No goal? No plan? No millage (Part 4)

Whatever other objectives a school system may have, its primary purpose should be to educate children.  It should go without saying that the education a child receives is the foundation they will build their futures on.

It is also important to note that children only get one chance at their education.  They will only pass through elementary, middle, then high school once.  They have as good a chance repeating their education as they do repeating their first day at school.

Because kids only get once chance it's important they get the most out of it as possible.  It is also important that parents and taxpayers know the quality of the education they're paying for when considering whether to support their district administration and school board members.

With those points in mind, let's examine how Ferndale School District (FSD) students perform after 11 years of an FSD education.

According to the ACT test administered to 217 Ferndale High School (FHS) juniors, only 30% of them were proficient in reading, 43% in English, 23% math, and 17% science.  Put another way, our children are 30-45% less prepared for college and their futures than the average Oakland County student--to say nothing of international competition.

FHS is doing an especially poor job of educating its black students.  The district loudly boasts about its diversity in its literature, district reports, and web site, but is less sanguine regarding the academic performance of the high school's black students, many of whom are out-of-district students contributing more to the district's revenue than its academic proficiency.

In the same report mentioned above, white students out-perform black students in reading, math, science, social studies, and writing by 278%, 760%, 760%, 239%, and 310% respectively.  Those numbers are so dramatic every voter in the FSD should demand an explanation from the school board.  Voters should also hope the state committed a huge error collecting the data, and that the margin of error is equally large.

Without another explanation, voters are left to extrapolate the district's intentions from the evidence.  The two most damning pieces of data betraying the administration's objectives are the 46% of out-of-district students worth nearly $1.5 million annually, and the grossly disparate academic proficiency between the two demographics just in the high-school.

The numbers suggest the reason the board of education and administration want a $23 million bond to maintain school buildings with twice the needed capacity is so they can protect or increase the district's $1.5 million annual revenue stream from out-of-district students (1205 from Detroit alone).   A revenue stream so compelling the district considered spending $8 million on the contaminated Hayes-Lemmerz property so it may be converted into an adult-education and charter-school campus capable of housing even more out-of-district students.

The longer voters look at the numbers, the easier it is to reject the school bond, and even easier to reject the school board and the superintendent.

Don't just vote, "No," on Tuesday--vote "Heck no."  And let's begin an honest, open dialog about how our school district may be right-sized, re-purposed, and re-committed to the task of preparing our community's children for the future.

Voting no is the responsible vote.

No goal? No plan? No millage. (Part 3)

Will renewing the bond increase property taxes?

The answer is yes--but it won't increase your tax bill--yet.

Supporters of the bond seem to think taxpayers can be fooled into thinking the $23 million will appear from thin-air.  They want voters to believe they have only to say yes to a $23 million handout, so why would anyone vote no?

Let's use an example to better explain how taxes will be increased, then later visit some legislation that may put Ferndale School District taxpayers at risk for having their taxes increased even more.

A simple example

Let's pretend your monthly mortgage payment (principle and interest) is $1000 and you have only two more years to go before your mortgage is paid-off.  That means that in 24 months your income will increase $1000/month, or $12,000/year.  That's a bigger pay increase than most people will ever see in their lifetime unless they change jobs.

Now, while still two-years away you ask your banker for an $100,000 loan.  Instead of increasing your monthly payment your banker simply adds 10 more years to the end of your mortgage.  Now, instead of getting a $1000 increase in two years you won't be getting it for 12 years.  With interest included you'll have given your banker another $120,000 that would have gone into your pocket.

Did your mortgage go up or stay the same?

For the purposes of this article we'll skip considering that your house is only worth $200,000 and that it's twice as big as it needs to be, your utilities expenses are twice as big as they need to be, your carbon foot-print is twice what it should be, and you spend twice as long cleaning it than you would a home rightsized to your family's size.  Given all that, does it make sense to borrow $100,000 in the first place?

How you may be at risk for increased monthly payments

On December 14, a Detroit News editorial urged readers to keep school bond debt in-check. It starts:

Because of sinking property tax revenues, more and more school districts have turned to a state revolving loan fund to help them meet payments on bonds they sold for new construction or remodeling buildings. Obligations in that fund have shot up to $1.2 billion during the real estate crisis, or the equivalent of $60 per student, and are threatening to more than double in the next 10 years.

Using our example from above, if a school district has to pay $1000/month to its bond holders but when property values drop and the district can only afford to pay $700/month, the state School Aid Fund lends money to the district to make up the $300/month difference.

The money for making up the difference between falling property values, the taxes they generate, and what school districts owe has ballooned to $1.2 billion--and because that money comes out of the school-aid fund, there is $60 less per-student to spend on books, curriculum, equipment, and teachers.  You know, the things that have a far greater impact on our children's education than decorating.

A problem under the existing rules is that school districts can roll their state debt into new bond issues for additional construction projects before the old bonds are paid off. State repayment thus can get extended past 30 or 40 years. The state, meanwhile, has issued general obligation bonds to raise the money it loaned the school districts and long since repaid the general obligation bonds.

That should sound familiar.  The Ferndale School District hasn't paid-off a single single bond since at least 1995, and the proposed bond will extend our indebtedness out 29 years--to 2041.

To keep school district bonds from eating further into per-pupil spending, Lansing is considering new legislation. 

Pending Senate legislation (SB-770)would rein in these practices not just by putting a $1.5 billion lid on the total the state could allow school districts to borrow. 

It also would require school districts involved in the state program to at least once a year recalculate the millage rate they use to pay off their construction bonds. A school district would have to raise its millage rate whenever necessary to meet the principal and interest payments on its bonded indebtedness.  

When asking voters to approve a bond proposal, the school district would have to notify them that the proposed millage rate wouldn't necessarily remain the same, but actually could go higher.

This is an easy law to support.  It would require school districts to actually pay for their renovation projects without borrowing money from students.  The bite is that when property values fall taxpayers may be required to pay more.

Our $1000/month may go up when we can least afford it--when our property values are falling.

Given this background, it's more important than it has been that taxpayers hold their school boards and administrations accountable for student performance.  The relationship between schools and property values is student performance and property values, and a strong inverse relationship between standardized test scores and foreclosure rates--the higher the scores the lower the foreclosure rate.

Without our district's board and administrators having a clear goal to increase our community's student performance, and a clearer goal for achieving that objective, taxpayers should vote no on the new school millage.

No goal? No plan? No millage. (Part 2)

At Sunday's issue forum (now available on YouTube) I recommend voters say, "Not now," as in, "Vote no," on the school millage proposal on February 28th.  I recommend "not now" so voters will have the time to get some important questions answered from both administrators and school board members.

Questions like:

• Why are 1-in-4 Ferndale district students' parents choosing to send their kids to other districts?  Why are the numbers 1-in-10 for Royal Oak and 1-in-25 in Berkley?
• Do (low) district-wide test scores reflect our community's commitment or the district's commitment to educating our children?
• Should nearly half (47%) of our district's enrollment be coming from out-of-district?
• What are the district's objectives for increasing student proficiency and college preparedness?
• What is the district's plan to achieve those objectives and when will students, parents, and taxpayers see those results?

In Rob Bokram's closing remarks at Sunday's forum, he said, "For 40 years Ferndale has consistently supported millages and the citizens have rallied around every single millage proposal because they recognize the value of doing so."

Not true.

In 2003 Ferndale districts taxpayers voted-down a millage proposal, and in doing so, sent a message to the school board, administration, and bond supporters that sometimes more time is necessary to make a better case.  Overlooking 2003's election isn't Mr. Bokram's fault, and I don't point it out to discredit him, but to remind voters they've voted "not yet" before, and should do so again on February 28th.

From Ferndale Patch (13Dec2011)

Since Meier has been superintendent at Ferndale, he has attempted two bonds: one in 2003 and one in 2004. The 2003 bond failed because, he said, there may not have been enough time to get the information into the community.

After giving both voters and the district more time, the bond request passed in 2004 by a 3-to-2 margin.

Now's a better time for Ferndale voter's to repeat their 2003 decision, and vote "No."  Or if you prefer, and I recommend, "Not yet," on Tuesday, February 28th.

No goal? No plan? No millage. (Part 1)

Sunday's issue forum on the $23 million school bond proposal should be available soon on youtube.  During the discussion, pro-bond supporter and member of Citizens for Quality Schools, Robert Bokram, took issue with some of my numbers (available here for anyone to review).  He insisted that Ferndale's core K-12 program is populated with 87% in-district students.

Let's pretend his number is correct.  Does that number reflect any better on our community's schools?  Do we really believe that our community's students, after 13-years of a Ferndale School District education are only capable of a 36% proficiency in math?  53% in reading?  54% in science?

I would expect that if we believe Mr. Bokram's number is accurate, our community should be embarrassed that its dedication to its school system, that $62 million spent since 1995, and another $23 million proposed in two weeks has only managed to educate our students--to prepare them for their future--so disproportionately less-achieving than two other districts that share a boundary with ours.

Again, voters must ask themselves what is the district's goal for our students?  What is its plan to achieve that goal?  If there is a goal and there is a plan, is that goal and plan to increase our student's readiness for college and jobs in health-care, engineering, alternative power, or other high-tech industries our state is trying to grow?

The good news, if you can call it that, is that Ferndale is performing better than either Oak Park or Hazel Park.  But with those two districts performing near the bottom, we should be careful not to brag too much.

Vote "No" on Ferndale School District Millage

With voting day (February 28th) only a couple weeks away, it's time some facts regarding the Ferndale School District are published so they may be discussed and voters' better informed whether raising their taxes to cover another $22.8 million to chase down the $62 million preceding it in recent years is a good investment.. or not.

Watch your porch for this month's issue of Ferndale Friends, which includes two op-ed pieces arguing for and against the millage.  One is from Citizens for Quality Schools' representative Robert Bokram, and the other is written by myself.

Earlier today, The Ferndale Review published excerpts of an email exchange I had with Review reporter Charles Sercombe.  In it I discuss a few reasons I'm opposed to the millage.  More complete (but still word-limited) reasons are in the Ferndale Friends article.

Citizens for a Fair Ferndale is sponsoring a forum to inform voters on the ballot issue this Sunday, February 12, from 2-3PM at the Ferndale Public Library.  You can either wait until then to ask your questions, or post them here or at the Ferndale Review.  If you post them here, I'll do my best to provide timely answers.

To my knowledge the Ferndale Patch has not investigated or reported any anti-millage sentiments.

Vote "No" on February 28 School Bond Proposal

[Note: This article originally appeared in the February 2012 edition of Ferndale Friends] 


Regardless the virtues proposed for school bond proposals, each must be critically examined to determine if the fanfare and marketing that precede them isn’t intended to distract voters from serious questions school districts would rather not discuss.

Such is the case with this February’s ballot question asking Ferndale School District voters for  $23 million and another 10 years’ property tax that won’t be paid off until 2033.

Some of the questions the district doesn’t want to discuss, and I have the emails from the Superintendent, Director of Public Relations, and Executive Director of Curriculum Instruction to prove it include:

• Why won’t they provide per-building expenses and revenue so residents may consider board policies, budget, maintenance, or even new construction?
• Why haven’t they appraised district buildings to verify if the $53 million in assets isn’t actually worth much less than that?
• What does it say for the district when 46% (nearly half) of its students don’t live in the district (1205 from Detroit) and nearly one-third of in-district students don’t attend Ferndale public schools?
• What would be the best strategy be going forward if the board and voters focused on the 2096 district students remaining?
• How will Ferndale Schools ever positively impact property values when the schools perform poorly on standardized tests, due in-part to its out-of-district students?
• Is borrowing $23 million for repairs to facilities not likely worth the $53 million the district has on the books the best use of taxpayer money for 2096 students?
• Why should the board obligate taxpayers to a $23 million bond when area property values barely cover $13 million?

By the numbers, the ballot question deserves a resounding no-vote from taxpayers.  But more important is what taxpayers deserved from the district.

For instance, taxpayers deserve to know which schools generate revenue and which do not, and as importantly, they need to know how much the district profits from schools-in-the-black vs how much it loses on schools-in-the-red.  Facts like this would help residents better weigh if the district’s commitment to University High and Taft are truly in the interest of education or in the interest of profits.  It would help residents better understand why the school district turns a deaf ear to residents complaining of vandalism, reckless driving, loitering, and drug use near Taft.

One of the arguments in-favor of the passing the bond is that an investment in schools is sure to increase property values.  If there was indeed a direct relationship between spending on buildings and property values residents should ask why stop at $23 million?

The more direct relationship is between academic performance and property values.  Fair or not, most potential home buyers purchase school districts, not houses.  Long before they drive-by Ferndale’s tree-lined streets they’ll look at MEAP and ACT scores to see if its worth $3.50/gallon to make the trip.  

Lastly (not really, but there’s a word limit in these articles), as the bond obligates taxpayers until 2033 the district ought to provide a plan with enrollment and maintenance expenses projected at least 10-years into the future.  And as Ferndale’s population loss has been primarily in the under-18 age group since the 1970 census and with increasing numbers of parents choosing to send their children to other districts, the district had better devise a plan with more realistic expectations than they used for 1995’s $47 million bond, some of which was spent on buildings that were closed in 2002’s consolidation.

District taxpayers, residents, and parents deserve a 10-year plan, and a superintendent making over $200,000/year for a less-than-six-square-mile district should be capable of delivering it.

So until these questions can be answered in writing, with an appraisal of the district’s assets, a budget showing per-school revenues and expenses, and a plan to address our schools’ academic performance, taxpayers should vote no and not give the benefit of the doubt to either the board or an administration that doesn’t give the benefit of transparency to its taxpayers.

Sources:
https://www.mischooldata.org/DistrictSchoolProfiles/StudentInformation/Headcount/Snapshot.aspx
http://www.city-data.com/city/Ferndale-Michigan.html
http://www.ferndaleschools.org/administration/links/2004Bond_webArchives.pdf
http://www.ferndaleschools.org/administration/bond_faq.html
http://www.ferndaleschools.org/administration/links/bond/Bond_BoardApproved_PressReleaseAug2011_.pdf
2010 MEAP, ACT, and MME data from the State Department of Education

"It's f***ing cold!"

The following story first appeared as a comment to a story reported in The Ferndale Patch.  I'm repeating here because a) it cracks me up and b) it's easier for me to find here than there because of the swearing.

About four years ago when our youngest was three, my neighbor Mike (and he'll confirm this) and his wife were over for dinner. Mike and I were out tending the grill in the cold with our coats on, drinking beers, and talking out-of-earshot of the spouses.

The youngest comes out on the deck and declares, "It's f***ing cold out here."

??!!??

I don't know what expression Mike had on his face but I felt my ears get HOT.

Not believing what I heard, I asked my son to repeat himself. "What did you say?"

"I said, 'It's f***ing cold out here.'"

I still didn't believe such a word would escape his lips, so I had him come off the deck, onto the driveway, look right into my face, and asked him to repeat himself very s-l-o-w-l-y. He looked at me like I was deaf and declared clearly and slowly for all to hear...

"IT'S F***ING COLD OUT HERE."

"I can hardly wait to see how you handle this," Mike said laughing his a** off.

I put on my meanest, most serious face, used my daddy-is-really-pi**ed-off big-voice and told the little guy, "we NEVER say the words f***, f***er, or f***ing. Got it?"

He ran inside scared, cried, and I haven't heard those words from him since.

Glad it was over, and while Mike was still laughing, he and I both agreed the three-year old used the word properly in a sentence.