There is a School Board election being held on June 14, and again
there are two distinct slates from which to choose.  One side is
calling itself Citizens for Better Education and the other, 
Quality Education Drive.  And boy do they differ in philosophy.

There are three people to be elected, three on each slate, and one
of the most immediate decisions to be decided by this Board will
be the fate of additional alternative schools in Ann Arbor.  The
CBE slate (Argersinger, Cameron, and Rigney) siting fiscal reasons
want to hold off on expanding the options while the QED slate
(Boyd, Miller, and Orlowski) find the alternatives critical to
meeting students needs and closing the achievement gap.

There is likewise major differences in how they'd handle 
questions of school safety, more autonomy at the school building
level, teacher evaluations, class size, able learners, etc.

There are a number of candidate forums being held this week.
I'll list them here if anyone is interested in attending.

But my reason for entering this was to find out if there is much
general interest in School Boards and their decisions.  For reasons
I don't quite understand I find them quite intersting and tend to
watch a good portion of their meetings on Public Abscess Television.

Do you vote in School Board elections?

46 responses total.

I have been voting, and I intend to vote in this election.  I know
that one of the forums is Thursday morning at 730 am at the downtown
library.  I'm planning on attending.

I'm not old enough to vote but I say "Down with Mei Mei Uy!"  She tries
to ruin everything that Commie High Stands for.  Which is why I hissed 
and booed at here at 1992 Commie High Graduation.

Well, I'll vote against her for you, vidar.  I understand your
feelings.

I don't think she's up for election this time.

Yeah, I believe she isn't going to be up for election again until '94.
She probably won't run once her son's out of High school.

The CBE candidates are Cameron, Argersinger and Rigney.  The QED candidates
are Boyd, Orlowski and Miller.  (Mei Mei Uy was elected on the CBE slate
a couple of years ago.)

I have deeply mixed feelings about this and I'm still not sure how I'm
going to vote.  (Staying home and not voting is not an option.)

On the one hand, the liberals (QED) are people with overall value systems
much closer to mine.  They support the alternative schools, sex education,
free speech, etc.  Unfortunately, they also support the educational
bureaucracy and all the things which have made a mess of American
education.  (See "The Other Crisis in American Education" in the Atlantic
Monthly, about a year ago, for a good summary.)

On the other hand, the conservatives (CBE) have what I think are sensible
views on things like safety in schools, more emphasis on academics and
reading for all students, etc.  Unfortunately, they're also allied with
groups I find repugnant, such as Right-to-Life, religious groups which
promote censorship and oppose sex education, etc.

I have to say that CBE has done a far better job of distancing itself
from its extremists than QED has.  A fair number of politically liberal
people, e.g. Phil Power, are supporting CBE.  Hardly any conservatives
seem to be publicly supporting the QED slate.  I did notice a letter
to the Ann Arbor News from Robert W. Carr endorsing Bob Miller.  

I'm leaning more toward voting CBE than QED at this point.  What's more,
I expect CBE will win regardless.

So don't vote a slate, then!  Pick one from each column.

I've read both the QED and CBE "platforms" (flyers), and they appear
indistinguishable. Therefore the differences lie in the details (where
someone said the devil resides). I would appreciate hearing more specifics
of what each slate (or individuals) would promote. Exactly what does
QED seek to do to "support the educational
 bureaucracy and all the things which have made a mess of American
 education."? Exactly what does CBE seek to do because they are "allied with
 groups I find repugnant, such as Right-to-Life, religious groups which
 promote censorship and oppose sex education, etc."?

I'll post more information on this later, but ...

   (1) School board candidates everywhere speak in code.  You don't
hear them make blunt statements like "I'm in the pocket of the teacher's
union" or "We oughta fire all the queers on the high school faculty."
Of COURSE everyone says they're in favor of quality education, apple pie,
equal rights and suchforth.  But the bland rhetoric conceals sharp policy
differences.

   (2) In many places, especially in California, the extreme right wing
fundamentalist Christian groups have elected many of their candidates to
office by coming across as being simply friendly and bland.  I'm not
saying this is going on in Ann Arbor this year, but it does mean that
the people we elect deserve close examination.

   (3) I've thought about "splitting my ticket" and voting for one or
two of each slate.  Unfortunately, all the issues that apply to the two
slates also apply (to varying degrees) to all the slate candidates as
well.  This race appears to be incredibly polarized; the winners will
determine the direction of the school district for possibly years to
come.  I don't have any way of knowing which are the stronger and weaker
candidates on each slate (I mean, in terms of vote-getting).  I may well
wind up doing this, but I admit in advance that it's a cop-out.

   (4) The "other crisis" in education is that our schools are failing
even the brightest students.  The depth of ignorance and the skill
deficits among high school graduates is truly appalling.  Spending on
education has soared, but the end product has deteriorated badly.  Much
of this is directly the fault of education policies and values promoted
by my fellow liberals.  The focus has got to shift from protecting the
jobs of the legions of non-teaching staff toward actual learning.  The
QED slate, like liberal "educationists" generally, has been unwilling to
even consider this seriously.

   (5) Education, as a field, has a tendency to be extremely faddish.
Unfortunately, education, as actually practiced, must instill essentially
the same skills and knowledge and values in each new cohort of students,
year after year after year.  Fads come along, and one year's students will
get a huge dose of some trendy new doctrine.  Maybe it even has a kernel
of value to it.  But a couple of years later, the first fad will have been
forgotten, and a completely different one will be in place.  It's almost
as if they assume they're dealing with the same group of students year
after year.

There's a start.  There's been some pretty good discussion of the school
board candidates in the Ann Arbor News.

I'm supporting the QED candidates.  As somebody who has dealt with the school
board a great deal over the last year on students rights issues, the thought
of a CBE win is a nightmare.  The three CBE candidates this year, from what I
have heard, seem to agree with Mei Mei Uy and Marcia Westfall on many of the
issues I have disagreed with them on, such as sex education, alternative
education, "school safety."  It is this last issue that particularly concerns
me, because making our schools safer has been the excuse for a lot of
restrictive policies, most notably the addition of expulsion ("An action 
taken by the Board of Education that excludes a student from the entire school
system on a permanent or time-limited basis without provision of an educational
program.").  Expulsion, while touted as the only way to keep our students safe
from these schools full of students carrying guns and ready to blow up the 
whole school, actually makes things far worse for a few students while not
making it any safer for the rest of the students.  Expelling a student is not
going to make the problem go away.  It will simply move the problem somewhere
else, where it is much harder to fix it.  Without a high school education,
these students, who already have problems, will have a much harder time turning
their lives around and becoming productive.  Probably if they do finish their
educations after that, it will be because they are arrested and get an 
education in prison.  I'm not saying that they should be left in the same
school, but that there should be *some* alternative for them.  As for
expulsion's value as a deterrent, when people get desperate enough to do any
of the offences that most pro-expulsion people would think are serious enough
to warrant expulsion, they are probably not thinking about the consequenses
anyway.
   Also, on the issue of alternative schools, I have to disagree with the CBE 
platform on several counts.  They claim that it would take money away from
the traditional high schools to create new alternative high schools.  This
is not true.  The money would come from other budgets.  Still, the proposed
new school would cost less per student than the traditional students, so cost
is not really a valid argument anyway.  People opposed to the new alternative
high school have also suggested putting more people into Community, saying that
with the renovations at Community, Community should be able to handle more
people.  Arguments about what more students would do to Community's climate
aside, Community already has fewer square feet per student than the "over
crowded" Pioneer and Huron.  Community's renovations were not to boost the
capacity of the school, rather to make its existing student body (324 at the
time the renovations were planned, 378 now) less overcrowded (to actually givee
teachers room to set up labs...).  Yet an other argument that they have used
is that the new alternative school would take away from the IDB at Huron,
despite assurances that it would be different teachers going to the new school.
It has been argued that any new resources for alternatives should be spent on
Huron's IDB, where it will be "availible to more than just this select group
of students."  In fact, the IDB at Huron is only availble to students in
Huron's district, half of the students.  As for making a program availible to
more students, the alternatives desperately need that.  Anybody who saw the
wait for Community (or participated in that, can testify to that).

How do you *know* the positions the QEB and CBE candidates will take on
these issues? Well, I did see one statement indicating that CBE did not
favor the new alternative school, but did not object to the existing
alternatives. I have to admit that I don't see how the alternative
schools can cost *less* per student than the regular, since "economy of
scale" should apply to the latter.

The proposed alternative won't come with all the bells and whistles
that the comprehensive schools enjoy, that is why it will be cheaper.
The staff will include 4 teachers and a secretary for 100 students.
One custodian is factored into the package.  There won't be a football
team or a band or four different languages offered.  But those 100
students will get close attention to their academic needs and there
will be a connection period something like Community High's forum
where small, enduring groups gets together and talk about whatever
needs to be discussed.

I'm a huge advocate of alternative education - of choice.  I don't
believe this proposed alternative or Community High is *the* answer
for everyone but then neither is a 2000 student factory like
Huron.  Candidates Boyd, Miller, and Orlowski all support alternative
choices and will keep this project alive.  If the CBE slate wins,
it's dead.  

This Ann Arbor School Board election is tomorrow, Monday, June 14.
Please vote.  It really is important even if you don't have children
in the school system.

For me also, not voting is not an option - but for the first time in
a long while, I really don't know very much. Except for what I've
read here - so, even though I never reveal my votes, I'm your
captive on this one.   And I'll read this item before I head to
the polls.

The CBE slate won, by quite a margin.  I expect alternative schools
are going to be dealt quite a blow by these 6 members.  As will
any type of progressive sex eductation, student's civil rights
issues such as policies dealing with the school newspapers, and
forum type activities.  They will try, in vain, to solve today's
problems by instituting policies that worked when they were in 
school.  What a crying shame.

Now I'm glad that I dont' go to AA schools                      :-)

REad the paper and it seems that the school board goes over-board in
one direction, and then the other, every election. 
 
The average is right in the middle! Ain't statistics wunnerful!

They're certainly more wonderful than this new school board.

Every other year , every other year .....

This Wednesday, July 7, will be the first meeting where the newly
elected School Board members will be onboard.  The recently
approved alternative school plan will probably be back for
discussion and a new vote.  

I'm not optimistic about this one.

I think the Administration's plan on this one was to attempt to get the school
filled before the new Board came in, so that it would be harder to cancel.
They have already done that.  This has really pissed off some of the new Board
members, and is really getting them off on a bad start with the Administration,
but if it works for the school, then it should do something to limit the
conservative power a little bit.  I hope. ;)  This will also be John Simpson's
first Board meeting, won't it?

Yep.  

I just got back from the meeting a few hours ago.  Ugh!  I had big arguments
with Marcia Westfall, and Willie Campbell about the new alternative school,
but any argument I use, they can just throw up an other meaninglesss argument.
They were both, also, quite strong in their attacks on Community.  I have
to wonder how long a liberal like Simpson will last in this climate, but I hope
that he does, because administrative recomendations will probably continue to
carry some weight.

How long will Community last in this climate?

I'm sure almost immediately we'll see Community's census increase
from its present 375 to something closer to 500.  Forum will again
be up for possible elimination but, as before, this will meet a
*lot* of resistance.  But in terms of the spirit of the school...
the tone of this School Board will only make it more resolute.

This thing is pure politics.  That's the incredible shame of it all.

Why do you say it is "pure politics"? I thought it was a difference of
opinion on educational imperatives. Please explain.

Similar question .........

Prior to the recent School Board election not one of the
winning candidates had met with the folks who are
behind the new alternative project, not even a phone call, despite
their campaign objectives to oppose this new alternative. There
were numerous forums held around town inviting those 
interested in the new school to come and hear a presentation,
meet the staff, and have their questions addressed.  Although 
many parents and student attended, not one of the School Board
members who voted this project down took the time to show at
one of these meetings.  They had decided long ago how they would
vote -- I wonder what they based their decision on.  This is
especially telling since the administration - experts with a handle on
demographics, budget, State law, and educational research - *all*
support this plan.

What the opponents keep chanting is that the budget can't handle
this project.  They have been told again and again, by those in
charge of the purse, that the reality is this school will cost
*less* per pupil than either of the traditional high schools.
Both Huron and Pioneer face overcrowding by an additional 400 to
600 students (total) over the next five years so something better
start taking up the slack soon.  Without intervention both
comprehensive high schools will each be over 2000 students.
That's going to make for one hell of a class A football team,
dontcha think?  

Westfall and Uy continue to ask why, "If this concept is so
wonderful they why don't we put it into the big schools."  Well,
when this project was first developed four years ago, it was
presented to the principles of both Pioneer and Huron.  Pioneer's
principle cut off the presentation after just a few minutes, made
references to how nobody was going to tell him how to take care of
his kids and sent them packing.  When questioned by reporters
concerning his comments he stated he never even had such a
meeting.  Well, those who attended remember it well.

Principal Mial at Huron listened then firmly rejected the plan,
called up the PTO president who is now Trustee Uy and asked her to
rally support in blocking this project.  It was blocked, but only
for about a year while it was condensed and repackaged with
Mial's name on it, and put up as the now immensely popular IDB
block.

I could go on and on but it gets too depressing.  This project
works, it's been thoroughly researched and tested.  It's in the
budget and is in great demand. It has been shown to appeal to a
diverse group of students and narrows the achievement gap.  But
locally it has become a test of personalities.  What a waste.

I'm planning to send a copy of this item to members of the Ann Arbor
School Board and invite them to add to the discussion.  

s /principals/principles

Intentional ignorance, that's how they made a 'decision.' And the
decision was commensurate with their education.

  A few months ago, while I was involved in the big free press debate, I
had a conversation with Willie Campbell, in which he said that there was
an administrative recomendation for a repressive policy, and whether or
not it was a good policy didn't matter.  He was going to follow the
recomendation of the Administration.  I confronted him with that Wednesday
night.  He remembered the conversation well.  As I was quoting him, he
even finished the quote for me.  This time, he argued, it was an
"Administrator recomendation," and not an "Administrative recomendation." 
According to Campbell, while this was supported by Hayward Richardson, it
was not supported fully by Bill Wade, who is in charge of the District's
money.  I don't have the tapes of the meetings in question, and I haven't
asked Wade about this, so I don't know whether it was or not.  Campbell
insisted that there must be more costs involved in this than what was
slated, and that he wanted to see it fully "costed out."  When I used the
less per student argument, he pointed out that it will still cost the
district more money.  The reason:  Taking fifty students out of Pioneer
and Huron doesn't free up teachers there.  While at Community, the system I
am used to dealing with, fifty students means hiring additional teachers, at
Pioneer or Huron, removing twenty five students at each school would free
up at most one or two spaces in some classes.  This is not enough to cut
staffing for, according to Campbell.

That's the kind of argument the PTOs at the comprehensive schools
have used to fight any new alternative school projects.  They are
dealing with some real problems in their schools and see
alternatives as draining away funding, attention to their agenda,
and involved parents and students.   I'm not even sure I need to
address the latter two points but regarding the funding and
Steve's concerns about the impact on teaching staff...

Every fall when a final head count is taken there is an adjustment
for the ratio of teachers to students.  If there was a sudden
shift and an extra 100 students showed up at Huron and that many
fewer at Pioneer, there would be schedule changes and resources
shifted to meet the demand.  The administration is already making
plans for shifting resources (4 teachers are already assigned) to
the new school, keeping an eye on the projected census so that the
existing schools don't see an increase in class size or in-demand
classes at all in jeopardy.  This kind of flexibility has *always*
been used and is nothing new.

(those weren't my concerns about teaching staff, they were Campbell's)

Opps, sorry.

I will have some interesting information about school board politics
to post sometime this week.

   I just got back from the second meeting of this new Board, and it was
even worse than the last one.  After much yelling, they voted to cut the
new alternative.  When asked, before the vote, to list her objections to
the program, Vicky Rigney's objections were that certain financial aspects
of the plan were not included in the cost, and that it would cost more
than it was budgeted to.  While nobody in the Administration had their
sheets of exact cost figures with them, they did say that they had done
the calculations, and that there was room in the budget, and that this
program, even with those additions, would still cost less than any of our
current schools.  Still, with no further explanation of more objections,
she voted agains the school.  This vote was done with no Administrative
recomendation, and the conservative majority was unwilling to wait ONE
WEEK for a recomendation.  As Tony Barker observed after the vote, they
had switched from the Administration running the educational aspects of
the district to the Board running it.
   After that disaster, there was a move by Chris Argersinger to bring
get Administrative recomendations on the entire three year plan for the
Alternative expansion.  This developed into a very heated argument, which
ended up with Tony Barker being told that he had passed his limit on how
much he was allowed to speak on an issue, despite the fact that their
rules allow for as much follow up as people want, and he said that most of
what he was doing was follow up.  Very fed up, he left the room, followed
soon after by an incredibly frustrated Cheryl Garnett.  Pretty soon after
that, the whole Board got fed up and went home.  At least that prevented
them from doing any more damage.

And our childrens' educations are in the hands of these bickering
so-called adults?

Anyone who took the time to study the issues before the election
would have known this would follow.  The voters are going to get
what they asked for.  And, as usual, the kids will take the hit.

This item (up to response #38) has been sent to the Ann Arbor
School Board along with an invitation and instructions to setup
an account.  

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss