likely that funding will be decreased. Do I really think a $7500/pupil charter school is going to be better able to serve gifted students? Do I think having less money in the BHSD is going to increase truly differentiated learning? The first thing to go is extra support for the kids who already MEAP at 99%. If gifted learning was the state's concern (it never has been), putting money behind gifted programs might make more sense than opening the door to charter schools. And it would be good for business, as high performing professionals demand high performing education for their children.

I have been highly critical of gifted education in Bloomfield and in Michigan, but I don't see that introducing charter schools at a low per pupil allowance improves the situation. I will keep an open mind that the Oxford Foundation will somehow open the door for bright students to excel, but am very skeptical that is the goal or the result.

"We are all speculating, but it appears likely that funding will decrease."

You guys have convinced yourselves that funding will decreased. There is no direct indication that this will happen, yet a substantial number of the objections in these posts are based on assumption. So much negativity based on rumors.

Joshua, your example of the gifted student and Bloomfield is interesting because unlike some other districts, Bloomfield does not attempt to provide a specific program or path for so-called "gifted" kids. Rather, its approach is to provide a comprehensive set of offerings available to all students such that anyone enrolled has the opportunity to excel to their full potential. In my opinion it is one of the distinguishing characteristics of BHSD and one of the big reasons why the residents here so vigorously defend their right to control their own destiny when it comes to funding for their schools.

J. Wagner

J. Wagner, unfortunately, my statement is more indicative of where RCS is than where Bloomfield is. After my daughter entered kindergarten reading and was taught letter sounds again and was taught counting when she was already doing addition, I started an advocacy group, Rochester SAGE - Supporting Advanced & Gifted Education - http://RochesterSAGE.org. At this point, we've seen a lot of talk, but no action. It is positive in that discussions have begun which were not happening and I understand that the curriculum committee has been looking at G/T methods, but there have been no results yet.

In RCS, differentiation really varies. Some schools do nothing. Some provide ability grouping and limited acceleration. However, there are still members of my group who have left for charter schools that are doing a better job for gifted kids, even though they are not gifted charter schools. It can be done on the standard per pupil allowance without hold-harmless monies, but a charter school operator is not going to get rich doing it.

Previously, I would have suggested Troy, but they cut their gifted program a couple of years ago. Livonia and Grosse Pointe were too far for these families. So that is the sad state of gifted education in Michigan. A district that differentiates well, a poor form of gifted education, is the best in the area.

Mr. Reno, one of the first things the Oxford Foundation posted on its website drafted language that would cut BHSD funding. There has also been firm talk of maintaining the current funding level, while adding schools. And mandated school of choice, which is clearly on the table, doesn't work very well with hold harmless. So the speculation is not wholly unfounded, and the window for feedback is going to be quick, so it is not unreasonable to be thinking about the likely effect on our current students.

That said, the discussion will be more interesting when the draft is posted tomorrow.

Maybe because of the reasons J Arch listed, I never hear the word "gifted' used in the BH district. I am sorry but I always felt the word was cliche and is definetly now passe.

Joshua, my point is that the funding level that BHSD has enjoyed over the years has allowed it to integrate offerings into its curriculum for a wider variety of needs than most districts: DHH (deaf and hard of hearing), ESL (English as second language), special needs, talented or "gifted," etc. All of these needs are served by the inherent breadth of BHSD's standard curriculum. The philosophy is that these students are not segregated or isolated, rather they are all part of the mainstream and all students benefit from this integration. To Mary L's point, that is why you rarely hear the term "gifted" used in BHSD.

Arguably, this is a less efficient way to deliver these services as opposed to running them in silos (academies), but by doing so, a broader base of students are allowed to learn together and more students have the opportunity to access these offerings. This is one of the reasons why BHSD residents so staunchly defend their desire to run their district as it has historically been run.

J. Wagner

Joshua,

I am a teacher in Troy and my children are students in Troy. When I taught 5th and Troy had its PACE program (G/T), my PACE students would request that they be allowed to drop PACE and be able to participate in our classroom. They felt like they missed too much. I found it was really the parents who wanted their kids in PACE, it was status for the parents. Differentiation is a much better model for the regular school day. After-school G/T would be better for kids. My sons are talented artists, so I have had them in after-school art programs. My one son loves soccer. He plays on a travel soccer team. Students get many more benefits for being in differentiated classrooms and having opportunities, such as Science Olympiad and Lego League, outside of the regular school.

Joe, I am not a fan of pull-out gifted programs for many reasons.

One is the reason you mention of missing too much of the class. Most pull-out programs require the students to do homework for the classes they missed. Gifted students don't need "more", they need academics aligned to their skills.

Second, gifted learners aren't just gifted a few hours a week. They may be only gifted in one area, but that typically isn't addressed in a pull-out program. They shouldn't be slowed for the rest of the week and only have a few hours that they feel is time they can be themselves.

Third, pull-out programs often lead to resentment. Many seem to be based on around fun activities that most kids would like to do. The worst that I ever heard of was a gifted pull-out program that did a Disney trip at the end of the year. Of course everyone else was mad. It isn't about g/t kids getting to do more fun stuff, but about the right education.

Fourth, pull-out programs are often used to placate parents. The parents feel that at least their children are getting a bit more attention.

Are pull-out programs better than nothing? Usually. For a couple of hours, g/t kids don't feel out-of-place and are with similar minds. For a couple of hours, they get to work at a natural pace.

Sometimes it is the parents who need to make the decisions. Some g/t kids want to take school easy and score A's instead of being challenged to work hard. However, that hurts them when they don't learn to work hard or overcome obstacles. Some kids would choose hiding their talents to fit in and let peer pressure run their lives. In one of my daughter's classes, she has a significantly harder math packet than most kids. The other kids are competing to see who can do the most math packets, so the g/t kids want to do the easy packets too. An adult is needed to have them do the packets at their level. Kids may want things that are not good or appropriate for them.

While kids have talents in many areas, sports and, to a certain extent, art and music, are not the domain of elementary schools. Math, reading, writing, science, social studies, history, and academics are. Would you enroll your sons, who are talented artists, in a program that required them to spend the majority of their time working at the level of other children their age and charged even more if they wanted to come back for another hour or two to work at their talent level? Or would you want their entire art program to be their level? I'm not going to be happy if my daughters' piano teacher requires them to also play songs that the average student their age could play. I'm going to put them in a program where they play songs at *their* level.

As a society, we have chosen to provide free public education. To tell people that if they want their g/t children to learn they need to put them in a separate pay program goes against the principals of free public education. We have not guaranteed free arts, music, and sports programs. Oddly, though, even at the public level, those do a significantly better job of providing options for those with talents in them. Something is amiss.

Good point, Mike. I surely intended to be respectful all around, so should have gone with "Mr. Raymond".

Any mention of hold harmless affects BHSD. This the proposal to which I was referring:

http://oxfordfoundationmi.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/enhancementmillagerefinement.pdf

To your point, tomorrow we will have a draft to read. From today's Free Press article, it appears it may elide the main complications and concerns about the new funding model. But the discussion will certainly be less speculative tomorrow.

I think many of us feel that this will go from proposal to law very quickly, and that we don't see signs that important issues are being considered or that input is incorporated. We are trying to understand and interpret the clues we have so that we are proactive with the little time we may have to improve the bill.

I recognize that you and I may have different views on the fact that the effort is led by an Engler/Mackinac Center leader, but that does indicate a certain point of view.

Has anyone done the math using the formula? Oakland county website would have all the data.

The formula is not necessarily in tomorrow's proposal, so big math can wait until tomorrow. But BHSD hold harmless is 7.7%, Birmingham is 9.1%, and Southfield is about 17%. And 3% is definitely less than 7.7%.

Comparing the rates simply means that your property taxes would go down.

You would probably receive a higher foundation grant. I don't recall the exact 20J formula, but i seem to recall that you currently receive a reduced foundation grant.

Perhaps it would be an overall reduction in funding to 20J districts. At this point it sounds like nobody really knows.

20J funding has been gone for awhile now. That's not on the table.

Those hold harmless taxes go to our schools; if we pay less, they get less. There is certainly no pot of gold waiting to bring BHSD funding to current levels while BHSD residents pay lower property taxes. If that provision is in the proposal tomorrow, my view will indeed change.

All they could come up with was 300 pages?

How many times was Bloomfield targeted? :-)

Linda,
I mean this sincerely: that is a great question -- if not the question for residents of BHSD, Birmingham, Troy, etc. I understand your point and (in this case) your affect because Birmingham schools did not work for my kid. I saw an elementary school principal who had all the academic gravitas of an MSU Residence Hall Advisor, a functionally illiterate assistant principal (in my professional opinion), and at least one teacher who should not be anywhere near children -- something every parent and teacher and administrator in the school knew and that is why they kept their kids away from her. And, of course, as a parent, there was nothing I could do about this. That said, and as you suggest, I am not ready to prescribe legislation rushed through a lame duck legislation for a District that works for many and that has, for years, preserved property values. The current legislation seeks to address real problems in real places. But it won't address the sorts of things you (seem) upset about -- and it will, all too quickly -- change the character of whole areas. Want to run a bad teacher out of town? Call me. A bad administrator? Text me. I assure you you want find a school cheerleader. This legislation is counting on the sort of anger you (and I) feel to make all too quick and drastic changes.

"The current legislation seeks to address real problems in real places. But it won't address the sorts of things you (seem) upset about..."

But this will: ???

"Want to run a bad teacher out of town? Call me. A bad administrator? Text me. I assure you you want find a school cheerleader. "

Curious how this gets written in legislation? Is this service only available in Birmingham? It sounds like it didn't work for you... have you now perfected the process? This will address her concerns in what way?

It's unclear what that even means.

I think many of us would prefer to do this in a much less confrontational way. If the education process is not working, then talk to the teacher. If there is pushback, talk to the principal. At that point, you should have the option to move on. No battles in the boardroom... no battles at the ballot box.

The current process has no escape mechanism, other than fighting. If you get a poor teacher... it becomes "the lost year". You get a bad principal... you have limited options. You get a bad district... (and are not wealthy)... you have almost no options.

You do seem to care about this, and sincerely seem to be trying to protect what you believe is an effective means of educating children. So what do you propose for people like Linda, me, Joshua, and even yourself who have had ineffective experiences with schools? We have years of experience trying to work within the system. It's just not working.