You may have heard that Bloomfield 20/20 has stopped actively seeking signatures to recall all seven of our current school board members. We stopped seeking signatures when we realized we would miss the deadline for a February recall election, and that it would not be financially or strategically reasonable to hold a recall election later in 2012.
Three BHSD trustees come up for election in November. Is it worth the effort (and money) to put 6 new Trustees on the board in May, and have to come back in Nov. with a re-election campaign? From my experience, it costs about $10,000 to $25,000 to run a successful campaign for a school board candidate that is not endorsed by the MEA. MEA-endorsed candidates can run, and win, for a few hundred dollars; sometimes, even less, as in the case of appointed trustees Robert Herner and Joan Berndt.
2012 will be an active, competitive year at all levels of U.S. politics, as battles will be fought in caucuses and primaries starting Tuesday in Iowa.
Recall supporters need to note this key word: Database.
If you signed the recall petitions, your name and contact information has been recorded. If you would like us to continue to send messages regarding school board actions and upcoming elections, please be sure to let us know.
The recall phone is 248-943-8580. You can also visit the B20/20 website. We do our best to keep information updated.
Most likely, the BHSD board will vote to hold an election in May, 2012, to request a new tax to pay for construction at Andover.
If you have not seen the "schematic design," and would like to know more about it, please let me know. It includes an elaborate Performing Arts Center, and "upgrades" to athletic facilities.
If you care about academic achievement, prepare to be disappointed: FNI's "21st-Century education" amounts to abandonment of traditional classrooms, and a switch to team teaching and collaborative learning.
The recall process allowed us to compile a powerful list of registered voters who do not support the board's plan to consolidate our high schools and build a new, very expensive one to replace Andover at the Andover site.
Although we really don't know what they plan to build or how much it will cost, we do know that the BHSD board is following the plan left in place by former Superintendent Steve Gaynor. A Mega School, "schematically designed" by a VERY expensive consultant (originally hired by Gaynor in 2009 to design the outrageous new building at the Bowers Farm), to be built by a general contractor who did not submit a competitive bid (but who was considered in 2009 by Gaynor for a different project and apparently "won" it). And the new high school is likely not to include a Library or Media Center, because your Bloomfield Township Library Board is proceeding to establish a "partnership" with the BHSD, despite the fact that at least 30 percent of BHSD students do not live in or pay taxes to the Bloomfield Township Public Library. The "BTPL/BHSD partnership" plan was hatched in 2009, during the superintendency of Gaynor.
You might notice that the last failed mega school plan did not include a library or media center.
So much for "education."
Next, of the many teachers I have spoken to about the issues in the school this was never an issue they mentioned. I also find it unfair to rely heavily on their input, when I know for a fact that there was not as much teacher input as claimed, and that most “suggestions” were presented by the teachers union representatives, or teachers with strong affiliations with the MEA (besides the fact that they are all members of the union). I'd like to point this out because the MEA has been behind this board and it's plan for a long while now, and so one could again see a conflict of interest.
Lastly one of the biggest comments I take issues with is when you say: “Tremendous effort was put into the learning spaces, including multiple rounds of meetings with department heads over nearly a year of time, and a full day curriculum mapping workshop with teachers and administrators from both schools to test drive the design in progress, gather input on how the curriculum could play out in the spaces, and identify new opportunities that the design creates for teaching and learning. Pages 22-28 of our report illustrate the plans for the core learning spaces in great detail.”
I have spoken with many teachers at Lahser about these so called “learning environments”. I was met with anger, and negative response. These teachers for the most part do NOT like this plan. I know for a fact that some have brought up their concerns, and have had them fallen on deaf ears. One of the biggest responses I have heard is “what happened to traditional classrooms?” and “Why should I be forced to work under another teacher of my same caliber?”. The merging of the two schools should come with major teacher layoffs, because of the mere idea of merging two schools it is a necessary course of action. However these learning environments literally safe keep most of the teachers jobs. This is unsustainable! No one wants to layoff their workers, but this plan makes it a must. Yet the layoffs, if any, will be subtle and allow most to keep their job. This is not cost effective. If your mission is really to consolidate, and have cost containment, the employees should not be exempt. This realization is becoming clear to the teachers, and you will find that the little support from them that you actually have, will dwindle.
This plan you have does not work. It is broken, it does not contain costs, it creates more problems, it creates tax burdens, and the list goes on. On top of it all, the tax payers have voted these plans down multiple times, and have clearly spoken on the matter... maintain the two high schools that we already have. There is no better argument than that. I know that you will disagree, but I don't expect to convince you (Mr. Kaufman) of my point of view. What I do expect is for people to read what we have both said and make the right choice. That choice of course is to side with US. US not being B2020, US being the community, and the majority of the community has spoken, maintain our schools. We the majority of the community will not take this neglect any longer. -Michael Banerian Lahser Student, 11th Grade
I truly appreciate your zeal and interest in these issues. While we may disagree, I trust we can do so in a respectful manner. I have been involved in the facilities discussions since 2003...way back when you were in 2nd or 3rd grade. I sat on the original facilities committee that, after months of study and community input, formulated the 2 Schools on One Campus plan. Some folks disagreed, 2020 was created, the Mega School was coined, the community divided and here we are...8 years later! Remember, that plan was never brought to the community for a vote. If we look back at that time and plan I still firmly believe that it would have been tremendous for the district. We would have been able to keep our two small high schools, shared facilities would have created cost savings. Educational programs and offerings would have been preserved and enhanced. Travel time would have been drastically cut down. And best yet...the bond would be nearly paid off by now! But the school board listened to 2020 supporters and sadly removed that plan from consideration. Fast forward to today. Our district is faced with declining enrollment, dwindling funding and decaying, outdated facilities. The exhaustive process the community and district have been through has created a well-researched, thoughtful plan that will take our district forward.
While previous bond proposals have failed, I believe the plan currently under consideration addresses the concerns from many no voters. Some being, not 100% new construction (repairing, updating what we have) focus on instruction, value for dollars spent, etc. The community has had ample opportunity for input and the board has listened. Is it perfect? No. Is it a brilliant melding of many differing viewpoints? Resoundingly YES! I guess the bottom line for me is knowing that we must do something. We cannot afford to maintain our two smaller high schools. Period. Even when Andover and Lahser are combined, the total student population will not put the school in the "Mega" category. Our infrastructures are crumbling. We must act. I have to believe that we all are working toward the same goal...a superior education for our students. To my thinking, that simply cannot happen in the existing facilities. It makes me sad to think that 2020, or as Dr. Barr says NONO people are already poised to fight a potential bond. It makes me believe that you all are NO just to be contrary. The high schools are combining. That is a given and not up for vote. It is our task as a community to decide what the future of our high schools will look like. Everything from curriculum planning to Media Center, athletic venues to performing arts center, collaborative learning spaces to parking spaces, cafeteria to computer labs and so much more is addressed in the FNI schematic.
I implore the community to become educated on these important issues. Whenever the bond election happens, the outcome will be critical to the future of education in our district. Attend a community meeting, make your voice heard. And vote! Our students are our future and they deserve to learn in an environment that enhances their curricular as well as cocurricular experiences.
As a parent, I was thankful to the district for educating my children in more than just book-learning. My students learned from their cocurricular experiences as well. The whole package is what makes a successful student and further down the line, a successful adult.
I don't believe I can change the mind of people still fighting elementary school consolidations, lost school board elections or people who, in my opinion, are saying I got mine, tough for you (Isaac told me to miy face in September that the people with kids in school should pay additional fees). I also feel that these people and others are fully entitled to their views. I'm not going to try to change your mind, it's totally okay and I'm not entitled to make everyone agree with me. It's about getting people who care and want to preserve the quality of education in BHSD to vote and get their friends to vote. To people trying to side track us from this issue I merely say, "Have a good day, I've got work to do.,"
"The unfortunate FACT is that we taxpayers cannot trust our board to spend education tax dollars appropriately. We also cannot trust them to do what they SAY they are going to do. Once money is awarded to the district, Trustees have the RIGHT to vote to use it as they please. B20/20 exists to provide oversight for taxpayers."
Jenny, please do not speak for all taxpayers and pass your opinion off as FACT. The whole purpose of electing a representative school board is that when elected, we TRUST that they will act in the best interest of our schools and community. If they do not, then we have the prerogative of not re-electing them. It is a FACT that a majority of the community elected the current board, not the 2020 candidates who ran. Jenny, please offer specific evidence of the board not acting in the best interest of our students. Please show evidence of fiscal irresponsibility. Your sweeping statements are nothing but sour grapes and serve no purpose but to impugn the reputations of dedicated public servants.
OK...the observer in me says: since there will be 13 + more meetings to tweak the design, any current plan with a library/media center COULD change. I doubt that would happen after all this hoopla...some form of a "library/media center" will be kept plus I have not heard anyone say the last failed mega school plan had or did not have a library. Amy said: "....we TRUST that they will act in the best interest of our schools and community. IF THEY DO NOT, then we have the prerogative of not re-electing them." OK, the observer in me says: Even the One Bloomfield United people consider the fact that the administration may NOT act in the best interest...otherwise why have a prerogative?(some caps mine) B20/20 has several voting results to NOT TRUST. Bottom line: IF the bond issue is going to be in MAY of 2012...the language needs to drafted/submitted for the ballot. What is the time line for that? The COMPLETE architectural plan should be finished, competitive bids received for the work, so the costs are more accurate. I don't think there should be "options" on the ballot. What is the total project and what is that cost and what is the financial need from the school taxpayers? No games! Know the WHOLE Project BEFORE the vote.
I appreciate your interest in township and school finances, but it is NOT standard practice to develop a full set of construction documents and bid out the project prior to knowing there is ample funding. Schematic Plans are the appropriate place to be for a millage vote because a high percentage of the decisions have been made. In this instance, that there will be a media center (or library as some of us still call it). From a different point of view, contractors would be less likely to provide a competitive bid for a project that does not have secure funding.
The reason for the 13+ community meetings is so that every member of our community has the opportunity to make their voice heard and get the facts about the plan first hand. This is a direct result of the board being responsive to the community. I also would appreciate your not taking my words out of context. As you know, in our democratic society, popular voting is how our elected representatives are chosen. The prerogative to elect, re-elect or not elect is innately part of the voting process. This was evidenced, for example, in the failure of 2020 candidates to be elected. Please offer an example for "B2020 has several voting results to NOT TRUST." What do you mean by this? Bottom line: whenever the Bond election happens, the language will be clear and complete, costs will be detailed. The plan will be there for all to see. This board does not play games, Ms. Robovitsky. I know you are not a BHSD resident, and while I respect your right to be interested in what happens in the communities around you, it might behoove you to get all the information before chiming in on topics you are not completely familiar with.
I like "chiming in".....no one else seems to "get all the information" before commenting. Do you have all the information, or just more than me? If we all knew everything, there would be no discussion about what is what. This is the way to learn. Question: in these 13+ meetings, is there the opportunity to CHANGE any of the plans already designed? or are the plans set and these meetings are just to "show" the public what the design is, to inform them? You said: "...opportunity to make their voice heard (really?) and get the facts about the plan.." If the "facts" can change, because someone's voice was really heard, when will everyone know the END plan result? Before the vote? Lastly, who is providing the financial figures for the "schematic plan"? Is that person/company knowledgeable about current local construction costs? What if those figures are not accurate? Many "projects" go over budget. What is BHSD budget? What contingencies are in place IF over budget? How can you say: "...costs will be detailed.."? The details are yet to be finalized/drawn/bid before the vote.
For example: The High School issue has NOT been put before the voters 3x. 2003 - 2 schools one campus $123 Million NEVER WENT UP FOR VOTE. 2007 - 2 New High Schools separate campus - $145 Million was voted down 2010 - New Single High School - $97.5 Million -was rejected by the voters because no plans, too expensive blank check. The new board (now 4 out 7 since the last vote ) listened and brought in consultants to come in and develop plans. By voting No last time - That is what we asked for and what the board is providing.
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/daniel_patrick_moynihan.html) With this in mind, I feel the need to clarify some of the errors and or exaggerations made by Mrs. Greenwell. First of all, in her entry of January 4th, 2012, Mrs. Greenwell implies that MEA endorsed candidates can run for office with very little money due to the fact that they are backed by the MEA. She then uses the appointment of Robert Herner and Joan Berndt as examples. In each of those two appointments the Bloomfield Hills Education Association (BHEA) played no role in screening or recommending those two appointees. The law required that the Board of Education fill the vacancies left by David Lubin and Kate Petterson. Since there was no election, the BHEA did not get involved. When school board seats are up for election, the BHEA does invite all candidates to an interview with our screening and recommendation committee so that we may recommend to our members, those who live within the district and those teachers in other districts who are members of the community, which candidates are friends of public education. Entry continues on the next page.
The proposed high school has traditional classrooms, but also integrates new building designs that will help facilitate different learning approaches. Currently the two high schools really only accommodate on learning style which is the traditional lecture/discussion model. While this is a format that works well, and I use myself, where appropriate, the reality is that students have various learning styles and intelligences (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/education/ed_mi_overview.html) and (http://www.howardgardner.com/FAQ/FREQUENTLY%20ASKED%20QUESTIONS%20Updated%20March%2009.pdf) and the newer facility will provide the opportunity for teachers to explore those learning styles where the current buildings lock us into primarily one style due to the limitations presented by the facilities. I'm also confused by the statement that "...these learning environments literally safe keep most of the teachers jobs." Staff understands that merging the two buildings may lead to layoffs. We will only need on media specialist, one band, orchestra and vocal teacher, as well as other additional positions. The hope is that any loss of jobs will be offset by retirements and that job loss will be kept to a minimum. As for those teachers who you spoke to who didn't like the plan, there are equal numbers of teachers who support it. All realize, like the plan or not, that with declining enrollment, the current practice is unsustainable.
I do agree with you, Michael, that the taxpayers have voted previous plans down. However, you then make the assertion that these votes represent the desire to "...maintain the two high schools that we already have." This conclusion is not supported by the data. While some voters voted no for the reason you state, the fact that the previous bond proposals failed cannot be tied to the conclusion that the public wants to maintain two high schools. Some voters voted no because previous plans lacked sufficient drawings and detail. Some voted no because costs were not clearly spelled out. Some voted no because they opposed the previous administration, some voted no because of they did not wish to approve a perceived increase in their taxes. The reasons for voting no are many and are not necessarily tied to your conclusion.
(http://www.fieldingnair.com/) and click on the Hillel School of Tampa, you will see how Mr. Nair led a project to reconfigure his own son's school in Florida. Mr. Nair has his own child in a school with the same learning environment that he proposes for our children. Check it out.