by Patricia Lesko
The Ann Arbor Public Schools Board of Education (BOE) met on March 29 to discuss, among other proposals, whether the District should designate certain schools as “Schools of Choice” and accept students who reside outside the city into those schools. In the end, the vote was 6-1 in favor of accepting 750 students into AAPS schools of choice; detailed information about which schools will be included in the program was not provided to the trustees or the public. Newly-elected Board of Education member Jeff Gaynor cast the lone dissenting vote. In 2016, Gaynor ran for the BOE as a member of a three-person slate of candidates, two of whom were elected.
In voting against the Schools of Choice proposal, and in publicly questioning whether AAPS staff presented objective and accurate data related to the proposal, Gaynor stirred a hornet’s nest. The arguments Gaynor made against the proposal included pointing out, correctly, that Schools of Choice programs have been linked to the perpetuation of segregation. BOE Trustee Susan Baskett, one of the BOE’s longest serving members, attempted to claim the opposite. Baskett, in a comment prior to the vote, told Gaynor that his statement that Schools of Choice contributes to “white flight” sent a “bad signal” to her. She went on to say, “I think you have a concerted effort to be in denial of the data … I don’t understand how your no vote will help anyone.”
In Sept. 2016, the Detroit Free Press reprinted from Bridge Magazine a piece titled, “Schools of choice creating white flight in metro Detroit.” That article reveals that, “As a result of [Schools of Choice], school districts across parts of the state are ending up more racially segregated than the communities from which they draw students.”
The Ann Arbor Independent in a 2014 editorial criticized the Schools of Choice initiative: “Another concern we have with the blatant attempt to poach students from other districts, particularly minority students, is that our school district—with one of the most pronounced achievement gaps in the United States—has no business enhancing revenues by marketing academic under-performance as ‘excellence.'”
Gaynor has publicly questioned the ethics of the AAPS Schools of Choice program. He pointed to the financial damage Ann Arbor’s “poaching” of students from surrounding districts—particularly Ypsilanti Public Schools—has inflicted on those districts. Each student admitted to the AAPS under the auspices of the Schools of Choice program is worth upwards of $10,000 in state and federal per pupil foundation allowances and grant funding.
In a series of exchanges at the meeting prior to the 6-1 vote, Gaynor was first publicly accused of having violated the “spirit” of the Open Meetings Act by Christine Stead, President of the AAPS BOE. Next, BOE Vice President Susan Baskett asked Gaynor about a post on his Facebook page (subsequently removed) in which he’d said that he believed he would be the only trustee to oppose the Schools of Choice proposal. Baskett complained that Gaynor’s comment gave the impression that Board members had discussed how they would vote ahead of time. Baskett correctly pointed out that secret deliberations by a public body are a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Finally, Trustee Jessica Kelly said that Gaynor was making a political statement rather than voting on the proposal.
“My concern is your vote is going to become a political statement rather than a vote for how you actually think it should go,” said Kelly.
Trustee Stead went on to allege that by composing and sharing the statement posted to his Facebook page with BOE Trustees via email, Gaynor had attempted to exert undue influence over the vote. Stead then directed (without putting forward a motion, without discussion and without a vote) that the board’s governance committee draft a policy to address the matter. The Board’s Parliamentarian Trustee Simone Lightfoot did not raise a point of order.
The BOE’s Governance Committee consists of Christine Stead (Chair), Harmony Mitchell and Patricia Manley.
Stead said at the March 29 meeting: “Even if it [Gaynor’s actions] doesn’t violate state law, I think it violates the spirit of state law. It’s unfortunate that you sent it [the statement] to us, and the paper.”
After the meeting, Trustee Stead explained that the email sent by Gaynor to all of the Trustees served to undermine the decision-making power the Board has as a group. She also pointed out that there are a variety of legal entanglements that can occur when a member of a public board discusses how s/he will vote before the vote happens. The BOE President also admitted that the BOE has no rules for its members concerning electronic communication, including social media and email.
“We haven’t keep up with the technology,” said Stead. “It’s something we need to look at and that’s what the Governance Committee could recommend to the Board and the Board can then vote on.”
Stead clarified that her efforts were not meant to interfere with a member of the BOE sharing a statement or information with the media.
The firestorm was set off on the day of the BOE meeting and continues on the Ann Arbor neighborhood website Nextdoor. On April 1 Matt Weber, who lives in the Water Hill District, posted a discussion thread titled “End Schools of Choice in Ann Arbor.” On that thread, Weber reposted a statement Trustee Gaynor had posted to his personal Facebook page prior to the BOE’s March 29 meeting about his views concerning the Schools of Choice question, and why he does not support the program.
Among the responses in the Nextdoor discussion is this one: “Yes, Jeff appears to be the lone voice of reason on the BOE. We stole millions in state funding from Ypsi schools last year, and will again this year. It’s no way to build stable communities, unfortunately, it is in keeping with the ethos of greed that runs deep in Ann Arbor ruling-class circles. Some in Ann Arbor are always fighting to get the most money for themselves, via Taxable Value assessment, from state economic development funds, for the schools (via student boundary manipulation and millages), for roads and transit, etc. It’s selfish behavior, as there are many communities in the County that need help and funding so much more than we do.”
Another Nextdoor neighbor was equally critical of the Schools of Choice program: “Ann Arbor’s board of ed is placing us morally on par with the ring-of-charter-school schemers, like Betsy DeVos, that sunk the DPS.”
In a 2014 blog post in which she explains the AAPS Schools of Choice program, Superintendent Swift cites a report about Schools of Choice by the Mackinac Center. That organization is described by the Center for Media and Democracy as, “a right-wing pressure group based in Michigan. Founded in 1987, it is the largest state-level ‘think tank’ in the nation. It was established by right-wing activists to promote ‘free market,’ pro-business policies.”
Swift writes in her blog post, “According to a report, The Public Schools Market In Michigan: An Analysis of Schools of Choice, by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, overall choice enrollment in the state has increased 144 percent over the previous decade.”
The Mackinac Center’s research has been sharply criticized by leading academics who say that, “Mackinac Center research is often of low quality and because of this it should be treated with considerable skepticism by the public, policy makers and political leaders.”
Radical Washtenaw, a collective of artists and writers that came together after the 2014 police shooting of Ann Arbor mother of three Aura Rosser, editorialized on March 31 about the AAPS Schools of Choice program in a piece titled “Fight Flight”: “Can we throw a quick punch at the euphemism ‘Schools of Choice?’ It reminds us of the phrase ‘Right to Work,’ itself a euphemism for union busting. What processes are camouflaged by the phrase ‘Schools of Choice?’ White Flight, and also competition among public school districts. Thank you, Jeff Gaynor. We’d grown accustomed to the snowballing of everyone’s passive approval of school choice, as if it were self-evident, acceptable, ethical.”
While neighbors on Nextdoor and Radical Washtenaw criticized the Schools of Choice program, on the other side of the debate, a Nextdoor neighbor in a response to Matt Weber’s post writes, “Allow me to be the contrarian. I’m not sure about the rest of the folks on here, but my first priority is setting my own children up for success, and one way to facilitate that is by sending them to the best schools available, public or private.”
Trustee Gaynor shared his statement half an hour before the BOE study session began with Superintendent Swift, MLive, other members of the BOE, as well as Ann Arbor Public Schools staffer and Board assistant Amy Osinski. BOE President Trustee Stead later said after the meeting that Gaynor had posted on his Facebook page “something like four times,” about the Schools of Choice Proposal prior to the March 29 meeting.
At the March 29 meeting, for having emailed his statement to other Board members prior to their study session, Board President Stead first said that Gaynor could have violated the Open Meetings Act. Stead went on to say that she’d asked the the Board’s attorney (AAPS attorney David Comsa) about whether Gaynor’s attempt to share his statement with Board members 30 minutes prior to the meeting was, indeed, a violation of the Open Meetings Act. She was told, she said, it was not.
While discussing the Schools of Choice proposal, Jeff Gaynor said he’d been “following the Schools of Choice process and the consequences of it since the state allowed the option.” He went on to say that he’d written a statement in advance and asked for a graph to be projected for the BOE members and audience members present at the public meeting to see.
Trustee Christine Stead replied that to project the graph would “interfere with the trustees’ regular deliberations.” She then polled each BOE member to ask whether any would object to the public display of Gaynor’s graph, which represented data from MiSchoolData. None objected and while the graph was displayed, Gaynor read the statement he’d made public:
The decision to open up seats for Schools of Choice includes many complex factors, involving government policy decisions, the School Reform movement, economic and political issues, and decisions parents have to make for their children. The reasons for and against Schools of Choice also crisscross, depending on one’s perspective. There is no pat answer.
This would be less of an issue if our school districts were funding adequately and equitably. Michigan’s educational performance has fallen with the relative drop in state funding in recent decades. Proposition A, passed back in 1994, promised more equitable funding, but to date has fallen far short of this goal. In addition, considering the greater need for resources and services in poorer districts, the shortfall between what students need in poorer districts and what they receive is exacerbated. If all public schools had the resources to serve their students – though it would not be a panacea – the demand for schools of choice would lesson, and individual schools, communities and cities would all be stronger.
The massive School Reform Movement, which many see as an attempt to undercut public education, has emerged concurrently with the underfunding of public education, and the rise of public funding of for-profit charter schools. The initial promise of charters was to have limited publicly and locally sponsored innovative programs. For example, Honey Creek formed in 1995 under the close oversight of the Washtenaw Intermediate School District, and was built on the WISD campus. Since then, however there has been a massive rise of for profit charter schools, chartered by far away entities who receive a percentage of their funding but don’t adequately oversee operations. Providing “choice” then becomes a cover for a competitive and corporatist ideology which ultimately results in the ‘survival of the fittest’ in which school systems worry less on the public good and the holistic and developmental needs of students (increased standardized testing factors in here), but rather, more about marketing and money. In the process, teachers and other staff also lose as wages and benefits are cut, and unions are weakened. As representatives of the public, and as policy makers, we choose to be complicit with these goals, or we actively work against them.
When we participate in Schools of Choice to the degree we’re doing, it has devastating effects on neighboring districts, especially Ypsilanti. When the AAPS declares that we lose more students to Schools of Choice than we gain, it is primarily due to counting in-district students who attend charter schools, not the relatively few who go to neighboring public school districts. Our administration and Board has argued that neighboring districts allowed Schools of Choice students before we did, and we were losing students to them. But given the current data (see the graph and chart on the next page), this is a disingenuous argument. These show the 2015-16 data, but the disparity only increased this year. This year well over 100 more students attended AAPS from the Ypsilanti Community Schools attendance area. As students’ foundation allowance follows them to their new school districts, this means that Ann Arbor has extra money for their operating budget, but the donating district goes without that money. Because of static infrastructure costs, this has a devastating effect on districts with ever declining enrollment. The students who remain bear the brunt of this deficit, and the spiral continues.
[graph and chart not shown here – but we get ~800 students from Ypsi, and ~50 go to them. Link to data is below.]
Source: https://www.mischooldata.org/…/Stude…/NonResidentStatus.aspx
The most compelling reasons to accept Schools of Choice students are summarized by the Executive Summary that is being presented at tonight’s Board Meeting. We are meeting the requests of individual families. When you speak with a parent who cares that her or his child gets the best possible education, how can one defend saying no. When this is a minority parent, or one with a lower income or other family reasons that places the family outside of AAPS attendance boundaries, it feels like an arbitrary denial of what’s best for that student. I struggle to argue against this, as it means putting the long term collective good against the immediate personal one.
But ultimately, the choice to accept students outside our district is a pragmatic one, a financial one. When I asked Dr. Swift if we could cut back on the number of Schools of Choice students she replied that it would have a harmful effect of on our budget. This is the bottom line. I have been told that families would send their children elsewhere if we don’t accept them. And this may indeed be true for a large number of families. Certainly, districts have been pitted against each other, with little consequence for the least empowered families.
For what it’s worth, some of the data released by the administration is slanted to make the district’s case. Of course, with statistics you can prove anything. For example, in the executive summary, it’s stated, “For example, in Fall, 2016, overall poverty impact (FRL) in the
AAPS was 21.3% and impact for students enrolled through Schools of Choice was 30.8%.” But perhaps a more apt comparison would be the 30.8% compared to the FRL in Ypsilanti, which is much higher. Similarly, the chart that shows the relatively low percentage of SoC students in AAPS obscures the relatively high number of such students, and the impact on other districts.In the end, if the loss of a few hundred students jeopardizes our district’s finances with its 17,500 students, it has a severely damaging effect on a district with fewer than 4,000.
My background informs my stance on this issue to a large degree. I grew up with progressive values, and have been actively involved in promoting them throughout my life. More specifically, I grew up in Detroit and graduated from the Detroit Public Schools. I also witnessed segregation, white flight, and the desertion from the public schools from all who could afford to leave, stranding those who could not. And many of those who left blame those who stayed for suffering the consequences of concentrated poverty. It’s also notable that Schools of Choice has resulted in increased segregation. See, among other articles:http://www.npr.org/…/how-the-systemic-segregation-of-school…
At last month’s meeting of the Washtenaw Association of School Boards, AAPS Trustee Christine Stead opened with a statement that I was deeply impressed by. She said that our county parallels the state as a whole, with one large district and many small ones, with representative populations, urban and rural, white and minority. She said we have the opportunity to be a model for the state, to ensure that students with the highest needs get the most support.
This is what a progressive community such as Ann Arbor should in fact be striving for. We are inclusive; we are for equity and social justice; we look beyond our narrow self-interest on behalf of those in need, on behalf of the common good.
But when it comes down to action, we don’t necessarily follow through. I’ve heard arguments against Schools of Choice that come from a narrow self-interest. Those family don’t pay Ann Arbor taxes. Those students are behind academically. Those students may have behavior issues. I reject these reasons as promoting an us-vs-them mindset, one that does no one any good, and exacerbates the feeling that Ann Arbor is more concerned about preserving its privilege than it is in its professed progressive values. I’ve been told that as an AAPS trustee’s role is to protect our district’s finances, and not to be concerned about other districts. That this comes from an otherwise progressive source seems incongruous to me.
In rejecting Schools of Choice, I am uncomfortable in that this would exclude students from benefitting from the resources that AAPS provides. It is not my goal to isolate ourselves, to keep others out. In fact, while I will be voting against this proposal, I urge the Board to consider ways we can be inclusive, and promote equity and resources to those most in need. In the short term, this might include some form of agreement in which districts which accept Students of Choice send back a small amount of the foundation allowance, as suggested by some at the Washtenaw Association of School Board’s Equity and Opportunity workshops. In the long run, we can explore a merger or annexation, to share resources more responsibly.
There are additional issues, too many to enumerate, that range from prioritizing neighborhood schools, to ensuring that all schools are of high quality, to ancillary but important factors such as the increased safety risk in having so many additional car trips to and from schools. These are far from trivial, but in the interest of time and space, I am not expanding on them.
In summary, I feel we are facing a decision when we decide between a ‘me-first’ competitive approach, with winners and losers, or a more equitable and cooperative system in which the public good is the primary goal. While I expect that I am voicing a minority view here tonight, and will certainly accept the vote of the majority of the Board, I do feel it is important to examine these complex issues in a complete and objective manner, fully cognizant of the consequences of our policies.
AAPS wants an empire and this is as good a way as any to accomplish that.
Say what you want to about schools of choice but it boils down to people want to send their kids to the best schools. So what that it’s about money for Ann Arbor? So what if Ypsilanti schools lose students and money. If the schools are bad and parents have an alternative, maybe it’ll be a wake up call to Ypsilanti’s school administrators (probably not). If our schools are better than Whitmore Lake and Ypsilanti then more power to the parents in those cities who drive their kids into town every day to a school of choice.
As a long-time public school teacher, I have been very aware of the “anti-education” actions which have taken place over decades to weaken public schools: charter schools (privatization/for profit), increased standard testing, school-of-choice, and more. This recent vote by the school board serves to continue the breakdown of public education. The normalization of all of these negative movements which are ultimately harming students is more than alarming. When will we all wake up and begin a movement to save public schools? One thing needed for sure are leaders who can think first about what’s good for students. Students *everywhere.* Thank you, Jeff Gaynor, for understanding these things.
I just got my monthly email from the Ann Arbor Dems and guess who’s headlining the next meeting of the group? Superintendent Swift! She’ll be educating the cash cows about the latest sinking fund that’s up for a vote. Guess who’s the chair of the Ann Arbor Dems? AAPS trustee Susan Baskett. Does anyone else see this as Susan literally trying to help AAPS cash in on her position? If I wanted to hear the Superintendent sing and dance, I’d attend one of her meetings.
Jeff Gaynor just posted to Nextdoor that he’s planning a coffee hour to discuss AAPS issues with those interested. It’s at the Songbird Cafe on April 4 6:30-7:45pm. He will also have a coffee hour on Thursday, April 20 9-10am at Cafe in Plum Market (Plymouth / Green).
What a great idea! Who was it that said fresh blood was good on the school board? Amen.
Carol,
When I am misquoted and scenarios are falsely portrayed, I can either let the lies stand for whatever gain the author is trying to achieve, or correct them. TI know we have a new norm of alternative facts and fake news, but I haven’t embraced that as something I need to accept as of yet.
Trustee Stead, you keep alleging you were misquoted, but you haven’t contacted the newspaper directly to ask for a correction of fact to a specific quote or quotes attributed to you. Please do. Email: editor@A2indy.com.
It’s so very important all statements are accurate. That being said, no source ever gets to modify or change a statement after the fact because s/he doesn’t like what was said on the record or what was written about an incident or issue.
There is a lot more to this story than what is portrayed here. I have been advocating for funding reform every year that I have been on the BOE. That is an issue and one that all districts in Michigan are struggling with. My recent analysis shows that our foundation allowance declined 5% since 2007 while MPSERS increased 75% during that same period. That is one of several issues, but not close to the only one.
I have also been working hard to bring together all districts in our county to work on where help is needed most. We are in the middle of developing a plan across the county and then a strategy on how to address it. I expect that Ann Arbor will be an inordinate help in providing resources, as we must be. These will largely go to communities that need it most.
SOC is important for us for a few reasons: 1) Blocking parent and family choice doesn’t help anyone and certainly doesn’t resonate with the times we are in and likely federal policy we will see; 2) AAPS loses more students in SOC than it gains; 3) Many of these students are our own – they’ve been with us and had a family event that had them move out of district boundaries. Last thing we want to do is disrupt their education experience, friends, etc. That doesn’t help any of these kids.
There are many efforts going on to help AAPS stay strong, let parents and families choose and to keep working on funding reform efforts and more local efforts to get resources where we know it is needed most.
Pitting trustees against each other and communities against each other holds progress back. Let’s stay constructive and keep working on solutions that help. We should be the example of what a strong community can look like. But this takes everyone staying on the same team.
I was waiting for the “fake news” challenge from the school board president. Have you read your own millage requests or the bs pumped out by the enlarged AAPS PR dept? The video of former reporter Andy Cluely hawking the millage is fake news. Shame on you for acting like our president when you get called onto the carpet for acting like a petty dictator and bullying a fellow school board member. It’s a shame he sent his statement to the press? Are you delirious? Get a grip or step away from your computer.
Jeff Gaynor hit a nerve in some people who’ve lost the feeling in their progressive politics bone. He’s on the right track, this is about money and Christine Stead is trying to put lipstick on a pig and then point the finger somewhere else (at Gaynor, at Lesko, at the moon). If Stead was misquoted she should contact the paper and ask for a correction. Otherwise methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Trustee Stead speaking of financial reform, what ever happened to the Zero Based Budgeting initiative? Has that been adopted?
Susan Baskett’s attempts to undermine Jeff Gaynor by saying that he was in “denial of the data” is an example of why it’s so important to have new blood on that board. Good for Gaynor! Thanks for making it clear that there are people in this community who aren’t just going along with these kinds of programs and decisions. The 750 seats will bring money into the AAPS coffers, but there’s only one person on that board who asked, ‘At what price?’
Corporatist = AAPS? It sure looks that way when all the talk from the Superintendent is about money. It’s good to see the board members debating the issues in public even if it gets messy.
Pat – You didn’t accurately report our conversation, so let me add what I know we discussed. 1) I stated that the OMA has not kept pace with technology. It’s unclear that you are referring to the OMA when you state that I said ‘we’. I said the OMA has not kept pace with technology. 2) I did have confirmation from the Board to place a policy review on the Governance Committee’s agenda, as affirmed by assent at the table when I asked if there was support to place this in committee. I stated this to you, so you are inaccurately portraying the situation. Please feel free to re-watch the meeting. 3) Trustee Gaynor’s actions prior to the meeting are equivalent to announcing to the public and his fellow trustees that he has no intention of engaging in dialogue (exchange or discussions). He announces to the paper and the trustees how he will vote prior to a meeting where we will vote. In fact, it makes it more difficult for him to change his mind based on the discussion at the table once he has made such a public announcement. That is clearly against the spirit of the OMA and we can all easily see the kind of behavior this would lead to if all trustees started behaving the way Trustee Gaynor did. For a trustee that campaigned on wanting more dialogue during meetings, his actions amount to the polar opposite. A Board has no power as individual trustees. It only has power during a public meeting where it acts. 4) Trustee Gaynor went further on Facebook to state how he and all trustees would vote. Trustee Baskett rightfully took issue with this since he had discussed his vote with only Trustee Mitchell and, therefore, misportrayed his engagement (actual lack thereof) with all other trustees. This is not stated on his Facebook post. 5) Your article is inaccurate in important ways. We all can appreciate how much you support Trustee Gaynor in reading it.
@Trustee Stead, as always thanks very much for your comment and for commenting for the article.
In 2014, The A2 Indy’s Editorial Board came out against Schools of Choice for the reasons outlined in the editorial, including some of the same reasons Jeff Gaynor pointed out in his statement. One of those Editorial Board members was a former member of the School Board and another sat on a committee of individuals who meet regularly with the Superintendent to give her feedback and advice from the perspective of the community at large.
Trustee Baskett perpetuated a falsehood about Schools of Choice (in order to justify her vote and criticize the dissenting vote of another trustee), and it’s the media’s job to make sure elected officials are held to account.
Under the auspices of your argument that this article betrays a bias, you might also argue that the Free Press and Bridge Magazine support Trustee Gaynor’s position and in doing so reveal a bias, as well. If we’re examining biases, I might kindly point out between the two of us you’re the only one who has voted repeatedly for the Schools of Choice proposals.
Your Board’s decision on this proposal was called out, in public, as “a cover for competitive and corporatist ideology.” That’s a strong rebuke and a change in tenor on a Board that has, since you were appointed to it (not that the alleged problem began with your appointment), been criticized as coming to the table, offering little public discussion, and then voting in lockstep. There have been frequent (unproven) public accusations (in MLive comments, for instance) that the AAPS BOE has held discussions behind the scenes so as to present a unified front at public meetings.
As you know, this is partly why a slate of candidates ran in 2016 and why they worked to oust the former BOE President.
The contents of this article concerning Schools of Choice are based on primary source data, studies and research cited in Bridge Magazine’s analyses and the work of education experts. The question is not whether Jeff Gaynor is supported and by whom (which turns the focus away from education policy and toward the cult of personality and even a popularity contest), but rather if Schools of Choice perpetuates segregation and white flight, and in adopting Schools of Choice whether AAPS is doing more harm than good to our community and those students who enroll. Bridge Magazine and the journalists who did the 2016 Schools of Choice analyses have won numerous awards for investigative journalism from the Society of Professional Journalists, as has The Ann Arbor Independent.
Trustee Stead debate and even disagreement are indicators of healthy democracy. Instead of attacking the news reports could you talk about whether the district has tracked the achivement of the minority students who’ve enrolled as students of choice? Are these kids falling prey to the district’s large gap in the achievement between white and non-white students?