Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
residents of KPS which governs KPS. The Revised School Code, 1976 P.A. 451, MCL 380.1, et
seq, and Chapter XIV of Michigan Election Law, 1954 P.A. 116, MCL 168.301, et seq, govern
School, Parkwood-Upjohn Elementary, Prairie Ridge Elementary, Spring Valley Center for
Woodward School for Technology and Research, Hillside Middle School, Linden Grove Middle
2
205460594.8 31771/312209
School, Maple Street Magnet School for the Arts, Milwood Magnet School: A Center for Math,
Science, and Technology, Kalamazoo Central High School, Loy Norrix High School, Phoenix
High School, Kalamazoo Area Mathematics and Science Center, and Kalamazoo Innovative
Learning Program.
4. KPS students are eligible for a unique scholarship. The Kalamazoo Promise
provides resident graduates of the Kalamazoo Public Schools with up to 100 percent of their
tuition and mandatory fees for four years at Michigans public universities and community
colleges. It is available to students who graduate from KPS, reside in the district, and have been
KPS students four years or more. Enrollment and residency must be continuous. Students who
attend charter schools do not earn credit toward Kalamazoo Promise scholarships during the time
residents of SPS which governs SPS. The Revised School Code, 1976 P.A. 451, MCL 380.1, et
seq, and Chapter XIV of Michigan Election Law, 1954 P.A. 116, MCL 168.301, et seq, govern
7. SPS operates the following schools: Henry Doerr Early Childhood Center, Arthur
Eddy Elementary School, Chester Miller Elementary School, Handley Elementary School, Herig
Elementary School, Jessie Loomis Elementary School, Kempton Elementary School, Merrill
Park Elementary School, Jessie Rouse Elementary School, Stone Elementary School, Saginaw
Arts and Sciences Academy, Willie E. Thompson Middle School, Zilwaukee School, Arthur Hill
3
205460594.8 31771/312209
CLARK HILL PLC
Steven F. Stapleton (51571)
Gregory N. Longworth (P49249)
Marshall W. Grate (P37728)
Kaveh Kashef (P64443)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
200 Ottawa Ave. NW Suite 500
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
(616) 608-1100
glongworth@clarkhill.com
sstapleton@clarkhill.com
residents of KPS which governs KPS. The Revised School Code, 1976 P.A. 451, MCL 380.1, et
seq, and Chapter XIV of Michigan Election Law, 1954 P.A. 116, MCL 168.301, et seq, govern
School, Parkwood-Upjohn Elementary, Prairie Ridge Elementary, Spring Valley Center for
Woodward School for Technology and Research, Hillside Middle School, Linden Grove Middle
2
205460594.8 31771/312209
Protocol for School Ranking
54. For several decades, until the 2013-2014 school year, the State of Michigan used
55. Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, the State of Michigan stopped using
the MEAP and started using the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) as
the statewide test given to students to assess achievement and progress. The M-STEP is not
standardized because, among other things, it has not used standardized testing protocols and
56. Upon information and belief, since the change from MEAP to M-STEP, the
Michigan Department of Education has consistently informed educators and the public that it is
neither appropriate nor psychometrically sound to compare MEAP scores with M-STEP scores.
Similarly, upon information and belief, the School Reform Office initially indicated that results
from the spring 2015 M-STEP, the first administration of M-STEP, would not be used at all and
would instead be treated as a type of pilot administration. Subsequently, the School Reform
Office now asserts that the 2014-2015 M-STEP data should serve only as a baseline upon which
future M-STEP data can be compared. The Michigan Department of Education currently has the
The M-STEP is a very different test than tests administered in past years,
therefore, results should not be compared to those from prior years. Because this
is a different test measuring different standards, scores should not be compared to
scores on the MEAP test. This years M-STEP data will provide a baseline to
which future years data can be compared.
educators and the public that significant policy decisions related to priority schools would not
be made based upon comparison of the 2014-2015 M-STEP scores with prior lists, which are
10
205460594.8 31771/312209
c. There is great potential for negative effects on students where
threats of school closure themselves can have a negative impact on
students.
83. The State Reform Office has not provided to KPS or SPS any evidence suggesting
COUNT 1
UNLAWFUL REORGANIZATION
85. Under Const. 1963, art. 8, 3, the State Board of Education has at least five
functions. These functions are (1) to exercise [l]eadership and general supervision over all
public education; (2) to serve as the general planning and coordinating body for all public
therewith; (4) to appoint the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and (5) to determine the term
86. These powers, retained by the State Board of Education, give the board authority
over the Superintendent of Public Instruction and control over public education.
87. Under Const. 1963, art. 8, 3, the Superintendent of Public Instruction is the
88. PA 204 of 2009 added Section 1280c to the Revised School Code, codified at
15
205460594.8 31771/312209
40. Upon information and belief, despite legislative and executive efforts to position
the State of Michigan to qualify for the competitive RTTT grant funding, including the passage
of laws designed to be funded by RTTT funds, Michigan failed to qualify to receive any of the
41. Despite Michigans failure to qualify for any RTTT competitive grant funding,
42. In accordance with the Legislatures attempt to enhance the State of Michigans
Application for RTTT competitive grant funding, Section 1280c requires, among other things,
the following:
all public schools on the list under the supervision of the School Reform
c. The school board of each public school on the list and under the
7
205460594.8 31771/312209
d. Upon the School Reform Offices approval of the redesign plan, the
school board must implement the redesign plan and regularly submit
43. Upon information and belief, from the time of its passage to the present, the
Michigan Legislature has not authorized any appropriation to any local act school district or
44. Upon information and belief, Section 1280c imposes upon school districts the
performance of new activities and services, which increase the cost of operating the school
district.
45. Additionally, Section 1280c created the School Reform District as a separate
46. The School Reform Officer acts as the Superintendent of the School Reform
District, and accedes to all the rights, duties, and obligations of the school board with respect to
47. There are two circumstances pursuant to which a public school may be placed in
a. First, the School Reform Officer must issue an order placing a public
school into the School Reform District if the School Reform Officer does
not approve the redesign plan proposed for implementation at the public
school.
8
205460594.8 31771/312209
b. Second, the School Reform Officer must issue an order placing a public
school into the School Reform District if the School Reform Officer
48. Section 1280c provides no definition or further explanation of the meaning of the
49. Upon placement in the School Reform District, a public school ceases to be
operated by the school board elected to operate it; rather, Section 1280c grants to the School
Reform Officer all authority previously vested in the school board with respect to the public
school.
50. Executive Reorganization Order No. 2015-2 was promulgated March 12, 2015 as
Executive Order No. 2015-9, with an effective date of May 12, 2015 (the Reorganization
51. Among other things, the Reorganization Order created the School Reform Office
as an autonomous entity within the Department of Technology, Management and Budget and,
with one minor exception, purported to strip the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of all
authority granted to him under Section 1280c and endow the School Reform Office with all
authorities and duties under Section 1280c formerly granted to the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction.
52. Among the authority and duties now purportedly granted to the School Reform
Office, it is the School Reform Offices responsibility to publish the list, each and every year, to
identify the schools determined to be among the lowest 5% of all public schools in the state.
53. Upon information and belief, as part of the process of publishing the list, the
School Reform Officer must establish protocol on the procedure used to generate the list.
9
205460594.8 31771/312209
Protocol for School Ranking
54. For several decades, until the 2013-2014 school year, the State of Michigan used
55. Beginning with the 2014-2015 school year, the State of Michigan stopped using
the MEAP and started using the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP) as
the statewide test given to students to assess achievement and progress. The M-STEP is not
standardized because, among other things, it has not used standardized testing protocols and
56. Upon information and belief, since the change from MEAP to M-STEP, the
Michigan Department of Education has consistently informed educators and the public that it is
neither appropriate nor psychometrically sound to compare MEAP scores with M-STEP scores.
Similarly, upon information and belief, the School Reform Office initially indicated that results
from the spring 2015 M-STEP, the first administration of M-STEP, would not be used at all and
would instead be treated as a type of pilot administration. Subsequently, the School Reform
Office now asserts that the 2014-2015 M-STEP data should serve only as a baseline upon which
future M-STEP data can be compared. The Michigan Department of Education currently has the
The M-STEP is a very different test than tests administered in past years,
therefore, results should not be compared to those from prior years. Because this
is a different test measuring different standards, scores should not be compared to
scores on the MEAP test. This years M-STEP data will provide a baseline to
which future years data can be compared.
educators and the public that significant policy decisions related to priority schools would not
be made based upon comparison of the 2014-2015 M-STEP scores with prior lists, which are
10
205460594.8 31771/312209
58. Upon information and belief, there are no updated School Ranking Business
Rules that account for the State of Michigans transition from the MEAP test to the M-STEP.
59. Even though Defendants have a statutory duty to publish the list of priority
schools by September 1 of each year for the preceding school year under Section 1280c(a), the
School Reform Office did not publish the lists for the spring 2015 and 2016 data until
60. The 2014 and 2015 lists included Washington Writers Academy and Woodward
School for Technology and Research from KPS and Jesse Loomis School and Saginaw High
61. In the last ten years, Washington Writers Academy has averaged 95% free or
reduced-price lunch eligibility under Title I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, while Woodward School for Technology and Research has averaged 89% in the last eight
years.
62. All of the Threatened Schools had redesign plans that the School Reform Officer
approved, and KPS and SPS continue to implement those redesign plans.
63. The School Reform Officer failed to follow any of the requirements of Section
64. The State Board of Education, which is constitutionally vested with the
responsibility for [l]eadership and general supervision over all public education, has
promulgated a policy on state school turnaround (the State Board Policy), which is attached as
Exhibit 2.
11
205460594.8 31771/312209
65. Among other things, the State Board Policy sets forth a timeline for state school
turnaround and requires transparency and community involvement in the school turnaround
process.
66. On August 23, 2016, the State Board of Education Legislative Committee issued a
While school closures may be necessary in some instances, those decisions are
generally made at the local level and after much public deliberation, and include a
quality, public option for affected students. Even then, closing a school can have
many negative impacts on children, families and communities. These decisions
should not be taken lightly or made quickly without community input.
We are deeply concerned about the [School Reform Offices] lack of transparency
and community involvement in this process. Given the impact that these
decisions will have on students, parents, taxpayers and communities, we believe
that a communication process, as outlined in the SBE policy, must be
implemented immediately. This includes the SRO conducting community
meetings to inform the taxpayers of plans for their schools.
67. On January 20, 2017, the School Reform Office published the 2016 list, which
identifies schools claimed to be the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in the state based
on state test results and therefore presumably subject to the next level of accountability.
68. Each of the Threatened Schools was included in the 2016 list.
69. In the January 20, 2017 disclosure of the 2016 list, the School Reform Officer
stated:
Over the next thirty (30) days the SRO will be examining the geographic,
academic and enrollment capacity of other public school options for children. If it
is determined that closing some of the thirty-eight (38) schools at risk of closure is
not feasible due to unreasonable hardship for the children attending that school
because no better options are available, the SRO will rescind the closure notice by
February 28th and implement a different turn-around option, including naming a
CEO, changing the Redesign Plan, or placement into the State School Reform
District.
70. The School Reform Officer did not provide any statutory authority supporting the
12
205460594.8 31771/312209
71. As of this date, in support of her efforts, the School Reform Officer has only
identified legislation that is applicable to Detroit Public Schools and the creation of a new
Community District (MCL 380.391), which is not applicable to the Threatened Schools.
72. The School Reform Officer continues to take action against the Threatened
Schools even though Section 1280c does not provide for such authority.
73. As of this date, none of the Threatened Schools has been placed in the School
Reform District.
74. As of this date, KPSs and SPSs boards of educations have not recommended the
75. Also, on January 20, 2017, the School Reform Officer sent a letter to the
parents/guardians of the schools subject to closure (the Parent Letter). See Exhibit 3 (Parent
76. The Parent Letter stated that the School Reform Officer sent the letter because
the school your child attends is at risk of being closed by June 30, 2017, due to academic failure
For the next thirty (30) days we will work with your local school district and
community to finalize this decision. We will be looking at other public school
options for your child. If we determine that closing your school would create a
hardship because there are no better options at this time, we will not close the
school. You will receive an update about the decision by the end of
February/beginning of March.
78. Attached to the Parent Letter was a list of proposed options for the student. These
options included schools up to approximately forty miles away from the location of the students
current school. The School Reform Officer did not provide any options for school district
13
205460594.8 31771/312209
transportation to another school or address which other schools have a School of Choice program
or adequate capacity to absorb some, let alone all, of the students from the Threatened Schools.
79. In the Parent Letter, the School Reform Officer did not provide any statutory
authority to support her proposed actions, or the authority to send such a communication to the
parent/guardian.
80. Since disclosure of the 2016 list and the Parent Letter, the School Reform Officer
81. The February 7, 2017 edition of The Bond Buyer, a publication for public finance
authorities, indicated that the threatened school closures in Michigan school districts are a credit
negative and, therefore, have a negative impact on the districts credit rating. According to
Moodys Investor Service, the school closing process adds unpredictability to an already
volatile sector and is credit negative for the affected districts because it makes budgeting for
82. On February 14, 2017, the State Board of Education issued a Statement on School
Closures and Definition of Hardship (the SBE Statement), which is attached as Exhibit 5. In
the SBE Statement, the State Board of Education advised the School Reform Officer to rescind
14
205460594.8 31771/312209
c. There is great potential for negative effects on students where
threats of school closure themselves can have a negative impact on
students.
83. The State Reform Office has not provided to KPS or SPS any evidence suggesting
COUNT 1
UNLAWFUL REORGANIZATION
85. Under Const. 1963, art. 8, 3, the State Board of Education has at least five
functions. These functions are (1) to exercise [l]eadership and general supervision over all
public education; (2) to serve as the general planning and coordinating body for all public
therewith; (4) to appoint the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and (5) to determine the term
86. These powers, retained by the State Board of Education, give the board authority
over the Superintendent of Public Instruction and control over public education.
87. Under Const. 1963, art. 8, 3, the Superintendent of Public Instruction is the
88. PA 204 of 2009 added Section 1280c to the Revised School Code, codified at
15
205460594.8 31771/312209
B. Provides that the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall hire the School Reform
ensure that the purposes of the section are carried out. Section 1280c(9).
identifying the public schools in Michigan that the Department of Education has
determined to be among the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in the state.
Section 1280c(1).
public school on the list under the supervision of the School Reform Officer. Section
1280c(2).
E. Requires that public schools on the list work with the School Reform Officer to
recommend and develop a redesign plan, which the local school board shall
implement beginning the next school year after the School Reform Officer approves
the redesign plan. Section 1280c(2)-(5). One of the four intervention models for the
F. Requires the School Reform Officer to issue an order placing a public school that is
not achieving satisfactory results under the redesign plan in the School Reform
District, imposing one of the four intervention models (one of which is closure of the
G. Designates the School Reform Officer as the superintendent of the School Reform
H. Authorizes the School Reform Officer to appoint a chief executive officer to take
16
205460594.8 31771/312209
89. Each of the provisions and requirements of Section 1280c involve public
90. Under Const. 1963, art. 8, 3, all of these functions must be within the ultimate
91. The Reorganization Order, effective May 12, 2015, created the School Reform
Office as an autonomous entity within the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.
92. The Reorganization Order provided that the Director of the Department of
Technology, Management and Budget is the appointing authority for the School Reform Office.
93. The Reorganization Order transferred the State Reform District from the
94. The Reorganization Order transferred the State Reform Officer from the
95. The Reorganization Order transferred [a]ll authority, powers, duties, functions,
and responsibilities of the Department of Education under Section 1280c from the Department
96. The Reorganization Order transferred all authority, powers, functions, and
responsibilities of the Superintendent of Public Instruction under Section 1280c (other than the
limited authority, powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities to hear and decide appeals from
a local school board or a board of directors under Section 1280c(4)) to the State Reform Office.
17
205460594.8 31771/312209
97. The result of the Reorganization Order is that, with the exception of appeals from
a local school board or a board of directors under Section 1280c(4), all other authority, powers,
functions, and responsibilities within the ultimate control of the Board of Education under
Section 1280c are now under the ultimate control of the Department of Technology,
responsibilities of Section 1280c from the State Board of Education to the Department of
Technology, Management and Budget, the Reorganization Order violated Const. 1963, art. 8,
3.
99. The continued exercise of authority, power, functions, and responsibilities of the
School Reform Office, the School Reform Officer, the School Reform District, and any chief
executive officer that the School Reform Officer may appoint under the ultimate control of the
100. The creation of the School Reform Office within the Department of Technology,
101. All actions taken by the School Reform Officer, the School Reform Office, the
School Reform District, and any chief executive officer that the School Reform Officer may
appoint have been invalid and ultra vires and otherwise unlawful and without legal effect.
COUNT 2
SCHOOL REFORM OFFICE AND OFFICER ACTING ULTRA VIRES
103. The Threatened Schools are not part of a community district and are not a
public school academy, urban high school academy, or a school of excellence as those
18
205460594.8 31771/312209
104. As a result, the only provision of state law that gives the School Reform Officer
any authority or potential authority over the Threatened Schools is Section 1280c.
105. Under Section 1280c(6), the School Reform Officer may impose one of the four
intervention models on a public school only after the School Reform Officer has issued an order
106. The School Reform Officer has not issued an order placing the Threatened
107. In fact, the School Reform Officer has not followed the requirements of the
Revised School Code and the State School Aid Act, with which the School Reform Officers
own Operating Procedures Handbook indicates all public schools, including schools within the
108. Without placing the Threatened Schools in the School Reform District, the School
Reform Officer is without any authority or power to impose one of the four intervention models
109. Without placing the Threatened Schools in the School Reform District, the School
Reform Officer is without any authority or power to order the closure of any of the Threatened
Schools.
110. The School Reform Officers issuance of the Parent Letter to the Threatened
Schools students parents and guardians has caused and is causing irreparable injury to KPS and
SPS. For example, Plaintiffs believe that some students parents are investigating other school
options as a result of having received the letter. Numerous parents have expressed concerns and
uncertainty to KPSs and SPSs superintendents and other administrative staff and teachers.
Parents have expressed frustration with Defendants actions and threats to close the Threatened
19
205460594.8 31771/312209
Schools. Parents and teachers have expressed that many students feel insecure, scared, and
COUNT 3
DUE PROCESS
112. Section 1280c(6)s requirement that the School Reform Officer issue an order
placing a public school in the School Reform District if the School Reform Officer determines
that the redesign plan is not achieving satisfactory results does not provide fair notice of the
conduct it regulates.
113. Section 1280c(6)s requirement that the School Reform Officer place a public
school in the School Reform District if the School Reform Officer determines that the redesign
plan is not achieving satisfactory results does not provide fair notice of the conduct it regulates.
determine the public schools among the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in Michigan
does not provide fair notice of the criteria or methodology used to make that determination.
115. KPS and SPS and the Threatened Schools have not been provided fair notice of
the satisfactory results that the Threatened Schools are required to demonstrate to ensure not
being ordered into the School Reform District and thus being taken over and operated by the
116. Section 1280c(6)s requirement that the School Reform Officer issue an order
placing a public school in the School Reform District if the School Reform Officer determines
that the redesign plan is not achieving satisfactory results gives the School Reform Officer
unstructured and unlimited discretion in determining whether a public school has achieved
satisfactory results.
20
205460594.8 31771/312209
117. Section 1280c(6) is unconstitutionally vague and violates Plaintiffs due process
rights.
118. For the 2013-2014 school year, the State applied certain business rules related to
the ranking of schools in Michigan. Upon information and belief, the School Reform Office
used no business rules for the 2014-2015 school year. For the 2015-2016 school year, the State
Reform Office relied on new business rules, which were different from the prior business rules in
many respects.
119. Upon information and belief, the School Reform Officer has taken, and will
continue to take, action against the Threatened Schools even though those schools may not, in
fact, be in the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in Michigan if fair and consistent
120. In any event, even if the School Reform Officer took action on a list that included
only the lowest achieving 5% of all public schools in Michigan, the data relied on to create the
121. Each of the Threatened Schools has improved in the past three school years.
122. For example, with respect to KPSs Threatened Schools, the schools have worked
with various organizations and individual community members and educators (including the
Michigan University, Kalamazoo College, and others) and those organizations and individuals
have remarked about positive changes in school climate and culture, focus, and increases in
MAP).
21
205460594.8 31771/312209
123. As a further example, with respect to SPS, staff at Jessie Loomis Elementary and
Saginaw High School have adopted Restorative Practices to enhance their positive behavior
instructional support (PBIS) initiative. This has resulted in fewer disciplinary referrals and
suspensions. M-STEP proficiency has increased within most elementary grade levels and
graduation rates continue to demonstrate a positive trend. Moreover, Saginaw High Schools
scorecard indicates that proficiency targets were met in ELA, math, and Social Studies. Before
transitioning to the SAT in 2016, Saginaw High Schools English and reading ACT scores also
124. Due process requires that the laws regulating persons or entities give fair notice of
125. Permitting the Superintendent of Public Instruction or the School Reform Office
and the School Reform Officer to act without establishing clear, unambiguous standards not only
violates due process rights, it is fundamentally unfair to Plaintiffs and the Threatened Schools
126. As a direct and proximate result of the enactment of Section 1280c and
Defendants actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of their
127. Because all prior and any future actions of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction or School Reform Office and the School Reform Officer related to the Threatened
Schools have been and will be effectuated under statutory provisions that are unconstitutionally
COUNT 4
VIOLATION OF THE HEADLEE AMENDMENT
22
205460594.8 31771/312209
135. Defendants have not fully funded KPSs and SPSs increased operational costs, in
Plaintiffs request, in addition to their fees, costs, and such other relief as is just and
A. A judgment declaring that the Reorganization Order violated and violates Const.
B. A judgment declaring that all actions of the School Reform Office and the School
Reform Officer since the effective date of the Reorganization Order, including
issuing the order placing the Threatened Schools under the supervision of the
School Reform Officer, are void ab initio because they violate Const. 1963, art. 8,
3.
C. A judgment declaring that, because the School Reform Officer has not issued an
order placing the Threatened Schools in the School Reform District, the School
any other intervention model for, the Threatened Schools and from
achieving satisfactory results and among the lowest achieving 5% of all public
24
205460594.8 31771/312209