My name is Emily Heid, and I was a music teacher at Pattengill, Pittsfield, and Carpenter Elementary schools. Even as a young child, I knew I wanted to be a music teacher when I grew up. I pursued my goal and received a bachelors and masters degree in music education. That is why it was such a heartbreaking choice to decide to leave the education field due to burnout, not feeling valued, and impossible work conditions. When I put in my resignation with AAPS this March, I expected to be met with anger or resentment from my fellow educators, but instead I received congratulations and praise. Many educators and teachers assistants told me how they also plan to quit soon, asking me for advice on how to find a job in another field. AAPS and the state of Michigan are already facing a teacher shortage and support staff crisis, which will continue to worsen unless drastic action is made. Try leading a four hours worth of presentations back to back without a bathroom or mental break, while your audience throws things, hits or kicks you, and you have to guard the door to stop your audience from running away. That is what it is currently like being an elementary teacher during the 2021-2022 school year. We are trying to handle extreme behaviors from traumatized children. We do not have enough trained, knowledgeable teachers assistants, and our SISS staff are overwhelmed. We cannot teach our curriculum effectively due to these behaviors, and yet are still expected to complete observations, SLOs, and other evaluations. The district is expecting educators and students to perform as if the past two years of a global pandemic never happened, as if we can just pick up where we left off, and everything will be okay. Teachers are told that we need to practice “self-care” while the admin piles on more tasks and meetings on us instead of taking things off our plate. I asked other music educators in the district how they have managed to stay in this career for 15+ years, and they told me that they had to stop actually caring, and just treat it as just a job that gives you a paycheck, otherwise it is just too exhausting and frustrating. One of the reasons I chose to work for AAPS was due to your commitment to equity, welcoming and supporting all learners of all races, genders, religions, orientations, etc. We spent hours in professional development with Dr. Sealey-Ruiz, learning how we can fight systemic oppression and racism, offering all of our students a safe and equitable learning environment. However, AAPS is failing their low-income BIPOC students and families. AAPS divides funds and staff equally based on the amount of students per school, which on paper seems great, but there is a significant difference between equity and equality. Small schools, such as Pittsfield, only receive a part-time behavior intervention specialist due to the amount of FTE allotted per student, however, they have some of the greatest behavioral needs as a low-income, diverse Title 1 school. Teachers in richer areas of Ann Arbor receive $600-800 annually from their PTO, while teachers in lower-income areas receive $200-300 annually. If AAPS truly wants to support students of color, they need to start evaluating how they allot funds and FTE to ensure that all students are receiving what they need to be successful, which looks different depending on the school. If you treat each student and teacher as just a number on a spreadsheet, you are failing them. I miss my students greatly. I miss sitting in a circle and singing our songs together or playing ukulele with them, showing how wonderful instruments can be. But I do not miss being assaulted by students, losing my voice, experiencing insomnia and panic attacks, and working weekends to finish my lesson plans. I do not miss feeling undervalued and like just a number on a spreadsheet. Please start valuing your teachers before it is too late and there are none left. |
Trustee Gaynor’s statement to AAPS BOE 4.27.2022
While the subject of my statement will be related to Wednesday’s staff Professional Development session, I want to make clear I’m speaking to and about the Board’s responsibility. I include myself as complicit in supporting a culture in which we gloss over problems and shy away from addressing them in meaningful ways.
Equity work is extremely important, and the Board has given its full support to the administration as it rolls out our efforts. The current initiative is at least four years old. Dr. Sealey-Ruiz, who has presented at I believe 6 Professional Development sessions to staff has an extremely important message to impart: that we need to love every one of our students, that we must have the cultural literacy to do so, and that we must reflect on our implicit biases so that we can do so successfully. Note that all sessions were primarily lecture only with minimal feedback by staff. I attended many of them, and value the message and information, though I do feel two sessions would have been sufficient, with the others devoted to building level work where staff could address these vital and complex issues in a practical way. However I didn’t speak up clearly on this early on.
Something went awry last Wednesday. Apparently Dr. S-R expected a larger turnout during the community session the night before and she criticized teachers and other staff for not attending. When teachers explained., the criticism continued, and the chat ‘blew up.’ At that point chat was turned off, which upset the staff even more, as they felt they were being silenced. There was an apology afterwards, but Dr. S-R continued to criticize the district and teachers based on … well, I’m not sure what – but it was ill informed. If it was based on accurate information and made teachers uncomfortable, then so be it. But this was clearly not the case. If it was just this, it would not be on us. What magnified the harm was that there was not effective correction from the administration, the ones who had the information and controlled the Zoom session.
And then it took over 24 hours for the administration to issue a half-hearted apology, no doubt well vetted by the time it was released. It was unspecific, and avoided responsibility. “We sincerely regret the confusion and hurt caused as a result of the statements made.” There was no statement of apology. There was no explanation of what was done wrong, and here I mean by the district, as to how it should have been handled. There was no statement of what we are going to do to make amends. There was no admission of wrong doing. And there was no request for forgiveness.
I want to thank those who spoke up about what happened at public commentary. One point I want to be clear about is that we have to do more than give lip service to the concerns of staff and others. We can’t just say, “We hear you,” and continue on as we are.
So, now I am finally getting to my point. WE, the board, are complicit. We are responsible. We supported the foundation for this to happen. And maybe we’re ok with it. If we continue as we have been, clearly we are.
We were not present on Wednesday, at least not most of us. So what could we have done? Nothing, at that point. We don’t micro-manage, nor should we. But we oversee the district. We are responsible for the culture in the district, and it is that by which we are complicit.
Let me be specific. Equity is important to all of us. In fact, we mention it as being part of every decision we make. We certainly talk about it a lot. But often that’s all we do – say the word. To the point where I am not sure it has any meaning at all. Have we had a discussion of the hard and complex aspects? Not at this table. And not at the school level involving in depth discussions among staff. What we have done is hire people – good people for sure – to talk AT staff. First we brought in a superintendent from the state of New York, twice, to talk to administrators. This was four years ago. This year we hired an esteemed academic to talk AT teachers six times. I trust teachers and principals are dealing with real issues of equity at the school level; But I haven’t seen the evidence.
As a Board we set policy and give direction to the district. Have we taken a responsible look at this process given direction, asked hard questions, questioned why it’s taken four years at this glacial pace? How much of our work is performative, checking off the boxes? On this and other issues – concerns with our Special Education performance comes to mind, do we monitor what is happening – more than superficial annual data reports? For Special Ed, we have not. The draft of the Hanover Report – a comprehensive review of Special Education, has been languishing for over 3 years. Do we make sure the work involves interactions between those who matter the most – our teachers and our students? Are we truly responsive?
Yes, we have advisory groups – but have they ever been other than a vehicle for the administration to pretend they were getting public input, but are actually directing a predetermined decision? We have teachers and parents on these, but do we value their input? What I’ve seen is that those with independent or contrary voices get shunted to the side and eventually stop coming. Sometimes not; there were a group of Bryant Pattengill parents – not those on the committee – who resisted for a year, and convinced trustees to go against the administration’s desire. So yes, there can be active debate and conscientious decision making.
And sometimes it’s more hypocritical, and premeditated. We put together an environmental policy. We supported the creation of an environmental sustainability task force. We charged three of us – including myself – to choose members from a list of over 80 applicants. And what did we do? We vetoed arguably three of the most knowledgeable, skilled and experienced people – not only on the list, but in the city: Mike Shriberg, who was on the U-M Environmental Committee and has a resume a mile long – vetoed because he dared to criticize the district about in person schooling during Covid; Michael Garfield, director of the Ecology Center, and one who initially pushed AAPS to act, and … Missy Stults, Sustainability and Innovations Manager for the City of Ann Arbor. For the life of me, I still don’t understand how or why we didn’t select the latter two. Maybe because they were skilled and experienced and would stand up for what they believed?
In fact, are we asking hard questions at all? Certainly not at these board meetings, where we’re carefully staying on script and deflecting issues. We do carefully scripted public relations events. Oh sure, let’s highlight our best and brightest, our award winners and all. Did any of you see the speech to the school board by the HS Principal in San Angelo, Texas? He said he was told to say positive things and bring slides. But he intentionally didn’t! Instead he told the bold truth – about the state of mental health of his students and his staff. He didn’t sugar coat it. He made it clear the district was in crisis. He probably violated the culture of school boards across the country. What do WE do? We hold committee meetings in which the main function is to rehearse presentations and check for glitches; to make sure we don’t slip up and say anything that would create a problem, that would make us look bad. Oh, aren’t our slide shows just the best! We lap it up.
Why do we rarely, if ever, hear from teachers? Well, yes, they don’t have the time or energy beyond the work they do during and after school. But it’s more than that. They are afraid to speak up. They are afraid of consequences. They know that at the least they will get a talking to. They get a reputation. There have been repercussions with future assignments. You think not? How many teachers have you talked with? How many have talked openly and honestly with you? Just why are teachers so fearful? I’m not totally sure, to be honest, but I know it’s true, and I know that this is on us, because we are responsible for the culture in the district.
Of course I don’t have to go beyond the board to speak of how those who speak up are punished. I was removed from all committees, a decision made by two different board presidents. For what? For breaking the board code of conduct. For engaging with the community on Facebook; for publicly disclosing that trustees may have violated the spirit of the Open Meetings Act in a closed meeting. For… well, a myriad of reasons were stated, but without evidence. The message was clear – Go along to get along. And I have, for mny months. But I can’t do so today when the stakes are high.
So what does all this have to do with the debacle of the Professional Development session? It’s not about Dr. Sealey-Ruiz. It’s more that we have engendered a culture where every word has to be spoken carefully, vetted in several layers – and we become disingenuous. And worst of all, that we don’t even speak of complex issues in public. Sure we have individual chats with the superintendent, but here, everything is managed oh so carefully. We have it refined to a science: have a closed meeting with our lawyers and we’re not permitted to say anything at all on important issues. Mostly, we leave things to the administration. No, of course we shouldn’t micromanage, but a long term equity plan – do whatever you will; it’s not in our province. Top down management style where teachers are not given an opening to speak up – and are afraid to do so against the flow – well, we seem to be comfortable with that.
One trustee made a statement that implied that what happened at and after the PD session may affect some teachers but shouldn’t affect kids – and if it does, that’s on the teachers. But I don’t want to interpret – here is the quote: “I’m sure it impacted teachers differently depending on who the teachers are. Some teachers feel these offended teachers are making this about them and not the kids. I hope despite what happened we can continue to center children through this process and not let this one meeting derail all the work that has been done to this point.”
Our teachers are caring professionals, dedicated to their craft, and willing to do all they can to improve their knowledge, understanding and skills. But they want to be part of the process for positive change. To insinuate that they will take this out on students is at best condescending and at worst insulting. But yes, when staff has to listen to a barrage of criticism, unfair ones, and no one steps up to effectively correct the misinformation, or apologize, that will hurt morale, and that can’t help but hurt everyone in AAPS.
We, the Board, are responsible for this culture of superficiality and silence, of emphasizing our glory while minimizing problems. Of doing PR and giving lip service. Education, especially now, is not easy. But I always thought that AAPS was strong enough to confront honestly and openly the complexities and shortfalls we have.
I apologize for being complicit in sustaining such a culture, and I will try to do better.
7/27 Sat: A Restorative Day
7/27 Sat: A Restorative Day
7/26 Fri: Program over, Trip not
7/26 Fri: Program Over; Trip not
7/23 p.m.: District Six & Cape Flats
7/23: District Six & Cape Flats
7/23 Tue a.m.: Government Lecture
7/23 Tue: Government Lecture
7/22 Mon: School Visits
7/22 Mon: Thoughts
7/21: Museum Weekend
7/21: Museum Weekend
SA’s Education Crisis – Ch. 1
The day before we visit schools in Cape Town – and as I am about to write about my museum experiences this weekend – I am inserting a summary and some thoughts about Education from a recently published book
In Grahamstown one lecture concerned education in S.A. Monica Hendricks also contributed to this book of essays and had them for sale. With a 2012 copyright, this is an up to date analysis. What follows is a brief summary of some parts that made an impression.
SA’s Ed Crisis Ch 1