Parents would actually pull their children out of public and put them into Charter Schools if they don't get their way. Sounds like bullying to me. I say go ahead send your child to a Charter School. YOU will have to drive them (no bus service) to a school where they will know probably nobody. Then in the afternoon, stop what you're doing and go pick you child up. And when your child asks you why can't they go to the school that the others are going to, I hope you reply, "Because Mom and Dad didn't get their way."

Regardless of which school the kids go to in the district they should get the same quality of education. If Hulsing is to receive 162 new students I believe that will put them over 100%. Does that mean they will get a portable or "art on a cart"?

Thank you, saidmypeace. This is the problem with the process that's being used here. No one wants to change and so each time there is a proposal, those that are most affected scream loudly, send e-mails, and address the board. The board caves and proposes something else. We can't make everyone happy. They need to list and prioritize the things that NEED to be changed and make sure that the important needs are met. Some people HAVE to move. This process has turned into a circus and the board is looking incompetent.

This is getting to be nuts. I understand it is a tough decision, but MAKE the decision and then stand by it. Some people have already told their kids they were going to another school next fall and shown them the new school. Now, changing again???

@saidmypeace and CantonParent - up until last night's newest proposal, the proposals on the table were shifting about half of the current Allen population (at least 150 students) out of Allen and into Hulsing in order to make room at Allen for current Fiegel students. The overall number of students that will be moved into Hulsing over the various propositions has not changed as much as the school they are coming from.

I attended the meeting. The Allen parents were not threatening to send their children to charter schools last night. This article is incorrect. A few Allen parents spoke and asked the board to consider the new proposal. The majority of comments made last night were from parents whose children who will be affected by the new Smith/Isbister/Tonda/Gallimore boundaries. Those parents were threatening to move to a charter schools.

Nancy Conzelman- your response which includes, "Parents are making very serious decisions every day to move their kids out of public schools due to lack of rigor in the curriculum and increasingly lower expectations for student achievement" is very inaccurate. In fact, quite the opposite is occurring in our public schools. Have you informed yourself on the new Common Core recently? Have you reviewed the required assessments that are being handed down from Lansing? The bar is being raised continuously on student achievement and the state is moving towards national standards so in my opinion it is not a lack of rigor in curriculum or lower expectations for students, it is headed full steam ahead in the opposite direction. Public school teachers are given numerous in-services on these ever-changing times and are being prepared to implement these changes effectively in the classrooms. Before you bash public schools, take a minute to educate yourself on the true curriculum and state mandated standards.

Are they going to post the new boundary maps?

I'm confused as to why any option was presented that increases class size. Why is this necessary when we have empty classrooms across the district? Also the Board previously voted to approve a Young 5's program and it is well known that there is a huge need for more TAG classrooms. It follows then that the board can not pass any option that doesn't allow room for these programs.

How does the new option effect the smith students to gallimore proposal?

I am sympathetic to all of the parents and children that are being asked to change. I don't know all of the numbers of kids being moved to and from the various schools and I don't blame the Allen parents for being angry and asking for change. I'm just saying that someone is going to be angry no matter what the boundaries look like. The redistricting proposals are being made in response to parent complaints instead of to address high priority changes that need to be made in the district. I wish the board/district would list the top priorities in order and then show how they are being addressed by each map. We don't all have to agree on the priorities (overcrowding, TAG, bus routes, free/reduced lunch etc.), but at least we would see what they are using to make their decisions. I think they are randomly reacting to feedback and have lost sight of the priorities.

Let me clarify that not one Allen parent said they would move their children to Charter Schools! Watch the tape. Mr. McKay, please correct this in your story.

My concern is if they start raising class sizes it isn't going to matter what new upgraded curriculum they have in place, it will not be effective the closer the student to teacher ratio gets to 30 per class. The few who stated they will leave the district for charter or private school last night if their child changes schools will be the least of the districts worries. It will be the silent hundreds that will leave because of their child gets little to no facetime with their teacher. Doesn't matter much which school my child goes to just give them the education they deserve. I will teach them to deal with the rest. In most cases kids will handle the moves better than the parents ever dreamed of.

I was at the meeting, and I can assure you that no parent of Allen children threatened to move them to a charter school last night. The author of this story has his facts wrong. I strongly urge that he print a correction before any more animosity gets thrown in the wrong direction.

Nancy from the beginning redistricting is due to declining enrollment and all day kindergarten. Regardless of your opinion on the TAG program, this district needs it. The students need it.

I agree that the redistricting began to address declining enrollment and all day kindergarten. I also agree that TAG is good for the district. However, Nancy is correct that the district/board should show their priorities: class size, transportation, TAG, etc. and propose maps that best meet the top priorities. We don't have to all agree that TAG is a high priority, but the district/board should make it clear that this IS a top priority (above class size, overcrowding, etc.). Parent complaints should not be on the list of reasons to change a map.

@saidmmypeace - in simply the study, it was shown that Workman was over 90% utilization before full day K with Dodson a stone's throw away with many empty classrooms. There has been no official reason given as to why there is no proposition that redistributes the student population between those 2 schools. I'm not against TAG or the expansion of the TAG program. But I find the lack of proposion to redistribute general population students to the empty classrooms at Dodson as a glaring example of the hollowness of the 'goal' to right-size the district.

I encourage everyone to view the video from last night’s meeting if you were not there. You will find out the truth, and see that there are numerous errors in Mr. McKay’s story along with the negative slant put upon Allen and the Allen families. Here are a few:
• Not one parent from Allen threatened to remove their student(s) from the PCCS system to a Charter School.
• That 4.10.12 option #1 can be blended with options 2, 3, or 4. Meaning if the board votes “yes” to this option they will still have to take a vote on option 2, 3, or 4. Therefore, 4.10.12 option #1 is to be viewed separate/independent of options 2, 3, or 4.
.......to be continued.....I was too wordy for one post....

.....continued....
• In Option #2, 3, and 4; ½ of Allen’s students are forced out of Allen to make room for incoming students. However, it is only listed as a con in option #2; please see quote “However, Option No. 2 makes significant changes to the Allen, Bird, Smith and Isbister elementary boundaries and leaves more than 20 empty classrooms throughout the district.” This con statement listed in option #2 does not appear in option #3 or #4; even though the same boundary change to Allen is being proposed in option #3 and 4. This is not just coming from Mr. McKay this is the way the school administration is presenting it.
• Allen school is not the only elementary school asking for fairness, or for their voice to be heard and considered. By Mr. Maloney and Mr. Horvath asking to add 4.10.12 option #1 to the mix is the right thing to do. It shows the Allen families possible fairness just as option #3 and 4 shows possible fairness to other schools’ families that would be affected.
• Majority of the cons listed in 4.10.12 Option #1 would be the same cons for Allen if there is a “no” vote on this option. Therefore, making these cons moot.

Nobody but the school board members have a choice in these decisions. All we can do as a community is to voice our opinion and there is nothing wrong with that, it shows we are involved and that we care. I would be shocked if nobody said anything during this time when the board members have big decisions to make.

Valerie:

I will address these point-by-point:
* I clarified the point about Allen parents and will review the video when it is available. A clarification is now noted at the bottom of the story.
* In the story, 4.10.12 Option No. 1 was not intended to be listed as an autonomous plan. I can add additional wording to clarify this point.
* I did address significant changes in Options 2, 3 and 4 in the story:

"Under the three scenarios, Allen families face more drastic changes, as well as Bird, Smith and Isbister elementary schools."

No negative "slant" was intended toward Allen parents; the new option does, however, present a more ideal situation for Allen families and many Allen parents spoke in favor of the plan, as stated here.

I did see that some of the cons could be considered moot for 4.10.12, including the "islands," so they were omitted from this story in favor of mentioning increases to class sizes and further splitting of Fiegel students.

John, did you verify that all of those parents in the photo were Allen parents? I see some Allen parents. But, I see several from other schools. I just don't understand why you are not covering the complete story. Most of the public comments had nothing to do with Allen Elementary or the new proposal. I'm puzzled and the only conclusion that I can come to is that you were not listening well or that you are trying to cause drama in our community.

The only real news from the meeting yesterday DID have to do with Allen Elementary school and the one new boundary proposal. I think it is the parents that are creating the drama, not John. He's done a great job of reporting on the issue and get information to us quickly. Who cares if parents did (or didn't) threaten to take their kids to the Charter Schools if the boundaries are changed? It's a legitimate option if someone isn't happy with what is being offered by the Plymouth Canton Schools. I'm not an Allen parent, but I didn't feel there was any negativity towards those parents in the article. If anything, I think the fact that the Allen parents were there and were speaking out about the issue is a positive thing. There were obviously a group of Allen parents photographed in the picture. What's the big deal?

I didn't say that his reporting was false. I said that it was incomplete. There were only 3 or 4 people (parents and one teacher) who spoke about the Allen proposal. The rest of the 50+ comments were about other schools and boundary issues. The few Allen parents spoke briefly about support of the new proposal. Most of the Allen parents did not know about the proposal and were not in attendance. The picture is misleading because of most of the people pictured are not part of the Allen.

CantonParent, did you read the first comment to this article? The one accusing Allen parents of "bullying" the board by threatening to take their kids to charter schools? This was based on an unfortunate, incorrect statement in Mr. McKay's original article. Obviously people took the wrong impression from the original article, and I am glad it has been retracted.

And, I still think (especially with this headline) that it portrays an image of a community meeting in which predominantly Allen parents spoke overwhelmmingly in support of this new proposal. That is just absolutely not correct. Very little time was spent on the proposal and there were very few public comments about Allen. The reality is that this new proposal is a surprise to most of the Allen community.

I support option 2 and am looking forward to the board's final decision on the 24th. John has done a fine job reporting on this sensitive subject. Thank you John.

Nice way to make kids feel like they are not welcomed. Pathetic

Allen parents didn't have any negative remarks at the meeting specifically last night, but some of them have at other times. What should matter most is that ALL the kids in the district get the education they deserve and what their parent's tax dollars pay for. I agree that the maps should have been done first, then looked at how and where changes should have be made. If they had done that first maybe everyone would be at the schools closest to them and it would have affected everyone, not just a few schools. Charter schools shouldn't be the only blamed for lowered enrollment, maybe if the district didn't allow "school of choice" within the district. Go to your home school and if you don't like it (or the people you live around), maybe you should move.

I find it perplexing that no attention has been paid to the fact that the adminstration recognized that least one school (Bird, I believe) did not have sufficient space in which the children can take cover in the event of a tornado. In fact, I believe that the exact quote was that they "make it work". While I understand that the parents of the school in question do not want their children to move schools, what about the potential danger if the drill were to actually be a real tornado and you have kids stashed in bathrooms, etc., [possibly without proper adult supervision, due to insufficient space in the area in which the student should be taking cover? The fact that this discussion is focusing on whether the Allen parents or the parents from other schools threatened to move their children to charter/private schools is ridiculous. The focus should be on maximizing our childrens' educational experience and their safety. The rest is gossip. I have to say that I was disappointed that Mr. McKay did not address this issue.

It might not have been said at the latest forum, but at the March 13th forum an Allen parent did say if the boundaries do change, she and her husband would send their child to a private school.

I was at the meeting on Thursday. All parents regardless of what school they represented, were exercising their public right to voice their opinion. This helps our school board to make good decisions to support our schools. This wonderful democratic right to express how you feel should be met with thoughtful discussion. I hope the board members will work together, have a thoughtful discussion and remember their orginial mission.

With Option 2 we are slated to move from Smith School to Gallimore. Does anyone know if Gallimore would be slated to close in the future? I know they were part of the proposed closing plan with Fiegel. I would be very bummed if we have to move from Smith a school we love to Gallimore only to have to become acclimated there and have to move again if it closes in the future. This would seem like "big picture" poor planning to me.

Didn't anyone find it odd that Board Member Mike Maloney submitted a proposal, when he himself has to vote. Or that a family member of his is a teacher at Allen?

I agree with you that a change needs to be made. The overcrowding is unacceptable.

You know, when I first starting reading the posts regarding the redistricting, I thought that Nancy was a bit crazy and obsessed with TAG. Now that all of the information is coming out regarding the overcrowding at the northern schools and the lack of space for tornado shelter (are you kidding me?), I realize that she is right. I like the TAG program and I am OK with it expanding it, but why can't it stay at Miller? Dodson IS needed to relieve the overcrowding in the Plymouth schools and is probably the only real solution. Take care of that problem first and then adjust the other schools to find more room at Miller for TAG. She is also correct that the district and the board are not being clear about their priorities and intentions with this process. I have a feeling we're going to be going through all of this again next year and after that and on and on...

I am all for redistricting and using Dodson for regular classrooms to help with overcrowding, if need be. Fixing the boundaries should be top priority. I just find it interesting that Nancy always makes comments about the TAG program and thinks that it is "probably unconstitutional".

Haha...."probably unconstitutional". That's cracking me up.

Option 4.10.12 does not seem to be in the best interest of the districts goals. Class sizes should not be increased for any school. Period. In order to keep 149 Allen students from moving, this option will increase the class sizes at Hulsing by 2 for 500+ students, create an "island" for the Hulsing attendance boundaries, separate the Fiegel kids into 3 schools instead of 2, as well as increase bus times and transportation costs for the affected Allen and Fiegel kids. At a previous meeting Mr. Maloney made a remark about revisiting the Allen boundaries. I was not aware he had a family member that was a teacher at Allen. I do find it fishy that he recommended to put this option back on the table. Will he recuse himself from this vote? This option affects hundreds more kids in a negative way than the 149 Allen kids that could potentially move and goes against everything the district is trying to accomplish. Having said that, if the 149 Allen kids do move, next year when we are redistricting again these affected Allen kids should not be shuffled again.

On 3-27 Mike Maloney said he appreciates the hardship of accomodating different schools. And it is important to know that we have a structual deficit that has to be balanced and every dollar that we save w/ the closing of a bldg. or reduction in overhead it's going to be dollars going to smaller class sizes or books. BUT NOW he wants to increase overhead by approx. $150,000. annually, and increase class sizes at another school. Mr. Maloney doesn't appreciate the hardship of Allen students possibly moving to another school, he just submits a new proposal

If Allen get all of Fiegel's student but the Erikkson end..won't that mean more teachers at Allen? Class size is at 29, 30 in many classes now

Dennis, at looking at the proposals, none of them mentioned that Allen would need more teachers. If they did, I it would be presented as a con, because of the additional expense it would take. The extra teachers for the new proposal are for more than using the extra teachers from Fiegel. For displacing the Allen students I think is all logistics and which is closer for all students. This all could have been taken care of if the Board went with closing 2 schools in the first place.

So which proposal did they vote on today?

Option 4 and Option 1 passed this evening.

Well all is said and done, the Fiegel population has been disbursed and the school closed for elementary use,using thousands of dollars to update for Starkweather. There are more to come so everyone brace yourself. At some point the board will be forced to elect a sweeping redistricting involving all elementary schools. It will become a necessity - and likely at the middle school level too. No one is immune, or should be if it is what needs to be done. The balancing act needs to be handled with more fiscal responsibiltiy, and less political interference properly this year, not in January forward, so there is a rush to make a decision and keep certain parts of our school population happy, as has been done the past two years. Make the tough 5yr plan a reality and we will all have to deal with what is left, or others may opt for a different choice. It is what it is..too bad politics is taking over the needs of the students who are ultimately affected.