This came via e-mail from a friend, who says WDIV Channel 4, WXYZ Channel 7and WJBK Fox 2 are all planning to cover the meeting:
This note is to alert you to a large-scale demonstration that will be held at the Farmington Hills School Board of Education Meeting on Tuesday, May 26th. The meeting is at 7:30 p.m. at the Maxfield Training Center located at 33000 Thomas Street in downtown Farmington.
Approximately 100 parents, students and concerned members of the Wood Creek Elementary School community are expected to show wearing red shirts. We are protesting the dismantling of the Multiage Classroom at Wood Creek School. This has been a highly successful and respected program for the past 8 years. In fact, the teachers of the program, Rosheen Hunter and Angela McInerney were runners up for Farmington’s Teacher of The Year Award 2009.
Students and parents reacted with shock and outrage when the unilateral decision by Principal Gloria Chapman was announced the week of Monday, May 11. This announcement came just days after the Multiage Orientation / Informational Meeting was held the evening of Thursday, May 7 for prospective students and families interested in the Multiage Classroom. Principal Chapman participated in this meeting and even touted the program’s benefits and unique nature.
Parents have met with Principal Chapman, Assistant Superintendent Catherine Cost and have emailed Superintendent Sue Zurvalec to no avail. Superintendent Zurvalec stated, “Unfortunately, my schedule at this time does not allow for a meeting to be scheduled.” The supporters of this beloved program have been left with no other choice but to address the Board of Education on May 26.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard from parents critical of Superintendent Zurvalec’s lack of availability. I can understand not being able to make time in her schedule for every parent, but when a large group is looking for an audience, it might be prudent to give them one.
–Joni Hubred-Golden
Publisher, The Enterprise
It is now 10:16 pm, and public comment is still going strong. Several young children are up at the podium this late, which would never have flown with my parents – or my children, for that matter. But I will say this: Wood Creek kids who’ve been part of the multi-age classroom present themselves well and demonstrate a splendid vocabulary.
As I understand this, the principal, parents and teachers have considered the multi-age classroom a success; it’s listed that way in the school’s 2007-2008 annual report. Parents have been told that declining enrollments, combined with the principal’s objectives with regard to collaboration and other challenges, led to the decision to end it. Parents are offering their time, as well as their professional skills, to facilitate a solution that keeps the program. And at 10:40 p.m., the room still looks pretty crowded – so they’re clearly dedicated.
A parent just talked about how the multi-age teachers reached her son when he was having a tough time by wearing a football jersey. “There are other Jacobs out there.”
Great point.
Here’s the problem, in a nutshell, from another parent: “For teachers, parents and children, this came as a total surprise.” Even if that’s just a perception, it is an indication that additional work needed to be done before restructuring within the building.
I just have to say this: I don’t believe a child under the age of 12 belongs at a school board meeting at 11 p.m. on a school night. If you’re asking the school board to consider the best interests of your children, then you ought to be mindful of this as well. Apologies to everyone at Wood Creek I’ve offended.
I’ve also never understood the strategy of threatening to pull your child out of a school if the administration doesn’t do what you want them to do. Seems counterproductive.
Since when is excercising your right as a tax payer to insure your children are recieving an optimal education for your education dollars, counter productive? I think pulling your child out of an under achieving school to send them to one of higher quality sends a lucid reminder of just who “owns” the schools and who works for who.
I’m saying it’s counterproductive for two reasons:
Threatening doesn’t make sense most of the time, and particularly in this case. In 10 years of watching the Farmington School Board, I’ve never seen them threatened into anything, not even with a lawsuit. If someone has seen a significant program change happen because a bunch of parents threatened to enroll their children in private schools, please share. I’ve never seen it.
Also, the principal has ended the program due to declining enrollment. Pulling more kids out of school only BOLSTERS the principal’s position, if she is determined to end the program due to declining enrollments.
I worked for 20 years at four community newspapers and wrote about lots of parents threatening to pull their kids out of school over decisions they didn’t like. I observed two things: Threats never moved a school district to action, and very few parents ever actually removed their children from school.
But what bothers me most is how many kids were sitting in that room learning that if you don’t get your way, the thing to do is threaten to take your toys and go play with someone else.
Congratulations to Wood Creek parents – they presented their case very well. While most of the comments were emotionally based, several presenters clearly communicated significant issues that only the school board can address. Let’s hope they do.
What part of removing your children from a school that isn’t providing the education that you desire, to put them in a different school situation seems counterproductive?
Contrary to uninformed opinion, most parents of students in the local private schools (Sorrows, Fabian, Mercy, etc.) are not there for the religious aspect, but for the substantially better academics that they offer. They choose to pay for private education even though they are forced to also pay for the poor education offered by FPS which they opt not to subject their children.
Since Jack Inch retired from the school board it has become a rubber stamp for the district. I can’t understand why anyone would expect them to actually stand up and voice a contrary opinion. They are only backup singers for Zurvalec.
My personal opinion is that this is solely a numbers game. The combined 3rd/4th requires two teachers, so unless it is double the size of a normal class, it is costing the district extra salary money, money that must be pulled from other programs. If it is double the size of the “normal” classroom, then for Woodcreek to offer it next year, the program would have to be expanded so that half the 3rd and 4th graders at Woodcreek would be enrolled in the program. (Principal Chapman said that she expects to only have two classrooms at each grade level next school year).
You’re pretty good at sniping at others – do you actually step up to do anything “productive”, or is it nitpicking from afar that makes your head hum?
Contrary to “uninformed” opinion, FPS consistently ranks as one of the top school districts in the state, and compares favorably to some of the best in the country. And yes, Mr. Elsey, having known quite a few of the parents who send their kids to parochial schools, it IS the religious aspect (shall we call it indoctrination?) that draws many. Many see it as a substitute for their own active participation in the church – sort of a comforting act of acquiescence in absence of teaching real values to their own children themselves, or becoming involved in the educational process. Parochial, private schools only outrank their public counterparts in the sense that they are free to pick and choose the students they’ll accept, while public schools are there for everyone, regardless of academic performance or financial wherewithal. My children attend public schools, even though I can afford private. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
While I’m no big fan of Sue Zurvalec, it seems to be the easy route to trash the board at whim, while doing nothing of substance to address whatever problems bedevil you. Run for a seat on the board, if you think you have the stuff. Methinks should you be lucky enough to win, we’d find you singing an entirely different tune in no time at all.
To paraphrase an old saying, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, sit back and complain.”
Bob M,
1.) For your information the local parochial high school’s student populations are over one third non-Catholics. I suspect that those students are there solely for academics, wouldn’t you?
2.) Both my wife and I are graduates of local parochial high schools. I would think that our experience, strong ties, and contacts within those schools present a somewhat more accurate picture of the situation than your hearsay evidence (which is, like much of your information, large incorrect).
3.) FPS does not rank among the best school districts in the state, much less the nation. Please refer to the MEAP scores, average AP scores, etc. In fact, after our last MEAP scores came out Zurvalec was quoted in the paper as saying the district was “above average”. “Above average” is a looooong way from excellent. One of the biggest roadblocks to FPS becoming a better school district is people and parents who fail to recognize that there are major issues that must be addressed within the district.
4.) My youngest child is a third year PhD student at UM. However, in the last month I spent over 20 hours as a volunteer in the school district. I have done this for the last ten years (seven of which I had no children in the school system).
5.) “do you actually step up to do anything ‘productive’(?)” I will put my record of volunteer work in the community up against yours any day of the week. Please contact Jack Inch or Farmington department of Special Services for references or specifics.
I understand parents pulling their children out of school for academic reasons, and that wasn’t my point. Read the post again – what I don’t understand is parents who threaten to remove their kids.
Joni, Here is your exact quote:
“I’ve also never understood the strategy of threatening to pull your child out of a school if the administration doesn’t do what you want them to do. Seems counterproductive.”
Seems to me that what the parent’s want the administration to do has everything to do with their childrens academic situation. How do you read your quote or the threat of the parents to pull their children out of the schools as anything other than an academic issue? To my understanding this whole problem isn’t about the lunch menu.
If you don’t like the situation leaving is a viable option. Threatening the school district with the loss of funds may be the only message that the school board will listen to.
Terry, I listened for more than an hour to parents and kids speak at length about how wonderful this school is, how much they love it. They’re not unhappy with academics, they’re upset about the principal’s decision-making, communication and management.
Well, let’s see..
Your quote was that “most” parents were not concerned with the religious aspect of parochial education. Yet you then state that only a third of the enrolled are non–Catholics. Last time I calculated, a third does not constitute “most” – nor even close to a majority. Maybe it’s a different math you learned in your educational experience?
The fact that you and your wife are products of parochial schools does not bolster your claim of unbiased opinion on the subject. Twisted logic, indeed. And, if you expect me (or anyone else) to give your opinion weight because of your attendance at one of these schools, I would counter that that is in itself “hearsay”, no?
You’ll not find the word “excellent” in my description of FPS schools, although I believe they’re quite good. Room for improvement? Isn’t there always? I find no evidence of anyone failing to recognize that there are issues that should be addressed. And that’s certainly a “looooong” way from your categorization of blatant disregard by parents of students in our public schools.
Volunteerism is a wonderful thing. I don’t think, however, that it entitles you to trash the system as a whole, nor does it give you any special credibility toward your rants. Volunteers do not have responsibility of addressing nor administering needed change. Your contribution of time certainly doesn’t stand in for fomenting real solutions, something you seem to have trouble with. And – what in the world does your youngest’s status at UM have to do with this discussion, other than self-aggrandizing?
Again, you have no idea what my record of volunteer work is – if you did, I’m absolutely certain you’d find yourself somewhat embarrassed by the comparison, (over 3 decades of considerable volunteer service) Mr. Inch or Farmington Special Services notwithstanding.
But then, that wouldn’t fit too well with your pattern of trash and rant, now would it?
Joni,
I defer to you on this issue as I was not at the meeting. I was under the mistaken impression that the parents were upset about the elimination of the combined 3rd and 4th grade classroom at Woodcreek, which they considered a better academic setting for their students.
Bob M.,
I’m so impressed that you out of one side of your mouth argue that so many parents send their children to parochial schools for the religious instruction, while out of the other side comment on how those schools are able to pick the best and brightest students because they can be selective. At the very same time there is a contingent of public school parents complaining that those schools take all the best athletes. Clearly only super intelligent, athleticly gifted, religous fanatics need apply.
One third of the the students are not catholic, about one quarter or more attend because a family member is an alumni. A number attend for the sports opportunities, a large number are avoiding the discipline (and crime) problems of the public schools. But one thing I can tell you for sure that if the academics were not far superior to what is offered in our public schools, most of those parents would NOT pay the additional tuition when their children could attend public schools for free.
You should be able to figure out from the fact that both my wife and I attended local parochial high schools (and grade schools) that we have a large circle of friends that are also alumni (did I mention that one of the reasons that people attend these schools generation after generation is the active alumni?). I regularly speak to current and former teachers, and have classmates who are current faculty. In short “no” it is not twisted logic, it is plain fact.
“Excellent” was the word Maxfield regularly to describe FPS. I would think that even you would concede that even your “quite good” is a long way from Zurvalec’s (and the MEEP’s) “above average.”
“Volunteers do not have responsibility of addressing nor administering needed change.” I could hardly stop laughing when I read this. A quick example: Three years ago, when the bond was passed to upgrade the athletic fields, it was decided to use $15,000 of that bond money to buy a state-of-the-art photographic, computerized, timing and finish system to be shared by all three high schools. Presently (three years later) nobody working for FPS in any capacity (coach or IT) has been able to even load the software, much less get the system to work. After a year of fighting with Mr. Noe and Mr. Bridges, two volunteers (you know, people who actually work at track meets) got their hands on the system. In one week (not three years) they were able to successfully load and run the software on three different computers and utilize the system to run the finish line at an invitational track meet. Do you contend that this is not “fomenting real solutions”? When I volunteer, my goal is to make a real difference……why do you?
Which leads us to your contention that I’d “find (my)self somewhat embarrassed by the comparison”, I’m never embarrassed by someone’s spurious innuendos. If you don’t wish to offer verifiable facts, why bother saying anything? I don’t hide behind an initialized last name.
As far as my youngest child’s status, I was hoping that you were academically and mathematically astute enough to figure out that I had continued to spend substantial hours volunteering in the school district despite not having a child in the school district for the last seven years (4 years undergrad plus 3 years of grad), was I incorrect?
Terry, you were not mistaken about the purpose of the meeting – although I do recall you once said you don’t comment on anything you haven’t actually seen or experienced, so I’m surprised to learn you weren’t at and didn’t watch the meeting. My point was not about academics or even parents pulling their kids out of school. My point was about threats. They’re a poor negotiating tool.
Joni,
I didn’t watch the meeting because I know Mrs. Chapman and this is a done deal. I expected that the parents would all tell warm and fuzzy stories, but would have no effect on the final outcome. For the most part, K-5 parents are blissfully unaware of the problems within FPS. You must remember 90% of K-5 students are in the top 10% of their classes…..or so FPS tells the parents.
Personally, I think the only effective remaining negotiating tool with the present FPS administration is the reduction of the number of students (……well that and threatening to go to the press with a few FPS skeletons from their closet). If all the parents who had children in the multi-age class threatened to remove their children from FPS…..next year the program would continue.
Terry, I’m confused. Which is, a done deal or something that could be changed if all the parents threatened to pull their kids out of school?
As for “effective” – if the school district caves into just one group of parents who threaten, then every decision they make will be open to the same reversal. Which means that if a group of parents wanted something to happen that you didn’t approve of, they could get their way by threatening as well. Right?
Joni,
This is a done deal. Everybody knows that you would never get all the parents, who had children in this class, to move them to private schools. Please put in print that you REALLY thought that all the parents could be motivated to move their children out of FPS. The school district knows that this group of parents will whine a little, stamp their feet a little, and essentially do nothing else.
What I’m saying is that FPS, in today’s economy is all about the number of students. Their whole budget is based on the number of students enrolled in the district, the number of teachers is based on the number of students, the number of buildings they keep open is based on the number of students, etc…… Thus, the most effective negotiating tool when dealing with the school district is the parent’s ability to control the number of students enrolled. Any group of parents that really controlled the enrollment or non-enrollment of a large number of students in the school district would be more effective than the present school board in deciding the future of FPS.
If you don’t understand school district funding in Michigan, then you will continue to fail to understand future changes in K-12 education in the state.
(and why does this web site put a single space after a period, when I put in two spaces?)
Terry, I’m not going to keep arguing the same points, and I understand K-12 funding perfectly well – in two states, I might add. I clearly don’t get your attempts at sarcasm or whatever it is that passes for a cogent argument in your book.
Again, I was making ONE POINT: Threatening doesn’t work. If threats were an effective bargaining tool, then school districts would be run by rogue groups of parents, all with their own agendas.
I have no idea how WordPress.com works. If you want another space, hit the space bar.
Joni,
My reply was that threats are the best (and possibly the only) way to get FPS attention. The only reason most parents are ineffective when they threaten the school district, is that they will not follow through, and the district knows it.
When I wanted something done about the new track and field timing systems, after numerous attempts at being pleasant, I merely pointed out to Sue Zurvalec that it what they were doing was a misuse of school district funds…….did that ever get the wheel in motion!
I would guess as a former editor you put two spaces after most periods at the end of sentences, yet on this site they end up as single spaces in your posts. Or is that intentional on your part?
Terry, I think you need to seek a seat on the school board. Evidently, all things would run smoothly, and you’d be able to show ‘em (and ALL of us) how things should be done.
Or – is this a case of “those who can, do.. and those who can’t, whine”?
I suspect it is ranting that you prefer, because it requires so little effort and expertise. But… prove me wrong. I’d vote for you, if only for the chance to watch what transpires.
Run, Terry, run!
Bob M.
I appoint you my campaign manager. Or………”is this a case of “those who can, do.. and those who can’t, whine”?
No… this is a case of “those who recognize folly – avoid it”.
It’s folly because you suggested it? That logic I can understand.
There you go again… reading things that aren’t there. But if you didn’t – what would you possibly speak about? I still fail to understand your logic, if it can be called that. But wasting time parrying with the Don Quixote of Farmington Hills is not high on my agenda. I’ll leave you with the last word (God knows you must have it) and be content with being entertained and amused by your inanity. It’s the only value I’ve found in your tired tirades.
Thanks for the side show, Terry.
Bob M.,
You’re confusing me……..
A request for clarification of your comment is “reading things that aren’t there”?
“Insanity” is any facts that you are incapable of refuting?
It would probably be easier for you to carry on a logical discussion if English were a language that you understood.