|
Grex > Aaypsi > #33: 1994 Ann Arbor school board elections | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scg
|
|
1994 Ann Arbor school board elections
| 
Jun 12 03:57 UTC 1994 |
Some discussion of this year's school board race has started in last
year's item. I'm posting that discussion in a new item to make it easier
to keep the two elections seperate.
#42 of 45: by Rosalind King (roz) on Sat, Jun 11, 1994 (09:37):
The last response in this item is from July 1993 -- well, the
elections are upon us again. Uy, Westfall and Campbell are up for
re-election opposed by another slate of three plus an independent.
Does anyone know anything about the woman running independently?
The Ann Arbor News has endorsed the incumbents, to my surprise.
There are a couple of changes to the mix from the last election, it
seems to me. First, the incumbents are running on their actual
record, not a projection of how members of that slate are likely to
act. Second, there was a record-breaking line at Community High
this spring, a demonstration of a significant minority position on
alternative schooling with the Ann Arbor community. Third, and I
think most significant, charter schools have become a possibility in
the interim. One of them, the Noah Webster Academy in Ionia, is
chartered to offer K-12 education with contact over modem so it
--More--
is enrolling students state-wide. This places it in immediate
competition with every school district in the state. Family
choice is going to become a much more major player, and I think the
local schools are going to have to become far more responsive to
parents' wishes than they've had to in the past.
Any comments?
#43 of 45: by Steve Gibbard (scg) on Sat, Jun 11, 1994 (16:34):
I have been covering the school board for The Communicator, the newspaper
at Community High, for the past year, so I have gotten to watch this board
in action. I went into this with a low impression of CBE, and came out
thinking even less of them. I'll start out by looking at some of their
claims.
-They have had "the courage" to expell two students.
There was nothign couragious about that at all. While it may have
made the schools slightly safer, it did nothing to make the students, the
teachers, or the rest of the community safer. If the students had been
suspended and given some alternative program they would have had the
chance to get their lives back together, and they would have been off the
street and out of school, where they would no longer be as much of a
danger. But expulsion terminates a student's right to an education and
--More--
shoves them out onto the street, where they can be even more dangerous
than they were in school because nobody is watching them as carefully.
What good is it for students to be "safe" in school, if they are in emence
danger the moment they walk out the door? If the school board, which is
supposed to do what is best for *every* student showed courage in this
action, it was the courage to give up on two students.
Furthermore, the board has really done nothing to make schools
safe. They have adopted a very firm stance in terms of discipline, but
have at the same time been gutting programs designed to prevent problems
before they get this big because they consider them to be a waste of
money. What the board has essentially said with the expulsion policy is
that the schools are safer because no student may kill somebody in school
more than once. It should be noted that the event that led to the
expulsions, and therefore to the assertion that our schools are much
safer, was a knife fight at Pioneer in which a few students were seriously
injured.
-They have made academic excellence the first priority
It's very easy to vote to say that academic excellence is the
first priority. What school board member wouldn't? In fact, that's all
they have done for academic excellence. They have done nothing to turn it
from a priority to an accomplishment. On the other hand, they have showed
a total disregard for programs that are meeting their goals. Community
--More--
High School, for example, has been getting much better test scores than
Pioneer or Huron. Does this board see that they are doing something right
there and look at how the things going on there could best be set up to
serve more students? No. They just brand the program as elitist, on the
grounds that it is working, and do everything they can to undermine the
program. They even made Community take a massive funding cut recently, in
the name of equality, despite the fact that Community was spending pretty
close to what Pioneer was spending per student, and far less than Huron.
Asked why she had refused to consider the administration's budget report
that showed this, CBE Trustee Mei Mei Uy said the numbers were invalid
because they were too complicated for her to understand.
- They are making the meetings run more efficiently:
It is true that the meetings have not been going as long lately as
they used to, but this is only partly the doing of the CBE board members.
While some of it is a matter of better orginization, most of it is that
they just aren't putting as much time at the meetings into considering the
decisions. This may be more efficient, but it is also pretty
irresponsable. As for the part that is a result of better orginization,
that is mostly the doing of new Superintendent, Dr. John Simpson. While
this board, most notably Trustees Westfall and Uy, have been claiming
credit for shaping Dr. Simpson's first year here, Dr. Simpson was hired by
the previous, not CBE dominated, board, over the objections of Trustees
--More--
Westfall and Uy.
- They have refrained from micro-management
Hardly. This is the same board that, at one of its first
meetings, tried to table the hiring of a political opponent for a teaching
position. Trustee Campbell has even tried to dictate the content of a
student newspaper, threatening to shut it down, and telling me "You've
attacked me on every issue, and I'm getting tired of it."
#44 of 45: by Patricia Snyder-Rayl (pegasus) on Sat, Jun 11, 1994 (20:26):
When are the elections?
|
| 55 responses total. |
scg
|
|
response 1 of 55:
|
Jun 12 04:32 UTC 1994 |
The elections are Monday.
CBE came out with a new ad in today's Ann Arbor News. Here are the claims
they made, and my responses:
"Fact 1: The New Challenge Slate is running a slick, lavish campaign,
complete with professionally produced signs, mailing and TV COMMERCIALS!
Apparrently, money is no object for their campaign."
So, they have money. It's interesting that CBE is complaining
about that, considering that they have generally spent *far more* than
their opposition in the years they have won. Apparrently they are upset
about having the tables turned
As far as the signs go, CBE is attacking New Challenge for putting
up campaign signs, but at the same time they have been putting up their
own signs. Are CBE signs somehow less reprehensable? And CBE has
certainly put out enough slick mailings in their time. I haven't seen any
this year, but I can't imagine that they aren't sending anything to people
they think might vote for them. It sounds like they are upset that the
other side would dare to campaign.
CBE has never done TV commercials. I don't think anybody has ever
done commercials in an Ann Arbor school board race before, but that
doesn't say there's something wrong with them. The commercials were
produced by professionals, but they did it for free. The only expense
involved, as I understand it, was the $1000 paid to Columbia Cable to air
the 75 comercials. The commercials were arranged, and half paid for by
Ann Arbor Students for Political Action, a group of students at Huron,
Pioneer, and Community, that supports the New Challenge candidates. So
New Challenge only put $500 into them. But again, CBE seems upset at
having compitetion, and I wouldn't be at all surprized to see CBE
commercials next year. When campaigns have money, they generally spend it.
"Fact 2: The Ann Arbor Education Association PAC has endorced all three
New Challenge candidates."
"Fact 3: A mailing on MEA (Michigan Education Association headquartered in
Lansing) letterhead was sent to all teachers telling them to support the
New Challenge slate."
The teachers like them, so they must be bad? We wouldn't want a
board that had the support of the teachers, would we?
"Fact 4: In 1991, it was a group of teachersalong with parents and otehr
concerned citizens who organized "Citizens for Better Education because
they believed basic change was needed in Ann Arbor's public education
policies and school administration. CBE is proud of its longstanding,
close relationship with out teachers."
Wait a minute... Didn't they just attack New Challenge for being
supported by teachers?
"Fact 5: Since CBE endorsed Trustees have been in majority on the Board,
much progress has been made in safety, fiscal responsibility and academic
achievement in our schools. Unfortunately, the outside, paid leadership
of the MEA and AAEA have a diffferent agenda.
If progress has been made in those areas, as a result of CBE
efforts, it certainly hasn't been noticable. What has been noticable is
their attempts to cut funding from programs that have been working.
As to the "outside, paid leadership..." statement, Linda Carter
and Allan Loeb, now the President and Vice President of the AAEA, were two
of the best teachers I had at Tappan Middle School, in Ann Arbor. They
certainly don't seem to be "outside leadership."
|
roz
|
|
response 2 of 55:
|
Jun 12 17:40 UTC 1994 |
I'm really concerned about the AAEA and MEA endorsements. The board
needs to negotiate contracts with the unions -- I'm not sure I want
the board feeling like it owes the union something.
|
scg
|
|
response 3 of 55:
|
Jun 12 20:26 UTC 1994 |
The AAEA and MEA represent far more than just pay issues. They also
represent the teachers in all sorts of other areas, and the vast
majority of teachers are teaching because they really care about the
students. Let's face it, nobody goes into teaching because it's a cush
job. It isn't. I would be very hesitant to support anybody who didn't
have the support of the teachers or students, because they are the ones
who see the direct effects of what the board does. Now if you want to
talk about the funding CBE has gotten from big businesses...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 55:
|
Jun 12 22:27 UTC 1994 |
I suggest immediately disabusing yourselves of the notion that because
a person or group supports someone in an election, that that someone
owes that person or group *anything*. It is insulting to even suggest it.
The support is usually because the supportive person or group agrees
with what the candidate has said or done in the past. There is a hope
that that behavior will continue, but there is certainly no obligation
associated with it.
|
roz
|
|
response 5 of 55:
|
Jun 13 12:43 UTC 1994 |
I'm not saying that chips get specifically called in. But I think it's
naive to think that there is no dynamic of payback. What are the PAC's
so active for, particularly when they pick between two candidates that
are reasonably similar? They want someone in office who knows that it's
their support that got him/her there, and, "oh, by the way, there's an
election coming up in a couple of years . . .". I am *not* saying
that there is anything at all sleazy going on in this election. Just that
the AAEA endorsement does not encourage me to vote for any board
candidate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 55:
|
Jun 13 13:41 UTC 1994 |
I'd be more concerned with whether the AAEA endorsement really represents
the opinion of the teachers, or of some association administrators. Does
anyone know how that endorsement was developed?
|
hawkeye
|
|
response 7 of 55:
|
Jun 13 14:01 UTC 1994 |
Hah! Be glad you don't live in the Ypsi school district. The two "finalists"
for Superintendent sound like losers to me and my wife.
|
scg
|
|
response 8 of 55:
|
Jun 14 01:17 UTC 1994 |
As of right now, it looks like New Challenge has won, but not all the
precincts reporting.
|
scg
|
|
response 9 of 55:
|
Jun 14 01:59 UTC 1994 |
It's official. New Challenge won.
|
remmers
|
|
response 10 of 55:
|
Jun 14 03:47 UTC 1994 |
Yep - by a comfortable but not overwhelming margin.
|
pegasus
|
|
response 11 of 55:
|
Jun 15 02:57 UTC 1994 |
Any feedback from voters as to what they thought casting for the New Challenge
people?
|
roz
|
|
response 12 of 55:
|
Jun 15 13:52 UTC 1994 |
I heard a quote from Willie Campbell where he said that the voters
would be unpleasantly surprised that the new folks would go for
alternative schools, or words to that effect. Am I missing something
here? Were they running on anything *but* alternative schools?
|
scg
|
|
response 13 of 55:
|
Jun 15 18:48 UTC 1994 |
Alternative schools were certainly a part of their platform, but they kept
saying over and over again that they weren't promising to build another
alternative school, but rather to look at the reasons for the demand and
see what needed to be done about it. That could either be more
alternative schools or improvements to the existing ones. They were also
running on some other issues, such as taking a preventive approach to
violence, rather than relying entirely on after the fact punishment, and
generally being more progressive in general (if I weren't so tired right
now I would be more specific).
|
wjw
|
|
response 14 of 55:
|
Jun 19 16:16 UTC 1994 |
It's basically a single issue: more support and money for alternatives
vs. improved education for all students. Any other description was
campaign rhetoric.
|
scg
|
|
response 15 of 55:
|
Jun 20 06:13 UTC 1994 |
Contrary to the CBE propiganda, support for alternative schools and
improving the comprehensive high schools are not mutually exclusive.
Support for all schools means putting students in the atmospheres they do
best in, and that means something other than our traditional high schools
for far more than 378 of Ann Arbor's high school students. But putting
the students who do better in alternative schools in alternative schools
takes away absolutely nothing from the regular high schools. Instead, it
would go a long way to help ease the overcrowding that those schools are
suffereing from right now, without the cost of buliding a new
comprehensive high school. I keep hearing all those things about how
building a new alternative high school isn't fair to the students of the
Ann Arbor Public Schools, but I have yet to hear a single reason why.
|
roz
|
|
response 16 of 55:
|
Jun 20 12:52 UTC 1994 |
I've gotta agree with you, Steve. I see the alternative schools as
sort of like GM's experiment with Saturn. It might even be more
expensive to run than the conventional divisions, but it's a worthy
investment in keeping ideas flowing and keeping the system competitive.
I'm sorry it's boiled down to being "for" or "against" alternative
schools since shades of gray seem more appropriate. A school isn't
worth funding or not worth funding just because it's an "alterntive".
The question is, does it have the potential to more adequately
educate a fairly substantial subset of the students? With the new
charter schools on the horizon, the public schools are going to have
to be more innovative to keep their student base and so to keep their
funding levels up. It will end up being expensive to try to stay the
same.
|
wjw
|
|
response 17 of 55:
|
Jun 21 01:11 UTC 1994 |
Roz -- The analogy of the alternative schools to GM and Saturn
is interesting and I see your point, but let me point out:
1) GM paid for its Saturn experiment with its own money, not mine,
-thus the analogy kind of breaks down.
2) Desipite its positive image, it's doubtful that GM will ever
recoup the *eight billion dollars* it sunk into Saturn.
-thus the AA school board running "Saturn type experiment" is not
necessarily that great an idea.
Of course, sgc, I see your point of view, as a chs student you love it.
Don't forget to thank me, I help pay for it. (as well as for my
daughter's education at Gabriel Richard!) :) or is it :(
|
srw
|
|
response 18 of 55:
|
Jun 21 03:03 UTC 1994 |
Where will the AAPS get the money to expand the alternatives, much less
build a new one?
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 55:
|
Jun 21 05:53 UTC 1994 |
The new alternative school that was approved last year before being
scrapped would have cost somewhat less per student than Pioneer or
Community, and substantially less per student than Huron. The staff would
have been transferred from other places in the District, which wouldn't
need them because they wouldn't have as many students, and the costs for
the building, which already exists, could be easily recouped in terms of
not having to build the next addition to Pioneer (I know they just built
one, but the school is still very overcrowded).
|
wjw
|
|
response 20 of 55:
|
Jun 21 16:58 UTC 1994 |
Wasn't that going to be at Stone Shcool, which is Adult Ed? In other words,
the building exists, but is is currently being used, hence, somewhere else
would have to be procured for adult ed., so the building is not really
free. That was my recollection anyway.
|
scg
|
|
response 21 of 55:
|
Jun 21 17:04 UTC 1994 |
Yes, Adult Ed, which is not part of the Ann Arbor public schools, but
rents space from them, was going to move somewhere else eventually, but
I'm not sure if that was going to be right away or somewhere down the
road. With only 100 students in the new program, as the pilot was going
to be, I can't imagine that they would need the whole building. When
Community was there (and the original plan for the new school, before it
got postponed for a year, was to have it move in right when Community
moved out) we shared it with Adult Ed and both fit adequitely, if very
tightly.
|
roz
|
|
response 22 of 55:
|
Jun 21 17:50 UTC 1994 |
Warren, the point of the GM experiment with Saturn isn't public
relations, but that it's a division that might find out what
innovations are workable and might be transferred to GM as a
whole. GM isn't spending its money to look good but to try to
get ahead of the pack again since their ability to build cars
for the previous decade's consumers caused it to lose ground
bigtime. I think the analogy to the AA schools stands. I know
it's hard to watch your tax dollars go for educational resources
that your family isn't using, but the truth is that the School
Board is working with a certain amount of revenue, just like any
other company. *Now*, with charter schools, etc., at least they'll
have to be increasingly responsive to their "customers" which
can only help, I'd think.
|
scg
|
|
response 23 of 55:
|
Jun 21 18:18 UTC 1994 |
Students have to be educated somewhere. Should my parents be mad that
some of their tax dollars are going to Pioneer or Huron, or to the
elementary and middle schools, even though both their kids go to
Community? Of course not. The parents of the people at the other
schools, and the rest of Ann Arbor's tax payers are helping to pay for
Community just as they are helping to pay for the other schools. It's all
part of one big system, and pitting parts of the system against other
parts doesn't help things at all.
I do have to take issue with roz's Saturn anology. According to
an article I read yesterday Saturn is still losing lots of money, and is
never likely to earn back all the money GM has put into it. While
Community may be "losing money" as in spending lots of money but not
making a profit, its purpose is not to make money, but to educate
students. Saturn's purpose is to make money. As the four day line
outside Community a few months ago showed, Community is marketing itself
very well (too well?), and Community is doing a very good job of educating
its students. Community and Saturn are reeally not a valid comparison.
|
wjw
|
|
response 24 of 55:
|
Jun 21 19:09 UTC 1994 |
A neighbor of mine, who has had all 5 of his kids in the alternatives
at one time or another, with I'm guessing at least 12 "kid-years" in
the alternatives, and counting, said to me, "Well it feels good to know
that at least I'm getting my money's worth.
^^^ ^^
The obvious implicaton is that the kids in the regular schools are not.
That in a nutshell is what many people object to.
|