State of Michigan (Phase 2 Application)
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/michigan.pdf
RTTT State of Michigan (Scorecard)
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/score-sheets/michigan.pdf
RTTT State of Michigan (Technical Review / Comments)
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/comments/michigan.pdf
RTTT State of Michigan (Appendix / Reimagine Elements / Letters of Support)
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/appendixes/michigan.pdf
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
SIFTING and WINNOWING through the NOISE in search of the DESIGN NUGGETS!
ISTE Conference 2010 (Technology & Learning)
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Alas, A REAL-WORLD 21st Century Challenge!
Teachers' Challenges for 21st Century Learning
by Leslie Wilson
by Leslie Wilson
I’m frequently asked if virtual learning and technologies will eliminate the need for teachers. Quite the contrary, I say. We need teachers! We need teachers who can successfully navigate from the traditional to a transformed venue. We need teachers who can rigorously set the stage for students’ self-directed, personalized learning - exploiting the power of technology.
Technologies, virtual and online learning, etc., are marvelous 21st century tools for engaged learning. BUT the wisdom, guidance, resource structures and personalization can come only from a human being.
Any technology tool I use is fundamental. Without strategizing and energizing with the device – it is simply ‘stuff’ in a room. Yes – technology can be not only boring but a waste of time in a classroom without being meaningfully integrated with relevant curriculum and experiences. The teacher is needed to make this happen.
I’ve witnessed many one to one environments where the portable, personal devices are used to replace binders, papers and pencils – in still teacher-centric settings. Technology tools need to harness the inherent power and opportunities for learning with a focus on the student. The teacher is essential to bring to life the myriad of elements that make up the enhanced classroom.
But – the teacher practice is different from the traditional model. Recreating and retooling the teaching practice is a must to well serve students in today’s 21stcentury learning ecosystem. The real question isn’t ‘will we need teachers’, but ‘what will teachers need to be able to do’ in the new environment.
Teachers’ retooling is not the only necessity. Today’s students need to adjust to a learning setting for which they are responsible. Many have complacently accepted the traditional venue where the teacher does all the work and the student ‘sits and gits’.
The teachers’ challenge is threefold. One – to change his/her own foundational beliefs and practices; two – to coach students to become self-directed learners where they do two thirds of the heavy learning lifting toward achievement; three – integrate technologies in meaningful, relevant ways. Each of these is a challenge that requires high quality employee-directed and employer-directed professional development.
I am a proponent of job-embedded professional growth experiences for employees (employer-directed). I also believe that professionals (teachers) have a responsibility to grow, know research and best practice and apply these to their work in addition to what can be provided on the job (employee-directed). Teachers who pursue both venues will more quickly acclimate and deliver for this century’s youth. These are the teachers who will thrive in an education technology enhanced education system. Others may become extinct.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Investing In Innovation (i3) Grant Collaboratory
Who Plans to Apply for i3? Look Online Now
The U.S. Department of Education has posted a spreadsheet listing the more than 2,000 districts, schools, and nonprofits that plan to apply for the $650 million Investing in Innovation grant.
If the thought of opening an Excel spreadsheet intimidates you, there's also a convenient summary of the intents-to-apply.
This list is a compilation of those who told the department, by April 1, that they plan to apply for these competitive grants. This was more of a courtesy for the department so officials could figure out what kind of workload is in store for them and the peer reviewers. Those on this list are not bound to apply, and those who aren't on the list can still apply. The deadline for the one and only round of this competition is May 11.
The list, 2,045 organizations long, is tedious to wade through. But my quick and crude Microsoft Access query tells me that about 800 of these potential applicants are districts and schools, while the remaining organizations are nonprofits. The districts include Atlanta, Los Angeles, Denver, Hartford (Ct.), and Broward County (Fla.).
The list of nonprofits include some usual suspects—Teach for America and The New Teacher Project— but also includes some lesser-knowns, such as Clarksville, Tenn.'s "The Way Mission," and Brookline, Mass.' "Facing History and Ourselves."
A fair number of universities also make the list, including the University of Southern California and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
To receive an invitation and collaboratively participate in our i3 Collaboratory initiative please e-mail digitallearning@gmail.com with Count Me In in the Subject Line and you will receive an follow-on invitation to the Investing In Innovation (i3) Grant Collaboratory blog-site.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Pay as you Go?
Thursday, Apr. 08, 2010
Should Kids Be Bribed to Do Well in School?
In junior high school, one of my classmates had a TV addiction — back before it was normal. This boy — we'll call him Ethan — was an encyclopedia of vacuous content, from The A-Team to Who's the Boss?
Then one day Ethan's mother made him a bold offer. If he could go a full month without watching any TV, she would give him $200. None of us thought he could do it. But Ethan quit TV, just like that. His friends offered to let him cheat at their houses on Friday nights (Miami Vice nights!). Ethan said no.
One month later, Ethan's mom paid him $200. He went out and bought a TV, the biggest one he could find.
Since there have been children, there have been adults trying to get them to cooperate. The Bible repeatedly commands children to heed their parents and proposes that disobedient children be stoned to death or at least have their eyes picked out by ravens. Over the centuries, the stick (or paddle or switch) has lost favor, in most cases, to the carrot. Today the petty bribes — a sticker for using the toilet or a cookie for sitting still in church — start before kids can speak in full sentences.
In recent years, hundreds of schools have made these transactions more businesslike, experimenting with paying kids with cold, hard cash for showing up or getting good grades or, in at least one case, going another day without getting pregnant. (See pictures of kids comparing their paychecks at school.)
I have not met a child who does not admire this trend. But it makes adults profoundly uncomfortable. Teachers complain that we are rewarding kids for doing what they should be doing of their own volition. Psychologists warn that money can actually make kids perform worse by cheapening the act of learning. Parents predict widespread slacking after the incentives go away. And at least one think-tank scholar has denounced the strategy as racist. The debate has become a proxy battle for the larger war over why our kids are not learning at the rate they should be despite decades of reforms and budget increases.
But all this time, there has been only one real question, particularly in America's lowest-performing schools: Does it work?
To find out, a Harvard economist named Roland Fryer Jr. did something education researchers almost never do: he ran a randomized experiment in hundreds of classrooms in multiple cities. He used mostly private money to pay 18,000 kids a total of $6.3 million and brought in a team of researchers to help him analyze the effects. He got death threats, but he carried on. The results, which he shared exclusively with TIME, represent the largest study of financial incentives in the classroom — and one of the more rigorous studies ever on anything in education policy. (See Roland Fryer Jr. in the 2009 TIME 100.)
The experiment ran in four cities: Chicago, Dallas, Washington and New York. Each city had its own unique model of incentives, to see which would work best. Some kids were paid for good test scores, others for not fighting with one another. The results are fascinating and surprising. They remind us that kids, like grownups, are not puppets. They don't always respond the way we expect.
In the city where Fryer expected the most success, the experiment had no effect at all — "as zero as zero gets," as he puts it. In two other cities, the results were promising but in totally different ways. In the last city, something remarkable happened. Kids who got paid all year under a very elegant scheme performed significantly better on their standardized reading tests at the end of the year. Statistically speaking, it was as if those kids had spent three extra months in school, compared with their peers who did not get paid.
"These are substantial effects, as large as many other interventions that people have thought to be successful," says Brian Jacob, a University of Michigan public-policy and economics professor who has studied incentives and who reviewed Fryer's study at TIME's request. If incentives are designed wisely, it appears, payments can indeed boost kids' performance as much as or more than many other reforms you've heard about before — and for a fraction of the cost.
Money is not enough. (It never is.) But for some kids, it may be part of the solution. In the end, we all want our children to grow into self-motivated adults. The question is, How do we help them get there? And is it possible that at least for some kids, the road is paved not with stickers but with $20 bills?
Fryer runs an education-innovation laboratory that has a staff of 17 and an annual budget of about $6 million. His goal is to use the scientific method to figure out how to close the learning gap between America's white and minority kids by the year 2025. When I visit Fryer at his Harvard lab this spring, he hands me an agenda for the day and proudly introduces me to his team. For the next three hours, as we talk about the experiment, Fryer is charming and intense, occasionally lapsing into economist speak and then apologizing for being a "nerd." (Comment on this story.)
But Fryer's fascination with the lives and choices of kids is not entirely academic. He grew up poor in Texas, where he lived with his dad, a copier salesman. When Fryer was 16, his dad was arrested for sexual assault and Fryer had to bail him out of jail.
Meanwhile, Fryer raised himself, and not very well. He got a job at McDonald's and stole from the cash register. He sold marijuana and carried a .357 Magnum for a while. But he was fiercely competitive on the basketball court and the football field, and that's where he excelled, earning a basketball scholarship to the University of Texas at Arlington.
In his first semester of college, Fryer took a calculus class. On his initial exam, he scored 45 out of 100. "My friends started calling me Colt 45," he remembers. The failure enraged him, and his pride kicked in. "I didn't want to be like everyone else from my neighborhood," he says.
Fryer started working hard in school for the first time. He graduated in two and a half years with an economics degree. Then he got his Ph.D. at Penn State University, where he began to use the tools of economics to study the problems of inequality. He joined Harvard's faculty at age 26, a case study in the power of shifting motivations.
At Harvard, Fryer heard about a school in New York City that was trying to incentivize kids on a small scale. The idea appealed to him because, unlike reforms focused on the teacher or the curriculum, it treated kids not as inanimate objects but as human beings who behave in interesting ways. But he had no idea if it would work.
In 2005 he persuaded Gavin Samms, a friend and Harvard colleague, to go to New York City with him to try to sign up some schools for a pilot program. "We didn't know anything about what we were doing," Fryer says. They couldn't afford to stay in New York, so they stayed at a hotel in the Meadowlands — a grim tract of wetlands in New Jersey. Then they drove around to pitch the idea to principals.
One day while they were visiting a school, they got a call from the school system's headquarters, which had originally approved their project. "They said, 'You gotta leave now,' " Samms remembers. " 'You gotta leave the schools.' " Fryer protested, but he lost. "It was just too political," he says. "It was an election year. They'd already gotten letters saying, 'You can't be paying kids.' "
New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein doesn't remember kicking Fryer out, but he concedes that the program was contentious. "When people want to try new and different things in education," Klein says, "it will always stir up controversy."
In January 2007, after the mayoral election had come and gone, Fryer returned to New York — this time with a more audacious plan. He wanted to create a treatment group and a control group, just like a real scientist. And he had a $2 million grant from the Broad Foundation, which had taken an interest in Fryer because of the scientific rigor of his approach.
This time, Fryer wanted to get a random sample of city schools to participate. Which is not as easy as it sounds. At some schools, the principal and teachers opened their arms wide and said, "Sure. We're struggling here. We'll try anything." At others, Fryer had to spend hours pleading with staff who felt kids should learn for the love of learning — not for the cash. "To this day, I can't tell you what will predict one or the other," he says. "I could walk into a completely failing school, with crack vials on the ground outside, and say, 'Hey, I went to a school like this, and I want to help.' And people would just browbeat me about 'the love of learning,' and I would be like, 'But I just stepped on crack vials out there! There are fights in the hallways! We're beyond that.' "
Eventually, Fryer and his team got 143 schools to sign up. About half would be randomly selected as a control group, meaning the kids would not be paid. In the other half, students would earn money for their performance on 10 routine tests given throughout the year.
The summer before the experiment began, a New York Daily News reporter heard about the plan. The story, headlined "It's a Cash Course," quoted an antitesting activist who called the plan "horrendous." One of Fryer's other funders pulled half a million dollars. Fryer got kicked out of the schools again, he says. This time, Klein took him to a Yankees game. A few days later, Fryer was allowed back in the schools. But he started waking up at 3 a.m. to check the newspapers.
The anger was not something Fryer had anticipated. "I totally underestimated how pissed off people would be because of this," he says. "This is exactly the kind of R&D education needs. I never said it was going to solve all education problems. I just thought it deserved to be tested." (See the 10 best college presidents.)
The most damning criticism of Fryer came from psychologists like the University of Rochester's Edward Deci, who has spent his career studying motivation. Deci has found that money — like other tangible rewards — does not work very well to motivate people over the long term, particularly for tasks that involve creativity. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that rewards can have the perverse effect of making people perform worse.
A classic experiment in support of this hypothesis took place at a nursery school at Stanford University in the early 1970s. There, researchers divided 51 toddlers into groups. All the kids were asked to draw a picture with markers. But one group was told in advance that they would get a special reward — a certificate with a gold star and a red ribbon — in exchange for their work. The kids did the drawings, and the ones in the treatment group got their certificates.
A few weeks later, the researchers observed the children through a one-way mirror on a normal school day. They found that the kids who had received the award spent half as much time drawing for fun as those who had not been rewarded. The reward, it seemed, diminished the act of drawing. So instead of giving kids gold stars, Deci says, we should teach them to derive intrinsic pleasure from the task itself. "What we really want is for people to value the activity of learning," he says. People of all ages perform better and work harder if they are actually enjoying the work — not just the reward that comes later.
In principle, Fryer agrees. "Kids should learn for the love of learning," he says. "But they're not. So what shall we do?" Most teenagers do not look at their math homework the way toddlers look at a blank piece of paper. It would be wonderful if they did. Maybe one day we will all approach our jobs that way. But until then, most adults work primarily for money, and in a curious way, we seem to be holding kids to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.
In the fall of 2007, the New York City experiment began. Fourth-graders could earn a maximum of $25 per test, and seventh-graders could earn up to $50 per test. To participate, kids had to get their parents' permission — and 82% of them did. Most of them also opened savings accounts so the money could be directly deposited into them. Meanwhile, Fryer and his team found other testing grounds. In Chicago, Fryer worked with schools chief Arne Duncan, now President Obama's Education Secretary, to design a program to reward ninth-graders for good grades. Over beer and pizza in a South Side bowling alley, they sketched out a plan to pay kids $50 for each A, $35 for a B and $20 for a C, up to $2,000 a year. But half of their earnings would be set aside in an account, to be redeemed only upon high school graduation.
In Washington, middle schoolers would be paid for a portfolio of five different metrics, including attendance and good behavior. If they hit perfect marks in every category, they could make $100 every two weeks. Schools in Dallas got the simplest scheme and the one targeting the youngest children: every time second-graders read a book and successfully completed a computerized quiz about it, they earned $2. Straightforward — and cheap. The average earning would turn out to be about $14 (for seven books read) per year.
The early feedback was promising. Principals were lobbying to get their schools switched out of the control group and into the treatment group. Parents began using the paychecks as progress reports, contacting teachers to find out why their kids' checks had gone up or down. In Chicago, Duncan discovered that the program affected kids in ways he'd never expected. "I remember going to schools and seeing how excited the kids were when they got their checks. They were like pep rallies — but around academic success!" he says. Fryer appeared on The Colbert Report and CNN to talk about the experiment, and that's about when the death threats started. All the while, Fryer refused to speculate about what the data would reveal. He was not all that interested in whether the kids raised their grades or turned in their homework. Grades are subjective. The more objective measure would come at the end of the year, when the students took their standardized tests. Would they improve more than the kids who were not getting paid? Or would they, as the psychologists predicted, actually do worse? "If it doesn't work, we're going to stop and start doing something else," says Washington schools chancellor Michelle Rhee. "But if it does work, it should drive where we put our money." (Watch Michelle Rhee talk about D.C. schools.)
The results began to trickle into the lab last summer. In New York City, the $1.5 million paid to 8,320 kids for good test scores did not work — at least not in any way that's easy to measure. In Chicago, under a different model, the kids who earned money for grades attended class more often and got better grades, two major accomplishments. Those students did not, however, do better on their standardized tests at the end of the year.
In Washington, the kids did better on standardized reading tests. Getting paid on a routine basis for a series of small accomplishments, including attendance and behavior, seemed to lead to more learning for those kids. And in Dallas, the experiment produced the most dramatic gains of all. Paying second-graders to read books significantly boosted their reading-comprehension scores on standardized tests at the end of the year — and those kids seemed to continue to do better the next year, even after the rewards stopped.
The kids had much in common. In all four cities, a majority were African American or Hispanic and from low-income families. So why did the results vary so dramatically from city to city?
One clue came out of the interviews Fryer's team conducted with students in New York City. The students were universally excited about the money, and they wanted to earn more. They just didn't seem to know how. When researchers asked them how they could raise their scores, the kids mentioned test-taking strategies like reading the questions more carefully. But they didn't talk about the substantive work that leads to learning. "No one said they were going to stay after class and talk to the teacher," Fryer says. "Not one."
We tend to assume that kids (and adults) know how to achieve success. If they don't get there, it's for lack of effort — or talent. Sometimes that's true. But a lot of the time, people are just flying blind. John List, an economist at the University of Chicago, has noticed the disconnect in his own education experiments. He explains the problem to me this way: "I could ask you to solve a third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "A what?" I ask. "A third-order linear partial differential equation," he says. "I could offer you a million dollars to solve it. And you can't do it." (He's right. I can't.) For some kids, doing better on a geometry test is like solving a third-order linear partial differential equation, no matter the incentive.
Similarly, in Chicago, kids were paid for grades — a result they could not always control. There, the findings were mixed. Kids who got paid did indeed get better grades, and they also attended class more — a week and a half more over the school year. That is a big deal, since nearly half of Chicago's high school kids drop out before they graduate and the kids who skip school and fail courses as freshmen tend to be the ones who drop out. We won't know until 2012 if the experiment lowered the dropout rate, but we do know that the rewards did not raise standardized-test scores.
So what happens if we pay kids to do tasks they know how to do? In Dallas, paying kids to read books — something almost all of them can do — made a big difference. In fact, the experiment had as big or bigger an effect on learning as many other reforms that have been tested, like lowering class size or enrolling kids in Head Start early-education programs (both of which cost thousands of dollars more per student). And the experiment also boosted kids' grades. "If you pay a kid to read books, their grades go up higher than if you actually pay a kid for grades, like we did in Chicago," Fryer says. "Isn't that cool?"
It may also help that the kids in Dallas were the youngest in the experiment, making them more receptive to reforms. It's hard to know for sure. Another caveat is that the Dallas model worked differently on different kids. Most (including Hispanic kids and poor kids) did better when they were being paid. But the ones who spoke very little English and took their standardized tests in Spanish did not benefit from the incentives, a mystery that Fryer addresses at some length in his study but cannot entirely explain. (See pictures of Detroit schoolkids sharing their dreams for the future.)
Meanwhile, in Washington, each school got to choose three of the payment metrics, and some of the elements ended up being outcomes like test scores. But the students were also paid on the basis of attendance and behavior — two actions that are under their direct control. Under this hybrid model, the kids who got paid did better on their standardized reading tests. Because of the small size of the school system, the Washington sample was less well balanced than those in the other cities. But its results contain one remarkable finding: the kids who were helped the most by the experiment were the ones who are normally among the hardest to reach. "The typical reform helps girls more than it helps boys," Fryer says. "[This] is the opposite. In D.C., all the results are being driven by the boys. That's fascinating."
When I talked with Washington students, teachers and principals about the experiment, they appeared to have very low expectations for its long-term impact. Many of them, speaking from experience, seemed to think that nothing as simple as money could reach a certain hard core of kids. "The children we had challenges with before, we still have challenges with," says Vealetta Moore-Parker, a guidance counselor who runs the incentives program at Burroughs Education Campus.
Nevertheless, according to Fryer's results, kids with a history of serious behavioral problems saw the biggest gains in test scores overall. Their reading scores shot up 0.4 standard deviations, which is roughly the equivalent of five additional months of schooling.
Kids may respond better to rewards for specific actions because there is less risk of failure. They can control their attendance; they cannot necessarily control their test scores. The key, then, may be to teach kids to control more overall — to encourage them to act as if they can indeed control everything, and reward that effort above and beyond the actual outcome.
The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), one of the most successful charter-school networks in the U.S., has been doling out financial incentives for 15 years, using a model that happens to align perfectly with the results of Fryer's study. KIPP students get paid for actions they can control — getting to school on time, participating in class and having a positive attitude — with "money" they can redeem for supplies at the school store. Over the years, KIPP leaders, who now run 82 schools nationwide, have learned a lot about which rewards work and which do not. They have found that speed matters, for example. Recognition, like punishment, works best if it happens quickly. So KIPP schools pay their kids every week. (Interestingly, the two places Fryer's experiment worked best were the ones where kids got feedback fast — through biweekly paychecks in Washington and through passing computerized quizzes in Dallas.)
Just like grownups, kids need different kinds of incentives to get through the day, some highbrow and some low, some short-term, some longer-term. And money and other external rewards can be a gateway to more substantive motivators. KIPP fifth-graders get a lot of prizes like pencils; high school kids can earn freedoms — like the privilege of listening to their iPods at lunch. "Our ultimate goal is to get kids to be intrinsically motivated," says Joshua Zoia, who founded the KIPP Academy in Lynn, Mass. "But we have to get kids hooked in. We have to meet them where they are."
When Fryer briefed Rhee, the Washington schools chancellor, about the results, she was shocked — happily so. "It is just so hard to show impact in education," Rhee says, citing past experiments that showed no payoff despite enormous effort. "We don't see results like this for a lot of other things we're doing," she says. So she went to the Washington city council to ask for more money to keep paying kids — and to keep studying what happens. "If next year's data show something different, so be it," Rhee says. "We'll take it year by year." The program has wound down in Chicago, Dallas and New York City, although schools in all three places continue to experiment with incentives.
Fryer believes there's more good research to be done on incentives. But he doesn't think incentives alone can fix our schools; he is increasingly convinced that the answer will involve a combination of reforms and that the interaction among those reforms will matter more than any single change in isolation. And whatever we do, he says, we have to test it first — and fearlessly. "One thing we cannot do is, we cannot restrict ourselves to a set of solutions that make adults comfortable."
Chyna is an eighth-grader at the Takoma Education Campus in Washington. Chyna likes to refer to herself in the third person, and when you ask her a personal question, she looks you dead in the eye, asks, "Honestly?" and waits for you to reply before giving you her answer.
Chyna wants to be a lawyer or a radio personality when she grows up. But last year she had a hard time. She and a friend got into a fight with another girl at school. "We basically jumped her," Chyna admits. The police came, and Chyna found herself in a juvenile-detention center, waiting for her mom to pick her up.
This year is going better. When I meet her, she has just received her regular paycheck. She earned $95, her highest check yet. She squeals with happiness and hugs her girlfriends. When I ask her how she did it, she says, "I tried my hardest." She adds, "I tried to wear my uniform, because I knew I wanted some money because my birthday is next week." She has saved her past four paychecks for this reason. The money, she says, gives her just enough incentive to hold her tongue.
"For the most part, I'm still Chyna," she says. "But once in a while I just snatch it back, 'cause I know that paycheck is coming." Then I ask her about the psychologists' argument that she should work hard for the love of learning, not for short-term rewards. "Honestly?" she asks. "Yes, honestly," I say. She looks me dead in the eye. "We're kids. Let's be realistic."
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Michigan RTTT Phase 1 FLOP (Benchmarks & Tent-poles for Investing In Innovation (i3) Grant Submission)
Framing the Educational Conversation 2010
U.S. Department of Education (ED.gov)
COMMENTS:
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Race to the Top (Closer)
Michigan shirks
Efforts to derail application for federal school stimulus cash reflect the state’s dysfunction
Michigan’s dysfunction is perfectly embodied in the ridiculous struggle to put together an application for $400 million in fed eral education funds — its stubborn refusal to embrace reform as a path out of its misery, its fealty to labor at the expense of sound policy, and its irrational fear of change.
The Race to the Top application, due Tues day, should have been signed, sealed and on its way to delivery to the White House by now. The program is President Barack Obama’s effort to improve academic performance, largely by improving the quality of classroom instruction.
To be eligible, Michigan had to agree to a series of measures to better assess the job performance of teachers, hold them account able for how well students learn and provide innovative alternatives to traditional public schooling.
As you can imagine, the Michigan Education Associ ation, the state’s largest teacher and school employee union, wanted no part of these reforms.
Even with the support of Gov. Jennifer Granholm and key legislative leaders, the Race to the Top bill faced an uphill fight in the Legislature before a watered-down version was finally adopted the weekend before Christmas.
Having lost in Lansing, MEA President Iris Salters and her staff took the fight to local districts, urging school boards and local unions not to sign on to the application. Eight Oakland County districts dropped out of the program, saying the benefits weren’t worth subjecting teachers to the more rigorous accountability.
What those districts ignore is that half the federal money will go to statewide programs, freeing up cash in the general School Aid Fund and mitigating the per-pupil cuts need ed to balance the state budget. All districts will benefit.
Now there are even defections on the State Board of Education, led by board President Kathleen Straus, the MEA’s de facto repre sentative on that body. If state Superintendent of Public Instruc tion Mike Flanagan is able to get a competitive package in the mail on Tuesday, it will be a miracle.
Michigan is again shooting itself in the foot. The reforms passed by the Legislature are in place and will be put into effect even if the Race to the Top funds don’t come.
Additional changes tied to Race to the Top will likely be included in the rewrite of the federal No Child Left Behind law, particularly now that the American Federation of Teachers has signed off on the reforms.
The change is coming. Michigan might as well get the money.
Everyone should be mindful of the steep budget cliff the state faces in 2011, when the federal stimulus dollars run out. School dis tricts face cutting an additional $400 to $500 per pupil because of declining state aid pay ments.
It’s insane not to aggressively pursue the aptly named Race to the Top dollars. This is a race — a race tomake education in this coun try the best in the world. Michigan, a state with such a high level of need, should be sprinting at the head of the pack instead of shirking along at the rear.
Hopefully, all parties with a stake in this application will wake up Monday morning and do whatever it takes to give Flanagan the makings of a great application.
Michigan
Race for more stimulus cash on to next step
Kathleen Straus, presi dent of the State Board of Education, signed on Saturday Michigan’s application to receive up to $400 million in additional federal stimulus funds.
Her sig nature put the final stamp on the state’s quest to be selected by the U.S. Department of Education to receive the money through Race to the Top, a program that will award, on a compet itive basis, $4.35 billion to states to support school reform. Straus’ signature, along with those of Gov.
Jennifer Granholm and state schools Superin tendent Mike Flanagan, was required on the ap plication.
The deadline to submit the application is Tues day. Straus had declined to sign the application, saying she wanted time to read the full application, which details Michigan’s plans for spending the money. Only a summary of the plan was available at the time. Straus re ceived the application Friday.
Efforts to derail application for federal school stimulus cash reflect the state’s dysfunction
Michigan’s dysfunction is perfectly embodied in the ridiculous struggle to put together an application for $400 million in fed eral education funds — its stubborn refusal to embrace reform as a path out of its misery, its fealty to labor at the expense of sound policy, and its irrational fear of change.
The Race to the Top application, due Tues day, should have been signed, sealed and on its way to delivery to the White House by now. The program is President Barack Obama’s effort to improve academic performance, largely by improving the quality of classroom instruction.
To be eligible, Michigan had to agree to a series of measures to better assess the job performance of teachers, hold them account able for how well students learn and provide innovative alternatives to traditional public schooling.
As you can imagine, the Michigan Education Associ ation, the state’s largest teacher and school employee union, wanted no part of these reforms.
Even with the support of Gov. Jennifer Granholm and key legislative leaders, the Race to the Top bill faced an uphill fight in the Legislature before a watered-down version was finally adopted the weekend before Christmas.
Having lost in Lansing, MEA President Iris Salters and her staff took the fight to local districts, urging school boards and local unions not to sign on to the application. Eight Oakland County districts dropped out of the program, saying the benefits weren’t worth subjecting teachers to the more rigorous accountability.
What those districts ignore is that half the federal money will go to statewide programs, freeing up cash in the general School Aid Fund and mitigating the per-pupil cuts need ed to balance the state budget. All districts will benefit.
Now there are even defections on the State Board of Education, led by board President Kathleen Straus, the MEA’s de facto repre sentative on that body. If state Superintendent of Public Instruc tion Mike Flanagan is able to get a competitive package in the mail on Tuesday, it will be a miracle.
Michigan is again shooting itself in the foot. The reforms passed by the Legislature are in place and will be put into effect even if the Race to the Top funds don’t come.
Additional changes tied to Race to the Top will likely be included in the rewrite of the federal No Child Left Behind law, particularly now that the American Federation of Teachers has signed off on the reforms.
The change is coming. Michigan might as well get the money.
Everyone should be mindful of the steep budget cliff the state faces in 2011, when the federal stimulus dollars run out. School dis tricts face cutting an additional $400 to $500 per pupil because of declining state aid pay ments.
It’s insane not to aggressively pursue the aptly named Race to the Top dollars. This is a race — a race tomake education in this coun try the best in the world. Michigan, a state with such a high level of need, should be sprinting at the head of the pack instead of shirking along at the rear.
Hopefully, all parties with a stake in this application will wake up Monday morning and do whatever it takes to give Flanagan the makings of a great application.
Michigan
Race for more stimulus cash on to next step
Kathleen Straus, presi dent of the State Board of Education, signed on Saturday Michigan’s application to receive up to $400 million in additional federal stimulus funds.
Her sig nature put the final stamp on the state’s quest to be selected by the U.S. Department of Education to receive the money through Race to the Top, a program that will award, on a compet itive basis, $4.35 billion to states to support school reform. Straus’ signature, along with those of Gov.
Jennifer Granholm and state schools Superin tendent Mike Flanagan, was required on the ap plication.
The deadline to submit the application is Tues day. Straus had declined to sign the application, saying she wanted time to read the full application, which details Michigan’s plans for spending the money. Only a summary of the plan was available at the time. Straus re ceived the application Friday.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
TIME is an Invaluable Resource
Pontiac school board to meet more often to discuss budget
Friday, January 15, 2010
By DIANA DILLABER MURRAY
Of The Oakland Press
Of The Oakland Press
Trustees on the Pontiac Board of Education plan to double their meetings from two to four nights a month to get the necessary work done to restructure district schools and reduce the deficit.
Board members are also considering a change in board pay. Trustees discussed Wednesday the possibility of voluntarily giving up the $81.50 per meeting stipend for one of the meetings each month or lowering the amount of the stipend.
The majority of trustees said they didn’t run for office for the money.
The issue of board pay was brought up by new board President Gill Garrett at a special meeting on board governance. However, the issue has not come to a board vote and may require a change in board policy.
“We are going to have meetings,” Garrett said. “The administrators have clearly stated there are items facing the district that the board has to make decisions on. The board has the option of not being paid for meetings outside of regular meetings.”
Trustees plan to focus on the deficit elimination plan, due to the state Feb. 15, and on the budget for the next school year, due to the state June 30.
But new Vice President Caroll Turpin, whose focus as a school activist for the past 31⁄2 years has been on academics, is pushing the board to set goals and objectives so key programs are protected when cuts are made.
She said she had no objections to more meetings. She wants more discussion and dialogue on issues before the votes at a regular meeting.
Superintendent Tom Maridada II has also said it is important for the board to determine its priorities so that there is money in the budget for those priorities.
“We want to make sure we get off on the right foot,” Garrett said. “We want to make sure we speak on these things before they are presented to us for a vote.” He pointed out, however, that board discussions have to be done at an open meeting and not away from the public, even if there is no vote.
Turpin is also urging the board to create a method of evaluating the superintendent.
“Dr. Maridada has been here since August and no evaluation has been set up,” Turpin said.
“What do we see as our goals this year?” Turpin asked. “What do we want to accomplish? We do not have those two measures (goals and objectives and evaluation method) in place and it is January.”
Trustee Christopher Northcross pointed out that the board has already approved the creation of niche schools, with the idea that they would attract students interested in a themed education, such as performing arts or science and technology.
Safety and security, and public access to the board are also priorities, Northcross said.
To improve its decision making, the board is working with Michigan Association of School Boards in a pilot study of a national program that instructs boards on making decisions based on data, such as test scores, drop-out rates and the number of students who go to college. The program is covered by a grant.
Trustees have also committed themselves to a second yearlong program that is geared to helping the board work efficiently without letting personal issues get in the way.
Northcross suggested trustees might do better to operate more efficiently with fewer regular board meetings so trustees can be more involved in community-school activities.
Trustee Robert Bass said he agreed meetings need to be more efficient but, “I disagree with anyone who says we don’t need to meet. We are so far behind. We have so much to do, so much discussion needs to take place.”
Trustee Karen Cain said she had no problem increasing the number of meetings, but she does have a problem if trustees are going to be paid for more than two meetings a month.
“That’s doubling the expense,” Cain said.
While Bass said money is not an issue for him, he had trouble understanding why trustees were willing to approve contracts and vote raises and extensions in contracts “but can’t add $81.50” for a board meeting.
Turpin said she couldn’t understand why the board didn’t wait for the new trustees to be seated before approving contracts.
Audit report Tuesday
A report on the forensic audit ordered by the Pontiac Board of Education in late September will be given to trustees at a closed session at 4 p.m. Tuesday before the regular 5:30 p.m. board meeting at Rogers Elementary School. PNH Consulting Group was contracted to audit accounts payable, including federal funds, and a payroll review.
The scope of the investigation into possible mismanagement of funds is confidential until the audit report is released.
Board members are also considering a change in board pay. Trustees discussed Wednesday the possibility of voluntarily giving up the $81.50 per meeting stipend for one of the meetings each month or lowering the amount of the stipend.
The majority of trustees said they didn’t run for office for the money.
The issue of board pay was brought up by new board President Gill Garrett at a special meeting on board governance. However, the issue has not come to a board vote and may require a change in board policy.
“We are going to have meetings,” Garrett said. “The administrators have clearly stated there are items facing the district that the board has to make decisions on. The board has the option of not being paid for meetings outside of regular meetings.”
Trustees plan to focus on the deficit elimination plan, due to the state Feb. 15, and on the budget for the next school year, due to the state June 30.
But new Vice President Caroll Turpin, whose focus as a school activist for the past 31⁄2 years has been on academics, is pushing the board to set goals and objectives so key programs are protected when cuts are made.
She said she had no objections to more meetings. She wants more discussion and dialogue on issues before the votes at a regular meeting.
Superintendent Tom Maridada II has also said it is important for the board to determine its priorities so that there is money in the budget for those priorities.
“We want to make sure we get off on the right foot,” Garrett said. “We want to make sure we speak on these things before they are presented to us for a vote.” He pointed out, however, that board discussions have to be done at an open meeting and not away from the public, even if there is no vote.
Turpin is also urging the board to create a method of evaluating the superintendent.
“Dr. Maridada has been here since August and no evaluation has been set up,” Turpin said.
“What do we see as our goals this year?” Turpin asked. “What do we want to accomplish? We do not have those two measures (goals and objectives and evaluation method) in place and it is January.”
Trustee Christopher Northcross pointed out that the board has already approved the creation of niche schools, with the idea that they would attract students interested in a themed education, such as performing arts or science and technology.
Safety and security, and public access to the board are also priorities, Northcross said.
To improve its decision making, the board is working with Michigan Association of School Boards in a pilot study of a national program that instructs boards on making decisions based on data, such as test scores, drop-out rates and the number of students who go to college. The program is covered by a grant.
Trustees have also committed themselves to a second yearlong program that is geared to helping the board work efficiently without letting personal issues get in the way.
Northcross suggested trustees might do better to operate more efficiently with fewer regular board meetings so trustees can be more involved in community-school activities.
Trustee Robert Bass said he agreed meetings need to be more efficient but, “I disagree with anyone who says we don’t need to meet. We are so far behind. We have so much to do, so much discussion needs to take place.”
Trustee Karen Cain said she had no problem increasing the number of meetings, but she does have a problem if trustees are going to be paid for more than two meetings a month.
“That’s doubling the expense,” Cain said.
While Bass said money is not an issue for him, he had trouble understanding why trustees were willing to approve contracts and vote raises and extensions in contracts “but can’t add $81.50” for a board meeting.
Turpin said she couldn’t understand why the board didn’t wait for the new trustees to be seated before approving contracts.
Audit report Tuesday
A report on the forensic audit ordered by the Pontiac Board of Education in late September will be given to trustees at a closed session at 4 p.m. Tuesday before the regular 5:30 p.m. board meeting at Rogers Elementary School. PNH Consulting Group was contracted to audit accounts payable, including federal funds, and a payroll review.
The scope of the investigation into possible mismanagement of funds is confidential until the audit report is released.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Informs our Understanding
Promises and Facts on Charter Schools
Proponents initially argued that charter schools could provide a better education because they were allowed to operate independently. But the research has turned up mixed results. To ensure that this new money goes only to operators with proven records of success, Mr. Duncan will need to be guided by well-designed studies like the one being carried out by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
The center startled many education specialists last summer with a report that showed that a large number of charter schools are failing to deliver on their promises. It compared the performance of charter schools and traditional schools in 15 states and the District of Columbia and found that only about 17 percent of charters offered students a better education than traditional schools — and that 37 percent were worse.
A new study from the center has turned up a brighter picture in New York City, where students at more than half of the charter schools are showing more academic improvement in math than their traditional-school counterparts. The reading numbers were not as strong, but still nearly 30 percent of charters outperformed traditional schools.
The Stanford study does not explain why charter schools in New York City are outperforming charters elsewhere. But some ideas spring readily to mind.
New York City has a rigorous mechanism for licensing charters as well as strong oversight of performance. The city also gives charter operators free space, and provides them with administrative support so that they can more easily get up and running and comply with state and federal education law. This environment has been a magnet for strong operators that have been treated almost like pariahs in other states.
Critics have often charged that charter schools look better academically because they skim off the most talented students from neighboring traditional schools. The Stanford study rules out this explanation by carefully controlling for all known variables, including race, gender, ethnicity and achievement level.
The success of high-quality charter schools in places like New York supports Mr. Duncan’s view that charters can play an important role in efforts to reform the country’s flawed education system — but only if they are closely monitored and held to high standards.
TIME will TELL!
Union leader's speech bodes well for D.C. education reform
Thursday, January 14, 2010; A18
IT TAKES GUTS for a labor leader to concede how hard it is to get rid of union members not doing their jobs. It takes even more guts to admit just how wrong that is. So, it is a credit to American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten that she has called for reform in due process for teachers. Whether she follows through will be a test of her resolve as well as the willingness of her membership to give up long-held protections that have favored the interests of bad teachers over the needs of students.
Ms. Weingarten acknowledged the "glacial process" of disciplining and removing ineffective teachers in a speech Tuesday that called for major improvements in how teachers are evaluated and developed. She promised to lead the way in streamlining the system whereby complaints against teachers are adjudicated. Equally significant was her admission that student test scores should factor in as one measure of a teacher's performance, although she provided little detail on how this would work.
To be sure, there is -- as skeptics were quick to point out -- a big difference between saying and doing. Consider that last year at about this same time, Ms. Weingarten, newly installed as head of the 1.4-million-member union, proclaimed that everything, save school vouchers, was on the table to reform schools. The results, as evidenced by contracts in New Haven, Conn., and Detroit, proved to be, if not disappointing, far from revolutionary. And, in the District, where Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee has pushed for real change in seniority and tenure practices, there's yet to be an agreement announced after two years of negotiations and mediation.
Nonetheless, we want to take Ms. Weingarten at her word; her decision to tap Kenneth R. Feinberg, President Obama's "compensation czar," speaks well of her interest in trying to fix the system. No doubt she recognizes the pressure for change caused by the Obama administration's insistence that only states ready to challenge the status quo will be rewarded with federal education money. Time will attest to her ability to bring about real reform.
Thursday, January 14, 2010; A18
IT TAKES GUTS for a labor leader to concede how hard it is to get rid of union members not doing their jobs. It takes even more guts to admit just how wrong that is. So, it is a credit to American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten that she has called for reform in due process for teachers. Whether she follows through will be a test of her resolve as well as the willingness of her membership to give up long-held protections that have favored the interests of bad teachers over the needs of students.
Ms. Weingarten acknowledged the "glacial process" of disciplining and removing ineffective teachers in a speech Tuesday that called for major improvements in how teachers are evaluated and developed. She promised to lead the way in streamlining the system whereby complaints against teachers are adjudicated. Equally significant was her admission that student test scores should factor in as one measure of a teacher's performance, although she provided little detail on how this would work.
To be sure, there is -- as skeptics were quick to point out -- a big difference between saying and doing. Consider that last year at about this same time, Ms. Weingarten, newly installed as head of the 1.4-million-member union, proclaimed that everything, save school vouchers, was on the table to reform schools. The results, as evidenced by contracts in New Haven, Conn., and Detroit, proved to be, if not disappointing, far from revolutionary. And, in the District, where Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee has pushed for real change in seniority and tenure practices, there's yet to be an agreement announced after two years of negotiations and mediation.
Nonetheless, we want to take Ms. Weingarten at her word; her decision to tap Kenneth R. Feinberg, President Obama's "compensation czar," speaks well of her interest in trying to fix the system. No doubt she recognizes the pressure for change caused by the Obama administration's insistence that only states ready to challenge the status quo will be rewarded with federal education money. Time will attest to her ability to bring about real reform.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
WHAT a TANGLED WEB We WEAVE.....
Bid for Race to the Top school funds may go down to the wire
Some on state board of education have reservations
By LORI HIGGINS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The head of the State Board of Education said she wants to hold off on signing Michigan’s application to receive up to $400 million in federal stimu lus funds.
“I would like to see the whole plan before I sign it,” Kathleen Straus of Detroit, the board president, said at a State Board of Education meeting Tuesday. “I want to make sure it says what I think it does.”
The state plans to send its application by express mail Monday, a day before the dead line for the federal Race to the Top Program, a $4.35-billion competition that will award se lected states with money to support school reform.
The Signatures of Gov. Jen nifer Granholm, state schools Superintendent Mike Flana gan and Straus are required on the application. The final wording won’t be available un til Sunday, state officials told Straus.
So far, the Michigan De partment of Education has re leased only summaries of its plan. But it was clear Tuesday that feelings are mixed.
Board member Nancy Dan hof, for instance, said there have been many misunder standings in the community about the state’s reasons for submitting an application. “It is not to rubber-stamp a feder al program in order to get mon ey. It is because it’s the right thing to do for children,” Dan hof of East Lansing said.
But board member Mari anne Mc Guire of Detroit ex pressed strong reservations, saying she thought teachers were bearing much of the bur den of the increased accountability that comes with the state’s plan. “I’m not really seeing a lot of fairness with this plan,” Mc Guire said.
One of the biggest criti cisms the state has received is that the plan sets state policy on how student achievement growth will be used when eval uating teachers. But Flanagan said it’s up to local school districts and their unions to bargain over how that would happen.
“It isn’t imposed by the state,” Flanagan said.
Straus said that’s not clear in the summary the Michigan Department of Education posted on its Web site Satur day.
■ CONTACT LORI HIGGINS: 313-222-6651 OR LHIGGINS@FREEPRESS.COM
Some on state board of education have reservations
By LORI HIGGINS
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The head of the State Board of Education said she wants to hold off on signing Michigan’s application to receive up to $400 million in federal stimu lus funds.
“I would like to see the whole plan before I sign it,” Kathleen Straus of Detroit, the board president, said at a State Board of Education meeting Tuesday. “I want to make sure it says what I think it does.”
The state plans to send its application by express mail Monday, a day before the dead line for the federal Race to the Top Program, a $4.35-billion competition that will award se lected states with money to support school reform.
The Signatures of Gov. Jen nifer Granholm, state schools Superintendent Mike Flana gan and Straus are required on the application. The final wording won’t be available un til Sunday, state officials told Straus.
So far, the Michigan De partment of Education has re leased only summaries of its plan. But it was clear Tuesday that feelings are mixed.
Board member Nancy Dan hof, for instance, said there have been many misunder standings in the community about the state’s reasons for submitting an application. “It is not to rubber-stamp a feder al program in order to get mon ey. It is because it’s the right thing to do for children,” Dan hof of East Lansing said.
But board member Mari anne Mc Guire of Detroit ex pressed strong reservations, saying she thought teachers were bearing much of the bur den of the increased accountability that comes with the state’s plan. “I’m not really seeing a lot of fairness with this plan,” Mc Guire said.
One of the biggest criti cisms the state has received is that the plan sets state policy on how student achievement growth will be used when eval uating teachers. But Flanagan said it’s up to local school districts and their unions to bargain over how that would happen.
“It isn’t imposed by the state,” Flanagan said.
Straus said that’s not clear in the summary the Michigan Department of Education posted on its Web site Satur day.
■ CONTACT LORI HIGGINS: 313-222-6651 OR LHIGGINS@FREEPRESS.COM
Monday, January 11, 2010
It Speaks for Itself!
Pontiac school board seeks state’s opinion on hiring teacher
Sunday, January 10, 2010
By ANN ZANIEWSKI
Of The Oakland Press
Of The Oakland Press
At a meeting that lasted about 31⁄2 hours, the Pontiac Board of Education voted Saturday to seek an opinion from the state attorney general’s office about its legal options regarding a trustee who works as a teacher for the district.
Mary Barr, a Pontiac Middle School teacher, was elected in November to a partial term and publicly was sworn in Monday. Questions have been raised as to whether she can legally serve as a trustee while working as a district teacher.
Board of Education President Gill Garrett said the purpose of Saturday’s meeting was so the board could get more information before determining its next step.
Trustees received a letter in which board attorney George Pitchford said it’s his opinion, based on an attorney general’s opinion and relevant statutes, that it’s a violation of law to hold both the position of board trustee and employee of the same school district.
Much of the meeting was spent discussing a timeline of contacts among various people in the last several weeks about the topic. Officials said Joseph Rozell, the head of the county’s Elections Division, said no formal action could take place until Barr formally accepted the position and took the oath of office.
Trustees also talked about the possible ramifications of Barr holding both positions. Pitchford said allowing a potentially conflicted board member to participate in meetings could result in an Oakland Circuit judge overturning the board’s decisions, a point that concerned board members.
“Until it is resolved, the board is in peril as it relates to any of our decisions,” Trustee Karen Cain said.
Pitchford said he contacted both the elections office and the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office, and was told that a prosecutor had been assigned to the matter and would not act until a criminal complaint was received. It was unclear Saturday whether the prosecutor’s office has launched a formal investigation.
Trustee Damon Dorkins suggested that Barr be censured until the matter is resolved. Garrett said he would not support a censure.
Dorkins said as a teacher, Barr takes direction from a principal who reports to a supervisor who reports to the superintendent. At the same time, board trustees give direction to the superintendent.
“To me, clearly that is a conflict,” he said.
Barr said she was laid off when she petitioned to run for office. She was later called back to work.
Barr said she has been honest with voters about being a teacher and wants to do what’s best for the district’s children.
Barr said she believes the law is unclear.
“I do not have a problem resigning from my job as a school board employee,” she said, “but I’m only going to resign from my job if it’s the right thing.”
Community activist Kevin Stewart has contacted State Rep. Tim Melton, D-Auburn Hills, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office and Pontiac police about Barr. He told the board that Barr being a trustee and a teacher is a conflict.
Frederick Barr, a local pastor and Barr’s brother, spoke in support of his sister.
“We live in a Democratic society,” he said. “The voice of the people was heard on election day.”
In the end, the board voted to authorize Garrett to ask a state official to solicit an opinion from the state attorney general’s office regarding the board’s legal options in the matter of the potential conflict of interest.
Saturday’s meeting started several minutes late because of a discussion about whether the meeting itself was even legal.
Trustee Christopher Northcross, the board’s secretary, said the meeting was posted without his knowledge. The trustees talked about the issue until Pitchford was asked his opinion, and said he believed the meeting was being held legally.
Contact staff writer Ann Zaniewski at (248) 745-4628 or ann.zaniewski@oakpress.com.
Mary Barr, a Pontiac Middle School teacher, was elected in November to a partial term and publicly was sworn in Monday. Questions have been raised as to whether she can legally serve as a trustee while working as a district teacher.
Board of Education President Gill Garrett said the purpose of Saturday’s meeting was so the board could get more information before determining its next step.
Trustees received a letter in which board attorney George Pitchford said it’s his opinion, based on an attorney general’s opinion and relevant statutes, that it’s a violation of law to hold both the position of board trustee and employee of the same school district.
Much of the meeting was spent discussing a timeline of contacts among various people in the last several weeks about the topic. Officials said Joseph Rozell, the head of the county’s Elections Division, said no formal action could take place until Barr formally accepted the position and took the oath of office.
Trustees also talked about the possible ramifications of Barr holding both positions. Pitchford said allowing a potentially conflicted board member to participate in meetings could result in an Oakland Circuit judge overturning the board’s decisions, a point that concerned board members.
“Until it is resolved, the board is in peril as it relates to any of our decisions,” Trustee Karen Cain said.
Pitchford said he contacted both the elections office and the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office, and was told that a prosecutor had been assigned to the matter and would not act until a criminal complaint was received. It was unclear Saturday whether the prosecutor’s office has launched a formal investigation.
Trustee Damon Dorkins suggested that Barr be censured until the matter is resolved. Garrett said he would not support a censure.
Dorkins said as a teacher, Barr takes direction from a principal who reports to a supervisor who reports to the superintendent. At the same time, board trustees give direction to the superintendent.
“To me, clearly that is a conflict,” he said.
Barr said she was laid off when she petitioned to run for office. She was later called back to work.
Barr said she has been honest with voters about being a teacher and wants to do what’s best for the district’s children.
Barr said she believes the law is unclear.
“I do not have a problem resigning from my job as a school board employee,” she said, “but I’m only going to resign from my job if it’s the right thing.”
Community activist Kevin Stewart has contacted State Rep. Tim Melton, D-Auburn Hills, the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office and Pontiac police about Barr. He told the board that Barr being a trustee and a teacher is a conflict.
Frederick Barr, a local pastor and Barr’s brother, spoke in support of his sister.
“We live in a Democratic society,” he said. “The voice of the people was heard on election day.”
In the end, the board voted to authorize Garrett to ask a state official to solicit an opinion from the state attorney general’s office regarding the board’s legal options in the matter of the potential conflict of interest.
Saturday’s meeting started several minutes late because of a discussion about whether the meeting itself was even legal.
Trustee Christopher Northcross, the board’s secretary, said the meeting was posted without his knowledge. The trustees talked about the issue until Pitchford was asked his opinion, and said he believed the meeting was being held legally.
Contact staff writer Ann Zaniewski at (248) 745-4628 or ann.zaniewski@oakpress.com.
Houston We Have Lift-Off!
LANSING
Schools on board to get federal aid
The Michigan Department of Education received more than 700 letters of agreement by Friday from school dis tricts and charter schools that want a slice of up to $400 million the state could receive in federal aid.
The agreements are crucial to Michigan’s chances of sharing in $4.35 billion set aside from stimulus funds to support innovation in schools. The U.S. Department of Education is to award the money on a competitive basis to states with promising reform plans. If Michigan is select ed, the state could receive between $200 million and $400 million.
The agreements have been controversial, though, with some union leaders — and administrators and board mem bers in some districts — refusing to sign.
A consistent concern school leaders raise is the lack of clarity in what Michigan’s plan will include.
There are about 850 school districts and charter schools in Michigan.
To view a summary of Michigan’s plan, go to www.michigan.gov/mde.
Schools on board to get federal aid
The Michigan Department of Education received more than 700 letters of agreement by Friday from school dis tricts and charter schools that want a slice of up to $400 million the state could receive in federal aid.
The agreements are crucial to Michigan’s chances of sharing in $4.35 billion set aside from stimulus funds to support innovation in schools. The U.S. Department of Education is to award the money on a competitive basis to states with promising reform plans. If Michigan is select ed, the state could receive between $200 million and $400 million.
The agreements have been controversial, though, with some union leaders — and administrators and board mem bers in some districts — refusing to sign.
A consistent concern school leaders raise is the lack of clarity in what Michigan’s plan will include.
There are about 850 school districts and charter schools in Michigan.
To view a summary of Michigan’s plan, go to www.michigan.gov/mde.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)