On May 8th, Bloomfield Hills residents will go to the polls to vote on a measure crucial to the future of our community. On that day, we will decide whether to approve a bond proposal that will decide the future of our high schools.
Our community is known for its superior education system, but this system is strained. Our population is declining, and this trend is predicted to continue for the foreseeable future. We can no longer support the educational and athletic programs we demand using two aging high school buildings.
In recognition of these facts, this fall and will become “Bloomfield Hills High School”. The question before us is not whether to merge, but how.
The merger will allow us to fill team rosters and classrooms, maintaining the diversity of academic and athletic opportunities we want for our children---to some extent. But a unified high school spread across two campuses will require a great deal of busing throughout the day, and underfilled programs will be eliminated. We also will have to continue to try to maintain our aging physical plant.
Our teachers have worked hard to maintain our standards despite adverse conditions. Our students are using facilities designed for educational philosophies and technologies of the previous century, a model that may have served their parents well-enough, but will not serve them well.
Our property values which have dropped so much during the recession will drop even further if we fail to maintain our schools. Many of us moved to this community primarily for the schools and many of us would not have chosen to live here had we thought our community would even consider rejecting funding for education.
Our new superintendent and school board have come up with an innovative and cost-effective plan unrelated to any previous plans, both in content and in how it was developed. This time, the district extensively researched and quantified available resources and options, and actively and sincerely sought input from residents, including those who adamantly opposed past proposals.
The result of all of this is a truly remarkable solution for making the best of a difficult situation. Using our resources efficiently, it manages to redesign our educational spaces to bring them in line with the needs and expectations of a century that began over a decade ago, and remain flexible enough to adapt to technological and educational changes for decades to come.
Moreover, it is, in relative terms, a bargain. Due to the expiration of current millages, the new bond proposal will not add to our yearly taxes. It will replace old millages, with taxes actually decreasing over the next few years.
When we vote to approve the millage, we will save individual tax dollars, improve our property values, and most importantly, create for our community a new and lasting unified high school to serve our children for decades to come.
Peter Lipson,
West Bloomfield
Unfortunately, by making yourself a public figure being the spokesperson for B2020 and posting the many blogs you're not as able to object to criticism as someone else. The good news is that the election is only 8 days away. Best, Neal
If you're suggesting that we could get an expanded cafeteria at the Andover site and do all other necessary repairs and upgrades to both high school buildings while also meeting all of the needs at other buildings in the district, and not cutting programming with $35 million pulled from the sinking fund and other operational resources, I find that assumption to be overly optimistic, to say the least.
Whether the bond passes or fails, we all need to be concerned with program cuts and class sizes if the District doesn't address the $48M deficit --- and without dipping into the reserves. I am voting No on May 8 because the District has not been able to show how educational outcomes will improve and because they do not have a plan to balance the budget. Remember, for every $1 saved in operational savings, taxpayers will be paying $3 in interest on the bond. There is no interest on sinking funds. Every tax dollar goes directly into the facilities.
is defamatory," and 2) "Patch believes in transparency, and we ask that all your registration information be truthful. You may not use any aliases or other means to mask your true identity." If you believe that Alexandrea Franklin is not using defaming language, then OK. But what would you say to your child if you knew s/he were talking to people that way? What would you say to your co-worker or employee? Your brother? Your spouse?
I would be happy to see you respond to Peter Lipson's comment above. You just said you aren't voting YES on May 8 because BHSD could not show how a renovated Andover to facilitate the high school consolidation would improve educational outcomes. That would be some study, no? If BHSD could come up with a study that would show or guaranteed postive educational outcomes in the future I think we might all be rich, financially and otherwise. I fear you are only demonstrating what many have charged: some voters will vote only NO. I have tried quite hard to follow your arguments here because you seem like a serious, determined and civil person. But tracking you here and in other written records is hard.
Educational outcomes correlate to parent involvement, parental expectations for the child and for the educator. These outcomes correlate to the student/teacher relationship. New buildings, especially the proposed school with two thirds of the funds allocated to sports and arts actually may provide distractions that take away from the basics of reading, writing, math and science.
At the moment, according to the process (here I disagree somewhat with Mr. Lipson on process v. content, sometimes process is important), we are discussing the vote on May 8th. That vote isn't to decide about consolidation. Consolidation will happen. The vote is to decide if we renovate Andover so said consolidation has one building rather two. Under the circumstances, a YES vote is, to my mind, best for educational outcomes (pace teachers and administrators who do this for a living, will be doing it -- not your or me). If we were at the point in the process when we were discussing consolidation writ large the two of us might have found more common ground. But we just are not there.
http://onebloomfieldunited.com/endorsements I realize you'll have to scroll down past all three local paper endorsements (including the Oakland Press, which, like myself, has had a stunning change of heart from the previous plan to this one), but it's right there.
Everything you cite here argues against consolidation, whopping state budget cuts, incompetence in some administrators or teachers (the latter sometimes wrongfully protected by unions that have not reformed enough on their own). I am with you much of the way. Until I come back to the real issue in 10 days. Your no vote won't stop consolidation. It won't fix the issues you (and many, including me ) are concerned about. Would you, then, consider your NO vote on May 8th a "protest" vote of sorts?
However, on the financial side, there is a big difference between locking into a 26 year bond to pay for the new/renovated Andover. It sickens me that the District would waste $53M on interest, when we could renovate Andover and Lahser with sinking funds current and future with no interest payments. I believe this renovation plan could easily get us to 2050. Of course it would take additional sinking funds, but what plan won't? Perhaps then, in 2050, we will need to invest in a new really small high school, or one really big high school, or two high schools. Who knows? Ann Arbor High School 1907-1956, moved to a new building due to increasing population. UM occupied this building from 1956 through 2007. I attended classes in the building in it's 75th through 78th years. It was demolished after 99 years in service. I think they changed the windows. Otherwise, just classrooms, students, teachers and a great education.
I am sorry it disturbs you but the ballot is just that: a vote to renovate Andover rather than have the consolidated school in 2 buildings. That is, and I don't mean to be antagonistic, a political fact. I do sympathize as it seems like you have been battling for a different configuration and it must be frustrating to have it come down to that. But that is the process. And it is a process brought about not so much by bad administrators or school budget members but enormous changes in demographics/enrollment and unimaginable state budget cuts for public education. So here we are. On the two points of disagreement: yes, you and I disagree about the 9th grade building but what is critical, I think, is what the professionals think and want. Any business manager knows now that forcing labor to act against its own best judgement is counter productive. As far as schools, I am a bit old fashioned. Good teachers are what matters. Although today one also needs functioning space for technology and its advancement. I very much appreciate your responses here
We must, however, be cautious that basic education is not shifted too far in the arts and sports. How many graduates will earn a living from arts and sports? The key is balance and when I see two thirds of the high school expenditure going into non-academic spaces, this apparent shift concerns me.
Hope you all have a great evening and a terrific Tuesday!