Dexter schools decline to join state Race to the Top application
The Dexter school district is among 90 in Michigan that did not sign up to support the state’s application for federal Race to the Top education funds.
The district sent a letter to the state on Monday, declining to join, Superintendent Rob Glass said. The letter came from Glass, the school board and Dexter’s teacher union.
Dexter Superintendent Robert Glass
All other local districts signed memorandums of understanding saying they supported, in concept, the state’s application, which was filed with the federal Department of Education Tuesday.
However, following the advice of the Michigan Education Association, none of the local teacher’s union presidents signed their district’s MOUs.
Michigan is seeking $526 million to make reforms in education. If the federal government approves its application, the state would then divvy that money up among districts that signed MOUs. By not signing, Dexter is not eligible for the funding.
Forty states filed applications for the funds yesterday. Decisions about who gets the money and how much money they will get are expected in the spring.
Among the reforms in Michigan’s plan are raising the age at which students can drop out of school to 18, giving the state the ability to take over or shutter the worst-performing 5 percent of schools in the state and promises to work on changing the way teachers are evaluated.
Districts were asked to sign on to the plan before seeing any details on how the reforms would be implemented. That’s one reason why Dexter did not endorse it.
“The Dexter Community School District and the Dexter Education Association have determined that it is not in the best interest of our students, employees or community to sign the Memorandum of Understanding proposed by the Michigan Department of Education relative to its application for Race to the Top funding," the district said in its letter to the state. "Our reasons have to do with concerns about:
- Possible negative effects on Dexter students and the quality of the educational experience.Â
- Possible negative impact on the collaborative relationship between Dexter's employees, administrators, Board of Education, and community.
- A timeline which denied us reasonable opportunity to review the grant proposal and understand its implications.”
It’s widely expected that many of the reforms being pushed by President Obama and his education department in this plan will be included in legislation that will replace or revise the current federal No Child Left Behind education laws. Work on the new laws is expected to pick up steam this year.
David Jesse covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at davidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2434.
Comments
LCobler
Sun, Jan 24, 2010 : 8:36 a.m.
As President of the Dexter School Board and the board representative along with the Superintendent and President of the DEA, that signed the letter declining to participate in the MOU, I can say with all candor that the decision was a collaborative one. That is the style in Dexter. While it may be counter to what others have experienced in other districts, we have a Board, Administration, and Teacher's Union that has one thing in mind - doing the best for the students. We operate that way every day and when you come to our district and interact with them, you will sense it yourself. The bottom line on this was that we felt there was too much uncertainty in the MOU, and the risk too great, that we all felt it was not in the best interest of the district and the students. In fact, it was mentioned several times during our discussions, what would we be teaching our students in this situation? And the answer was always - don't sign something that is not fully explained where the risk/reward is so potentially negative. In our estimation, the potential costs associated with implementation and reporting could far outweigh the $18,000 we would expect to receive. Dexter is no different than other districts in the state in that the economic conditions and the State's inadequate funding methods are hurting us too. But we could not see putting ourselves in an even worse situation with this MOU. Finally, I come back to the culture at Dexter. This was a collaborative decision, fully supported by the board, that opted to sustain the positive relationships we have among the district stakeholders rather than reaching for the "gold ring" that could potentially damage what we hold most important in Dexter - the students and the community.
eom
Sat, Jan 23, 2010 : 8 p.m.
Again with the teacher/union bashing. Why WOULD someone sign something they couldn't read? Would you? Not signing a document doesn't mean you aren't in need of finances, it means that you are thoughtfully trying to solve problems - and agreeing to something you aren't aware of isn't smart nor helpful. Kudos to you Dexter.
skfina2
Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.
@bruceae Here's an idea. I'm going to come up with a plan for how you're going to be compensated for your work. But I'm not going to reveal any specifics of the plan, because I really don't know what they are yet. Would you sign off on it anyway?
The Grinch
Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.
So, let me see if I have this correct: the school and teacher bashing group who have posted here that Dexter Schools and its teachers union refused to sign a document that would have been the equivalent of a blank check in order that the school disctict MIGHT receive $18,000? The Dexter Schools and its union should be applauded for rejecting this nonsense.
FreedomLover
Fri, Jan 22, 2010 : 12:34 a.m.
Sure, I trust this govenment enough to sign a MOU to follow yet to be written guidance, sure! As a Dexter resident, KUDOs to the district.
chalkboardjoe
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 8:57 p.m.
The amount that the district would have received was approximately $18,000. Not only was the amount minimal, but the costs to implement the Race To The Top requirements is an unknown. Dexter is suffering the same financial shortfalls as every other district (more in some ways and less in other ways).
sh1
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.
This wasn't a union decision. It is always a wise decision though, IMO, not to sign something you aren't allowed to read.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 5:50 p.m.
So, you get subordinates who undermine your performance and the other manager has people underneath him or her who cover up their incompetence and that person is the one deserving of a bonus and advancements don't get that logic. I think if you could get a formula that takes all the variables into consideration and awards people equally then it might be ok. I'm assuming you would be willing to send your kid to the school in the state with the kids that do the worst on the MEAP then, since parenting skills of one parent alone will be enough to make up for all those other things. years ago we accepted that kids were on tracks, now we expect every kid to be a rocket scientist. FYUI, there aren't enough rocket scientist jobs to go around and some kids are going to be carpenters. mechanics, housekeepers etc. It is also with regret that some children are so cognitively impaired/ developmentally disabled that they there is no hope of doing well on a standardized test no matter what their home life is like, and they will not go on to be gainfully employed. Get rid of standardized tests and teach to the individual, then we can discuss implementing merit pay.
mytwocents
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 5:38 p.m.
Braggslaw: The way I read this, it wasn't just a Union decision. The main concern is districts were being asked to "sign up" for something that was yet to be defined. In addition, the money is not guaranteed. I feel it's a smart move for some districts to opt out of this legally binding agreement that feels much like signing a blank check. I appreciate the leaders- school board, administration, and the union- making this decision.
bruceae
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 4:18 p.m.
@treetowncartel Because that's the way life is. I might make more or less money than the person in the office next to me because they are smarter, work harder, better educated, etc. When you let the Union run the place all that matters in senority. Just put in your time and you get raises. Throw up as much smoke as you can about standardized tests, race, back ground, etc. and maybe they think we will be distracted long enopugh that we won't be looking at their quality of work. People have had enough. 40 other states are saying that they can get with the program but all we get from administrators and unions in this state is excuses.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.
The problem that the unions have as as I see it is attaching merit pay to scores on standardized tests. Clearly, socio economic status, comprehension of the english language, learning disabilities, classroom attendance and parental involvement are among a few factors that will effect how a student scores on a standardized test. Why should a teacher be punished, or rewarded, if the have more or less of those variables in their classrooom respecticvely?
bruceae
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.
So 40 states can get these applications filled out but the "rocket scientists" we hire to run our schools and teach our kids can't figure it out. Then of course this Fall other States will be getting money and our districts will be begging for more taxpayer money again.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 3:25 p.m.
Braggslaw, why is this a horrible result for students? Michigan has only a slim chance of getting the RTTT money anyway, and I can understand why school districts would be hesitant to sign a legally binding agreement to implement state policy changes that are still in draft form. Especially if those changes will require increased spending by districts with no new money to pay for it. Many districts, including Ann Arbor, chose to sign the MOU and then attach to it a statement that they reserve the right to withdraw if the funding to support the new programs does not materialize. But there are severe questions about the enforceability of such a reservation. Moreover, teachers union locals across the state declined to sign the MOU, but that did not stop the school boards from doing so. I think you attribute too much to the union, and not enough to the uncertainties faced by those responsible for running the schools.
braggslaw
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 3:10 p.m.
The teacher's union flexes its muscles again. This is a horrible result for the students.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 12:19 p.m.
@ Grinch, there are certain requirements that go along with accepting the money. It is probably better to look at the federal legislation for their reasoning.
Jimmy Olsen
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 12:15 p.m.
@treetowncartel - they already teach to standardized tests - its called the MEAP. The district will have to adhere to any laws that have/will be passed anyway - so why not take some money to reduce your expenses.
David Jesse
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 11:29 a.m.
@The Grinch: Dexter, like all other school districts, was asked to sign a memo of understanding saying that they would implement the reforms being put forth by the state before the districts saw the complete plan. I'm checking on how much they would have gotten.
The Grinch
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.
AnnArbor.com: Seems like there are some questions here you might answer. 1) What was required of the district? 2) How much money was on the line? 3) What, if any, is the Dexter Public Schools' budget shortfall. Without answers to those questions it is impossible to judge the efficacy of this desicion. Do the naysayers above know the answers? No, I didn't think so.
a2huron
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 10:26 a.m.
Seems to indicate that school finances aren't much of a problem after all, at least not in Dexter. Dexter schools must be financially stable and in no need of additional resources. Just take their share and spread it out elsewhere (though it will probably go to other states instead).
mytwocents
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 10:26 a.m.
My understanding is the amount Dexter would have gained was minimal. Not worth the risk, in my opinion.
bruceae
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 10 a.m.
Great. I guess the funding problems that were facing all these districts less than a month ago have all gone away. Why is it that 40 other states can get their acts together and get the applications in but in Michigan all we get from the school districts is excuses why they can't do it? Hopefully, everyone remembers this later this year when they tell us how bad things are and try to raise our taxes again.
treetowncartel
Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.
Kudos to the district and the union. The strings attached to this money are way out of line. Teaching to standardized tests is not an acceptable curriculum strategy. How can you even rely on a child revealing their true capabilities on such a thing. When we were in school we used to make designs on the scantron for the CAT.