Rochester School Board To Consider Offering Limited Schools of Choice
Allowing some students from outside the district to enroll in Rochester Schools would help the district meet "Best Practices" incentives offered by the state.
Rochester Board of Education members will consider Monday night a resolution that would "dip the district's toes" into Schools of Choice.
The resolution would allow six students from outside the Rochester Community Schools geographic boundaries to enroll in the district's Alternative Center for Education (ACE) program next semester.
That six-student limit would be for the second semester only; the board would need to review the Schools of Choice program at the beginning of next school year.
The resolution was spurred by a series of "Best Practices" incentives that the state of Michigan offered to Michigan school districts before the 2012-13 school year. If district's meet seven of eight prescribed best practices, they will receive an added per-pupil stipend; in Rochester, that amounts to $52 per student, or about $780,000.
A Schools of Choice program, where nonresident students are allowed to attend school in a district, is one of those best practices.
At a recent meeting where board members first learned about the proposed resolution, interim Superintendent Tresa Zumsteg said this limited Schools of Choice program would allow Rochester to be "dipping our toe" in welcoming nonresident students.
The Board of Education meets at 7 p.m. in the Harrison Room of the School Administration Building.
Also on the agenda:
- An Academic Spotlight on Hampton Elementary School's Common Core Pilot Program.
- A Spotlight on Success with the district's art teachers.
- The swearing-in of new board member Michael Zabat.
- The purchase of five new school buses for not more than $469,105.
Mike Reno
8:23 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Interesting on several levels.
First, it's a clever way to skirt the intent of the law... and game the system.
But more than that, it comes at an odd time. The public education establishment has been in a tizzy over proposals in Lansing that will allow education choice, with wild claims that it will destroy public education.
Where is the outrage over how this move will "destroy" public education? After all, this is "stealing" revenue from the home districts of these six students.
Joshua Raymond
1:33 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Mike, interestingly, because of the program chosen, each enrollee will cost RCS at least $4000 more than the per pupil funding that will transfer with the student.
diane glinski
9:49 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Jeez, Mike, never has a case been stated better. If the board had a moral compass at all, it would turn up its nose on $780,000 just to make a point. A point I'm sure Lansing would take note of...
Then again, maybe it's just a case of the board playing the hand they were dealt.
Mike Reno
4:29 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
I didn't say it was a bad business decision... in fact I distinctly said it was clever. I'm just giggling at the hypocrisy.
Joshua Raymond
11:04 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Perhaps Debbi Hartman can provide more info, but I believe that three of the spots are full time students physically present at ACE and three of the spots are online education at home administered through ACE. The district only needs to make these spots available, not actually have any applicants or enrollees.
I found the resignations of Mrs. Geraldine Moore and Mrs. MaryBeth Garcia also of interest. They have been a wonderful assets to our schools and I wish them all the best in retirement.
Debra Hartman
1:06 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Districts must meet 7 of 8 “Best Practices” to receive the $52 per pupil incentive. The district was doing all but #3 and #8. The PE requirement could not be completed this year due to the restructuring of instructional programs that would be required. Therefore, the administration recommended that the Board of Education implement #3. The district is in full compliance with Section 105 of the State School Aid Act, MCL 388.1705 in its implementation of “school of choice” for 2nd semester.
1.Hold policy on medical benefit plans (if directly employed by district);
2.Obtain competitive bids for the provision of 2012-13 non-instructional services;
3.Accept applications for enrollment of non-resident pupils under Section 105 or 105c;
4.Monitor individual pupil academic growth in each subject area at least twice during the school fiscal year using competency based online assessments;
5.Support opportunities for pupils to receive postsecondary credit while attending secondary school;
6.Offer online instructional programs or blended learning opportunities to all eligible pupils;
7.Provide a link on district’s home page to the url for the MiSchoolData portal or provide data elements on website consistent with the MiSchoolData tables;
8.Provide physical education consistent with the 2003 state board policy on quality physical education, or provide health education consistent with the 2004 state board policy on comprehensive health education.
Joshua Raymond
1:22 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Debbi, thank you very much for this information! If I recall correctly from the BOE meeting, the district initially believed that it was meeting #8 and just realized that it was not and to secure the additional funding, #3 would have to be implemented instead.
I would be very interested in learning more about #4, "Monitor individual pupil academic growth in each subject area at least twice during the school fiscal year using competency based online assessments." Is this occurring for every student, are these assessments available to the parents of the students, and do they assess proficiency of a student to the grade level standards or provide an academic grade level equivalent for each subject? In other words, if a third grade student is struggling in reading and very exceptional in math, would the results be reported similar to 10% correct in reading and 100% in math or reading at a 2.2 grade level and math at a 4.6 grade level?
Coco Chanel
2:12 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
The whole Idea of this makes me nervous. I do not want the "problem" children from other districts coming into my child's school. Is there a screening process? Also, does this child from outside of the district, affect a child within the district's ability to attend certain schools? I may have to attend this meeting to get my questions answered.
Joshua Raymond
2:30 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Coco, I encourage everyone to attend Board of Education meetings so that you can know what is occurring in your schools, meet the decision-makers, and add your voice.
The policy this is under requires the Board of Education to vote yearly about which programs or schools will have spots available and the number available. The programs and availability can change from year to year. Under this policy, "nondiscrimination shall apply to all applicants under this program. In addition, the District will not refuse enrollment on the basis of an applicant's intellectual,
academic, artistic, athletic, or other ability, talent, or accomplishment, or lack thereof, or based on a mental or physical disability."
However, "The District may refuse to enroll a nonresident applicant if the applicant has been suspended from another school in the preceding two (2) years, has been expelled from another school, or has been convicted of a felony."
The six spots submitted this year by the administration are in the ACE program, an alternative education environment for students in grades 10 through 12 who are at risk of not graduating. Three are for full time students physically present at ACE and three of the spots are online education at home administered through ACE.
My understanding is that district students have first priority. Full schools of choice would also allow excellent students from other districts looking for better opportunities to come here.
Kristin Bull
4:08 pm on Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The limited Schools of Choice resolution was approved by board members Monday night. The administration team will begin advertising the open spaces within the next week. The board will be required to review the Schools of Choice policy each year.
Will Hanson
7:06 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Why is the school board purchasing the new buses? Shouldn't the contractor be responsible for providing the buses and completing the maintenance on these units? Seems like this was the point of reducing costs and overhead in the school transportation program.