Ann Arbor school board removes controversial principal-sharing plan from 2011-12 budget cuts
The Ann Arbor school board voted to remove the controversial principal-sharing portion of the district’s proposed 2011-12 budget from the final plan Wednesday after numerous complaints from parents at the four affected schools.
The vote came after two community forums, numerous emails and a lengthy public commentary at Wednesday’s meeting during which parents from Abbot, Wines, Pittsfield and Angell elementary schools spoke against the proposal. The original plan called for Abbot and Wines to share one principal, as would Pittsfield and Angell.
Annette Stojcevich gets fourth-grade students ready for a science experiment at Abbot Elementary in Ann Arbor in this 2010 file photo. The school will not have to share its principal next year after school board action Wednesday night.
“This amounts to about 1.3 percent of the amount we’re trying to save,” Thomas said. “We can find other ways of saving that money.”
The board approved trustee Glenn Nelson’s motion to advise district administrators to hire five principals to fill the positions vacated at the end of this school year and for the presentation at the next board meeting on May 25 to show the adjustment in the district’s fund balance for the next school year. Thomas added the amendment to state the district will not pursue the option of sharing elementary principals in the 2011-12 school year.
Among the other potential cuts are the elimination of 70 full-time teacher positions and ending transportation for high school students.
The possibility of sharing principals remains open for future years. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with trustees Christine Stead and Irene Patalan voting against.
Stead said she disliked the principal-sharing plan as much as any of the other trustees, saying that all the cuts presented by district administrators were not exactly palatable. However, she said the district would be best served by not taking any option off the table until more evidence is given from lawmakers in Lansing about what revenues can be expected to go into the School Aid Fund.
“I can’t take things off the list today when that has to be replaced by something else,” Stead said. “Any action by the board right now would be reactionary more than anything else. If we want to demonstrate good accountability and leadership, we will wait until we’re more informed on what we’re talking about.”
Trustee Glenn Nelson said district administrators should set aside $2 million of fund balance, commonly known as the district’s rainy day fund, to attempt to assure staff in the district that there will be no layoffs in the 2011-12 budget. Of the 70 full-time teaching positions set to be eliminated, about 45 are slated to be retirements.
Nelson said the state is holding back on giving money out this year because there are no elections for state lawmakers in 2011. However, more funds will likely become available in 2012 because of the election looming during November of that year.
He said the district’s second quarter financial report also shows additional revenue of $4 million which would be added to the fund balance that could help fill the gap created by removing the shared principals option.
“My feeling is that both of these things, the sharing of principals and the potential of layoffs, are extremely disruptive to the organization,” he said.
Many of the parents who spoke during the meeting said the sharing of principals at the four schools would be targeting student bodies that are among the neediest in the district.
Terrisca Desjardins, the parent of first-grade and third-grade students at Abbot, said she knows district leaders have tough decisions to make on the budget but believes they were looking in the wrong place.
“The recent proposal is ill advised, unacceptable and frankly potentially (damaging) to the lives and futures of our students,” she said.
Other parents pointed out the extra responsibilities that would be put onto the schools’ teachers, who would have to deal with discipline issues in the principal's absence.
Stefanie Iwashyna, a parent from Angell, said the plan was unfair both to students and teachers. She said having lead teachers at the schools take on more responsibilities would cause a “lack of leadership.”
“Aside from being unfair, it is also unwise. The finances are fuzzy, and the true savings that can be achieved with this plan are unknown,” she said, calling the potential savings “a mere drop in the bucket.”
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
A2MOM
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:34 a.m.
Hilton - Wines was the only school that said they would support the school district in whatever decision they made.
Rachel
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:40 a.m.
Cut administration pay. Consolidate shared services across districts, and eliminate some vice-principals. Have the School Aid Fund only for K-12 education, and start scaling back on retirement benefits.
Klayton
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
Interesting that when parents of the wealthier elementary schools (Angell and Wines) complain, the board shudders...but if it were a lower SES school, I don't think they would have backed down. Personal as a parent in an affected school I have no problem with the admin sharing since the school will be covered by a lead teacher. I find this less disruptive than cutting busing, cutting teachers, or having fewer supplies/extra curricular for our students.
jmyler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:23 p.m.
As a parent at one of the lower SES schools, I disagree! The loudest opponents to this proposal were from one of the lowest SES schools in the district! And, if you look at this as it would play out, taking a lead teacher from the classroom IS cutting teachers!
Momma G
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:26 p.m.
Let's cut out administrators at Balas, pay for the new superintendent, cellphones for administrators, programs that require the schools to make so many copies which cost for paper, ink, etc., car for the superintendent, and unnecessary "snack/drink" machines. Oh and let's get rid of the administrators who have been doing poorly and have cause unnecessary publicity to the district. Who is evaluating them? Obviously, someone who should be fired, too.
Stefanie Iwashyna
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:03 p.m.
The charges of NIMBYism are off base. While some argued for sharing principals (but just not at their school), my argument was that it didn't make sense because the savings would be minimal in return for a very "painful" cut at just four schools. The district told parents that the schools that lost half their principal would get increased clerk time and a longterm sub assigned to their school in order to mitigate the loss of the principal. In calculating projected savings, the district staff didn't charge the cost of this longterm sub to the plan, because they assumed that come August they would have a pool of teachers who aren't assigned to schools, but cannot be terminated because of contractual obligations. From my perspective, this plan to have a longterm sub in the building waiting to cover the lead teacher's classroom when s/he was called upon to fulfill principal duties was not a good use of resources. And it is tantamount to a teacher cut, because the lead teacher will be consistently pulled from the classroom to attend to administrative duties. At my children's school we were slated to lose half our principal and lose a teacher. Cutting two principals in this way wasn't going to do anything to protect class sizes from increasing. I'm not privy to the district budget numbers, but I'm not willing to just accept that this was the best of bad options they had. Ultimately, the district staff failed to present a compelling argument to justify this particular cut. Perhaps I'm being naïve, but I don't believe that this was the School Board caving to pressure from angry parents. I believe that it was an ill-conceived proposal that under closer scrutiny, couldn't be justified.
Bill
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.
Apparently the District is unwilling to consider consolidations with other districts as it could potentionally eliminate the higher paid district level administrators. Perhaps the new Superintendent will take a more realistic look at the budget and develop a plan that will be better for the students, afterall, I do believe the education of students is the sole reason for having a school
just a homeowner
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
Today I was at one of our comprehensive high schools and watched exactly two (2) students get on the bus bound for Community. Can someone calculate the cost per rider for buses between CHS and the other schools? Isn't it time CHS stood on its own as an alternative high schools and attracted kids who really want that, rather than those who want to do sports and take 1/2 their classes at a big HS, but want to eat lunch downtown? So let's cut some fat: buses for CHS, administrators who are not in school buildings but instead work at Balas. The tally of about 3,000 employees with about 50% teachers is pretty sad. How about we balance layoffs 50/50 between teaching and non-teaching staff?
Rachel
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:50 a.m.
I take the bus to school and it is always very crowded--however for "dual enrolled pupils" (those who split between CHS and another high school) AAPS should make an agreement with the city bus services, this way cutting the cost of busing but still allowing those students to continue to take sports, band etc. at one of the larger high schools.
E09
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.
Hm maybe spending a bazillion dollars on a new high school wasnt the best idea after all....
Haran Rashes
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
Just as the parents from Abbot, Wines, Pittsfield and Angell elementary schools spoke up and were heard, it is time for high school parents to start taking a stand. Most parents I have spoken to don't really believe that the AAPS would ever cut busing for high school students. The deficit is real and the cuts are about to become real as well. We all need to take a stand. Not only is the elimination of student busing for high school students a bad idea, the district needs to consider the following ramifications of such a proposal: - the drop off areas at the various high schools cannot handle the additional traffic of parents dropping off their kids; - students under 16 years old (freshmen and most sophomores) can't legally drive; - parking lots at the high schools will not be able to handle the additional cars of students driving; - students 16 years old can't drive with more than one other unrelated person in the car; - AATA does not have direct routes for most students to the high schools (it will take my daughter over an hour by AATA); - the cost of gas for these students (and the cost of cars for those who can afford them) will have to come from somewhere (watch for stores at Briarwood to go out of business as high school students no longer have discretionary money to spend because of their gas bills); - Young drivers are not necessarily safe drivers; and, - AAPS buses are the most efficient way to get students to and from school.
Rachel
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 3:53 a.m.
Also add the fact that those students who have a hard time getting to school may eventually drop out.
dswan
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
Had the administration proposed closing 1 or 2 of these schools initially, and later proposed sharing principals as an alternative to closure; these same parents would be jumping for joy at the prospect of making a small sacrifice in order to save their school community. Which option has a greater impact to 'be potentially (damaging) to the lives and futures of our students": 1. Shared Principals, 2. Closing a building, 3. Fewer teachers, larger classrooms, and fewer electives?
jmyler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
As one of "these same parents" I disagree with you. I believe people would've been outraged to close their neighborhood school, but I feel that taking the one administrator that interacts directly with the students away from any school, is wrong and unsafe. Also, as stated previously, this proposal takes lead teachers out of the classroom and puts them in the office. I believe everything you listed damages the lives and future of the students. You may not see it, but I have an obligation to stand up for my children and their education.
jmyler
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 4:58 p.m.
One thing that several of the commentors here seem to be missing, is that when you take the one administrator from these schools and ask that person to oversee hundreds of children and staff at two separate sites, you dimish their affectiveness. Also, when that principal is away from the building, they wanted a lead teacher to take over the administrative tasks! So, we all can complain about the reduction in FTEs (and we should), but this proposal was going to reduce the teachers actually IN the classroom at these four schools. Also, if this was such a strong idea and would save the money they are claiming (which it wouldn't!), than why did they only choose these four schools. Just think of the money they would have "saved" if they had proposed this across the district! Also, I would have loved to see all of you at the forums, school board meetings, etc, so you could have brought your ideas to the table. Since you were unable or unwilling, that is enough of a comment.
jmyler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
DonBee--I am very glad to hear that! Please continue to be active and providing input. My comment was directed at the commentors who hide behind their keyboard to make disparaging remarks and do not get involved.
DonBee
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
jmyler - Our family has been very active in budget meetings, providing input at both the WISD level and the AAPS level. A number of ideas we put forth over the last decade have been ignored by the board. I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the financial information available and providing feedback via various methods, including attending meetings. All for naught.
KidsRtheFuture
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
From the Ann Arbor School District web site, there are approximately 3000 part time and full time employees. Of these, less than half (1/2) are teachers (somewhere between 1200 and 1500, depending on how teaching assistants are classified) Why is it that with a structure like this, the district is talking about cutting 70 teachers but only 13 administrators (83 total FTE cuts). Something seems very wrong with this ratio. I'm beginning to believe that the district's plan is meant to outrage parents so that they will complain to Lansing. If they cut 70 administrators, I'm sure no one would really care enough to complain. Is the district trying to play politics with our classroom teachers and children???
TKA2
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
NIMBY strikes again, something Ann Arbor is really, really good at... Smart town where everyone agrees we need to do something...unless of course it actually involves change or sacrifice. So here we end up with a higher % of administation, less teachers, more kids per class...if there is any agreement among all parties it is probably that this is the opposite of what we want over the long haul. Officials granted the public trust, but without the strength of character to stand up to the 'not in my backyard' crowd and make responsible financial decsions; this is a pretty big problem in this democracy of ours right now (the grass roots version of Washington lobbyists) and we must figure out how to do the right thing, the end of the present path is not pretty .
jmyler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
I agree. We need to increase revenue, so I am sure you will not be opposed to higher taxes. Unless, you are part of that NIMBY crowd!
PLGreen
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
An opportunity to cut "Administration" and save Teachers squandered.
jmyler
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 4:29 p.m.
Please cut administrators! I have proposed it at every conversation I have had with the Board. The problem is, they chose to cut the one administrator that actually has interaction with students and to pull more teachers out of the classroom to replace them!
Tony Livingston
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
There is a manufactured home park on Wagner Road and I have seen kids that I know who live there walking home from Pioneer because they have stayed for an after school activity and have no way home. This is a very long walk, there are no sidewalks for much of it, and it is dark most school mornings. How are these kids to manage if there are no buses? It is one thing to eliminate buses in the city limits where kids can ride AATA. It is another to eliminate it for kids in the townships who live a long way from school. Moving Clemente to Stone school would help. There are kids who are taxied at the school's expense to and from Clemente. There is a bus taking Slauson and Tappan middle schoolers to Pioneer for advanced math. I would like to see some other methods of trimming instead of whole sale elimination.
Jrileyhoff
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
I never thought it was fair that students who drive themselves to school have to pay a parking fee while those who ride the bus do not have to pay a rider fee.
lynel
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 12:01 a.m.
The bus needs to go by their house whether they are they're there or not.
Jrileyhoff
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.
I intend no disrespect. I don't even have kids old enough to drive. I just think the district should recognize that the students who drive themselves are using less of the district's resources than those that drive themselves.
KeepingItReal
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
Then don't let your student drive. Let them ride the bus or is this to inconvenient for you or degrading to them.
Sandy
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
Hooray for the school board coming to their senses and protecting our children. Yes, the cuts will have to come from somewhere else, but they don't have to be as damaging. There will be a lot of "stretching", but as a teacher from one of the proposed "shared principal elementaries said, "I would rather have more children in my classroom than to lose administrative support."
for balance
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
I hope that in this era of looking carefully at expenditures, we would also reconsider capital projects. Spending 320K on a parking lot expansion at Haisley also does not seem to be in line with our new reality.
jmyler
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
Since the State doesn't give each individual district flexibility in charges billed to the districts (retirement fund, etc) and amount provided by the State (which they can cut any fiscal year, by whatever amount they see fit) , we need to have more flexibility in our budgets. These different "bins" of funds, makes no sense in these economic times.
Kyle Feldscher
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.
macjont, you are absolutely right. All of the summer projects, including the Haisley parking lot project, are being funded from the 2010 sinking fund. Money from that fund cannot be used for any other purpose and it is illegal to use it for anything other than construction, repairs and purchasing property.
macjont
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.
$ that is probably coming out of a different pool. Not sure, but this is possible. I believe most capital projects come from bond issues, while operating expenses come from per-pupil $ coming from the state. Can anyone clarify this? (I really don't know.)
dotdash
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.
Is there a resolution we can pass that can force the school board to cut no more from classroom budgets than from administrative budgets in a given year? Sort of like the deal the Parks Dept has with the city? What would the process be for setting up that kind of resolution?
Dr. I. Emsayin
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:09 p.m.
Making an unpopular cut like the administrator-sharing idea allows parents and teachers to make such a fuss that the Board takes it off of the table. But the money will be cut elsewhere and children will feel it in the classrooms with larger class sizes or less FTE in the building. I think this was a set up so that the district could say: this is what the families wanted (keeping the principals), so the cuts would go back to the classroom.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:08 p.m.
"Removing general fund money from varsity sports $3 million and change" Whether or not varsity sports ought be a part of an educational system is the subject of another discussion. But rest assured that were the AAPS to unilaterally end varsity sports, the result would not be $3 million in savings. Why? Because students for whom sports is important in their lives would take take advantage of the schools of choice and would move from AAPS to schools that offered the programs they want. And those districts, desperate for per pupil funding from the state, will be more than happy to take them. If this were to happen (and rest assured that it would), the AAPS would lose that per pupil funding for every student who went elsewhere. The result would be a savings of far less than $3 million, and it seems likely that it might actually result in revenue loss of more than $3 million. Beyond this, the School Board's folding on this issue shows us just how difficult it will be to balance the budget: It needs to happen at someone else's expense. Don't dare inconvenience anyone. And it is also why any meaningful school reform is doomed because any changes to the school day or to the school year will prevent the schools from performing what, to far too many parents, has become the schools' primary mission: free daycare. Good Night and Good Luck
snapshot
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 6:11 a.m.
It's not that easy for folks to "move" if there were no sports programs. This type of indecision and wavering is why EMF's need decision making powers.
AMOC
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.
Gee Ghost, how many individual athletes are there on the varsity and jr. varsity teams, given that almost every athlete plays *something* in 2 or more seasons? Are we talking as many as 150 kids / high school to whom sports are the single most important thing about their school experience? I strongly doubt it would be as many as 300 students / school who would abandon their friends and siblings, and transport themselves to some other school for the mere chance that they will make the team somewhere else. But for the sake of argument, say that 1000 students left, district wide, because of the lack of varsity sports. That means a loss of roughly $1M in per-pupil funding, and a net gain for the district of $2M.
Awakened
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.
Fuzzy finances should include believing that you need cut nothing with less money coming in.
macjont
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
Sooooo .... Rick and his Republican buddies should restore funding. Right?
sh1
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:46 a.m.
Does anyone know if students who choose to drive themselves to school instead of taking the bus pay to park in the school's lot? If not, this seems like an obvious source of revenue.
sh1
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.
I was thinking they should pay to park because the district is already paying for a bus service they're not using.
Tony Livingston
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.
Yes, they pay to park at Pioneer too.
andys
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
Why should they have to pay to park? Do admin pay? Do teachers pay to park?
skigrl50
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 12:18 p.m.
At Huron this year my child paid $50 to park. I don't know about the other high schools.
DonBee
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:34 a.m.
Getting to what Plymouth-Canton spends on Administation costs - Savings $4 million and change Removing general fund money from varsity sports $3 million and change Result - no loss of teachers But... Neither Administrators nor sports are touchable... So... Say goodbye to teachers! Consolidating accounting, HR, logistics, purchasing, IT and other back office services into the WISD would lead to cost reductions, but no, we will cut teachers. After all it is all about the Children!
jns131
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 10:23 a.m.
Guess what? Plymouth Canton just pinked slipped their administration staff, 259 teachers and closing all schools and will reorganize for September. Not all will get their jobs back in September. So your post is invalid here. I know, a parent told me Plymouth Canton is also in trouble.
snapshot
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:52 a.m.
Don, can you tell me why 9 charter schools only get 190,000 of the millage that just passed when A2 gets 5.8 million?
snapshot
Fri, May 13, 2011 : 5:50 a.m.
well said Don!
A2Realilty
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 6:37 p.m.
I would love to see Administration costs cut significantly. You and I differ on our opinion of the need for sports. I would leave that as is, or increase the pay-to-play costs. What would we need to increase the pay-to-play cost to so that the $3 million you're accounting for would be covered? Aside from all this... I'm concerned about the administrative HR and legal costs that will cascade from Snyder's vision for teacher performance monitoring...
Will
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 11:21 a.m.
Reduce the new superintendent's base salary! She doesn't need to have a higher base salary than the Vice President of the United States.
Will
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 3:06 p.m.
I would say her salary has to go low enough to fit into the "shared sacrifice" category!
macjont
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Your kidding Will. Aren't you? A superintendent of a school district works harder, has greater responsibilities, and deserves a higher salary than the VP. Besides, how low would you have to go with the super's salary before it would make any impact at all on the district's budget difficulties?
skigrl50
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 10:56 a.m.
Parents complain about sharing principals so they remove that possibility. What is the school board going to do when parents complain about the elimination of high school busing? When will administration start to look at their own, such as payroll? Seems that they would rather eliminate teaching positions than positions from Balas.
Sandy
Thu, May 12, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
Personally, I am proud of these parents. This is really what it takes to make a strong school system. Money helps, but strong community is what will get us through this. Good for you parents and don't give up the fight!!