PFAE

06/16/2026

Dear Grosse Pointe and Harper Woods Community,

Pointers for Academic Excellence (PFAE) is sharing the information below regarding the State Budget and its impact on local schools.

There are growing indications that Michigan’s legislature will not meet the July 1 deadline to finalize the School Aid Fund budget. Delays like this force schools into contingency planning, affecting staffing, class sizes, transportation, and student services, while creating unnecessary uncertainty for families and educators.

If you would like to share your perspective, the link below provides a simple way to contact your State Representative, State Senator, and Governor Whitmer. The system includes prewritten messages that can be reviewed and personalized.

Sincerely,

Pointers for Academic Excellence (PFAE)

June 16, 2026In two weeks, Michigan's legislature will miss the July 1 statutory deadline to finalize the School Aid Fund budget…again.Last year’s long budget delay forced schools into contingency planning instead of focusing on students. Without a...

06/13/2026

Board meetings should be about clear facts and straight answers. This video demonstrates a typical response from Trustee Colleen Worden when she feels she isn’t the center of a solution. This exchange happened after she learned that Trustee Cotton worked with Dr. Tuttle to shape another successful budget.

At the June budget meeting, Trustee Cotton asked for one thing: a budget that reflects what the district is actually likely to spend on compensation, instead of pretending those costs do not exist. He did not propose a number. He did not make an offer. He asked to see realistic assumptions so the public could see what the budget truly looks like.

Trustee Worden did not answer that point. Instead, she claimed that even talking about those impacts was “really not supposed to” happen because negotiations are ongoing. That is a classic deflection: rather than address the question, she tries to declare the question itself off-limits. Dr. Tuttle immediately reminded her and stated that this kind of budget modeling has been done before and is not a labor violation. The facts on the table did not support her claim, so she shifted the conversation to process.
This is not an isolated incident. We have seen this pattern before:

When she was board president, she was effectively removed, but stated publicly that it was a tradition to pass the gavel when that is far from the reality.

She praises committees that she leads but continues to fight the idea of a finance committee, calling it bad procedure.

Now, she argues that talking about realistic budget assumptions is “inappropriate,” even as the superintendent explains that it is standard practice.

In each case, when the facts are not on her side, or someone else can take credit, the response is the same: invent a new “rule,” appeal to vague procedure, and insist that others are out of line for asking basic questions. This behavior clearly impacts other board members. Trustee Klepp rarely shares his financial insights. Trustee Hull went so far as to say that Trustee Cotton had an agenda when he suggested a finance committee. That is not how board meetings should go. It is not how you manage a budget. And it is certainly not how you earn the trust of families and staff who rely on honest information.

This latest exchange goes to the heart of board business. If trustees are told they “can’t” discuss the real financial impact of likely compensation changes, then the board cannot produce an honest budget. Hiding behind made‑up procedural objections does not protect negotiations; it keeps the public in the dark.

Watch the clip and decide for yourself:
Which trustee understands the budget discussion in front of them and which trustee creates a meta argument to avoid discussions around the budget?

06/09/2026

Tonight, the Board is being asked to approve a leadership transition plan: Dr. Bishop would become Acting Superintendent on June 13, and Dr. Tuttle would move into a consultant role while still being paid under her existing contract through August 31, with all of the financial details laid out in the resolution. The Board is now paying for two Superintendents, notable because this was a rallying cry of critics not two years ago.

At the same time, a brand‑new “Chief Personnel Officer” position is being created in central administration with JD‑level, legal‑heavy qualifications and cabinet‑level authority, but there is no comparable public item, explanation, or board vote on the role or its salary placement. Less than two years ago, the HR structure and related bands were brought to the table for open discussion and approval, yet the public is only aware of this change because it appeared in a job posting, without prior public discussion at the board table.

Our concern is the strong appearance of bias in the process and decision-making, and the removal of public input on major decisions in the district. We spent months watching the Board dissect a few thousand dollars within the CFO salary band, sending our HR director to research other districts to justify every step along the way. That back‑and‑forth delayed hiring for one of the most important positions in the system and led to very public confrontations with the superintendent. Now, by contrast, a roughly $180,000 cabinet‑level “Chief Personnel Officer” role appears to have been created and posted with no comparable discussion of need, no visible market research, and no public debate about pay. With a strategic plan that prioritizes teacher retain and reducing class sizes, how will this impact classroom and instructional resources. If there is a process for how central office positions are created and funded, it is not being applied consistently or transparently here by this Board. Board agenda in comments.

05/27/2026

There have been numerous assertions in public forums and at the Board table about why enrollment and capture rates have declined in the Grosse Pointe Public School System. Rather than speculate, we chose to partner with Michigan Benchmark to analyze the data, understand the reasons for enrollment loss, and develop a plan to curb it. Low birth rates are part of the story, but a more thorough analysis shows the problem is far more complex than that.

We appreciate those of you who are taking the time to be informed, for reading the Michigan Benchmark/PfAE enrollment study, and for raising questions. This analysis should spark more questions, but let’s focus on questions that actually help us solve problems rather than just repeating talking points.

Our central findings are straightforward:

The district’s largest enrollment losses align with the K–4 reconfiguration and are most pronounced at the middle school level, not just during COVID. The district should reconsider the K-4 configuration to one that is more conducive to attracting and retaining students in our elementary schools.

Families who are more mobile and generally not economically disadvantaged have left at higher rates, often to private and parochial options, as well as to virtual schooling and home schooling. These losses are significant.

Enrollment has now stabilized, but our student body is more economically and academically complex. The problem is not that students have changed; it’s that district systems and expectations have not adapted to support them, leading more families to opt out of our system.

On a few specific points that have been raised:

Housing stock/peers
In a built‑out community like Grosse Pointe, housing stock is essentially flat. Comparing us to fast‑growth construction markets like Northville or Novi, where new subdivisions drive enrollment, is not apples‑to‑apples. Our losses are about configuration and family decisions, not hundreds of new rooftops.

Private school options and COVID
The report does not claim GPPSS is unique in seeing COVID‑era losses. It shows that here, the shape and timing of enrollment loss align with reconfiguration and the middle‑school experience, and are then amplified by COVID and private/parochial choices. Those conclusions come from years of districtwide enrollment data, not a small anecdotal sample. We have highlighted numerous times that GPPSS had more than 3 times the enrollment loss of comparable districts during COVID and less than half the percentage recovery in the years that followed.

Economically disadvantaged students
Calling out economic disadvantage is not blame; it’s describing a change in who we serve. The data show non‑ED families leaving at higher rates, and ED students are more likely to remain. Ignoring that shift would hide the increased support and system design required to meet students' needs. It is not bad to educate more economically disadvantaged students; it is a problem when the district fails to adjust programs, staffing, and expectations so that all students can meet high standards.

Trombly and “guaranteed” students
The report explicitly says that data can inform, but not guarantee, that 174 students would enroll at Trombly. What the data does show is that we are losing on the order of that many students annually through School of Choice and other exits, and that configuration and experience are key drivers. A more responsive configuration increases the chances of keeping and recapturing families; it does not promise a specific number. The loss from 5th to 6th grade demonstrates that families were willing to try 5th grade at the Middle school level, but that experience led many to leave for other options and not return until High School. We need to rethink our middle school community to make that experience more conducive to academic and social growth.

Finally, the data sources used are public and can be replicated by anyone. The debate about the study should focus on whether the numbers and logic are sound, not on who pulled the files or past disagreements over consultants, branding, or how a handful of people chose one adjective over another.

The study actually acknowledges and supports what many have been saying for years: we need to invest in the supports and systems required to meet the complex demands of different buildings within our own district if we want to maintain and improve the overall health of GPPSS for all of our students. We encourage you to read the report and not rely on others' subjective reports of the results.

Fifteen years of enrollment, demographic, and financial evidence for the Grosse Pointe Public School System — produced by Michigan Benchmark in collaboration with Pointers for Academic Excellence (PFAE).

05/26/2026

AI Policy, Cell Phone Policy, Facility Use Policy, Code of Conduct, and Optional 2nd Semester Senior Finals will all be discussed at 5:30PM tonight, May 26, at North HS in the 1st floor Board Room. At 6:30, the Facilities Committee will meet in the Library to host the second session of the Parcells STEAM Commons discussions led by Dr. Delgado.

Policy Agenda:https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1779475793/gpschoolsorg/x2psvhteh4peozodkvb0/52626Policy_Committee_Agenda.pdf

Facilities Agenda:https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1779454992/gpschoolsorg/xamgmddqqfcd2ufxsigw/52626Facilities_Committee_Agenda.pdf

See you there!

05/20/2026

Monday’s Board meeting was a good example of GPPSS's strengths and weaknesses. While recognizing achievements and stakeholder engagement are important, they should not be at the expense of the district’s larger priorities.

Here is the reality since reconfiguration and consolidation. Other school systems were quick to recognize students' and families' dissatisfaction with GPPSS. They organized sustained, targeted campaigns to recruit GPPSS families. Despite community input to grow a branding effort to make our schools more attractive to families, we continue to have no discernible marketing plan to address these losses. De La Salle, U of D, Liggett, Mercy, Country Day, Brother Rice, Regina and others boast Grosse Pointe student enrollment. We are losing PreK and kindergarten students to local alternatives, and older students to virtual options. Community members are hosting recruiting sessions for other schools in our own backyard, while we continue to operate with a “build it, and they will come” mentality.

And what is being done about this? Apparently, nothing. There has not been one discussion of any effort to learn the data behind our enrollment loss or a plan to address it. All we hear is fewer kids are being born, while public testimony from many centers on the rising rate of children in our district and data clearly demonstrates this is not a birth rate issue. Trustee St. John’s question about the absorption rate went unanswered, so we will tell you what our Michigan Benchmark analysis revealed. The absorption rate fell from 84.3% in FY2020 to 73.3% in FY2022, 3x the loss of comparable districts, exacerbated by school closings and a failed k-4 reconfiguration. The problem is not just that there are fewer children here; there are fewer families choosing GPPSS. This data has to be central to every discussion in moving the district forward and the board doesn’t even recognize it.

Also highlighted was the Board’s deviation from a robust hiring process required for all other district staff, absent during the superintendent hire. The contrast between his “selection” and the process of hiring the assistant principal at Pierce was impossible to miss. For the AP position, the district described a thoroughly comprehensive four-step process: 63 external and 5 internal applicants, formal screening, 18 first-round interviews, a 12-member panel, another round, and final interviews with top district leadership and the Board president. That level of rigor was apparently necessary for a middle school assistant principal, but not for the superintendent.

Lastly, preliminary matters are approaching one hour, delaying board business often well into the night. Quarterly showcase nights devoted to student and staff recognition would bring far more people together to recognize the outstanding achievements of our students and educators. As it is, regular board meetings now feel like empty ceremonies, while serious district issues wait.

Last night’s meeting left many very concerned about whether this Board understands the seriousness of the moment facing GPPSS.

05/18/2026

Congratulations to our 2026 Compass Scholarship Winners!

These students distinguished themselves among the very best of the Grosse Pointe Public School System through their leadership, academics, service, athletics, arts, and commitment to making the most of every opportunity during their time in our schools.

Liliana Ivanaj — Pepperdine University
Oliver Bomgaars — Wayne State University
Alejandro Delgado — University of Notre Dame
Lauren Loper — Michigan State University
Victoria Herd — Spelman College
Eva Borowski — Albion College
Alessia Morreale — University of Michigan
Isaac Brenner — University of Michigan
Erin Simpson — University of Michigan

Congratulations to each of these outstanding students and their families. Your impact on your schools and our community will continue far beyond graduation, and we look forward to seeing all that you accomplish next. Special thanks to Sean and Nancy Cotton for your support of Grosse Pointe Public School System. Big thank you to Jamie Ding for his personal message to our winners.

Photo Credits: Anna Gatt (Grabs by Gatt) www.annagatt.com

05/18/2026

Monday’s meeting is largely a housekeeping agenda, but not an empty one: the Board will consider two key administrative hires, recognize district retirees, and set up a June 9 agenda that includes the superintendent contract, approval of the strategic plan, elementary program of studies, and the annual Schools of Choice decision.

Agenda and the Link to Watch the Meeting are in the comments.

See you there!

05/12/2026

Tonight’s Facilities Committee agenda is simple: the Parcells STEAM Commons Committee gets underway with Dr. Delgado leading the discussion. After months of bond-related questions, this is a chance to potentially see one project move from concept toward community-informed design.

Agenda is in the comments. See you at 6:30 in North's Library.

05/07/2026

The conversation about consolidating schools in Grosse Pointe has already started, and it’s coming wrapped in the language of virtue, “walkability,” “equity,” “efficiency,” “being realistic about demographics.” Don’t be confused. Behind those words are concrete proposals to close neighborhood schools, push more students and cars into fewer buildings, and chip away at one of the core strengths that has defined this community for a century: kids being able to attend a true neighborhood school when our geography and facilities make it possible. We believe the conversation should start from a different place: protecting and strengthening neighborhood schools wherever we reasonably can, and being honest that consolidation is not a neutral choice, but a decision with real, destabilizing consequences for families, streets, and the long‑term health of our district. This “solution” to a problem that doesn’t exist is being driven by those who control Board seats and the groups that influence them.

Individuals are starting to create an equivalence that doesn’t exist with other districts to support this plan. When we talk about walkability and consolidation, we have to start with the map and the way our schools were built. Grosse Pointe Public Schools covers about 11 square miles in a long, narrow band along the lake, roughly twice the end‑to‑end distance of a 4.8‑square‑mile city like Birmingham or Roseville. Yesterday, the argument for closing schools was bolstered by a known Board influencer, who compared us to Roseville. Roseville, like Clintondale and Eastpointe, is a district whose declining enrollment is due to several factors, including population loss, as well as schools-of-choice competition and buildings too costly to repair, factors that are not going away. Roseville is not a model for our school system.

Today, the comparison was made to Birmingham. Birmingham’s elementary schools sit on much larger, campus‑style sites with roughly 50% more building and site area, big internal parking lots, and engineered drop‑off loops that can stack cars and busses on‑site, while most Grosse Pointe elementaries are intentionally embedded in tight neighborhood grids with short frontages and narrow residential streets because they were designed for kids to walk or bike from nearby blocks, not for hundreds of cars to queue every morning. That means Birmingham can push more drive‑and‑drop because their sites were engineered for it; if we close neighborhood schools and funnel more students into fewer buildings here, we overload streets with cars and buses that were never designed for that, erasing one of our district’s real advantages, actual, lived walkability in many of our school neighborhoods.

We should absolutely be sensitive to families in parts of the district where walking is harder, but the answer is to balance and expand neighborhood schools wherever our geography allows, not to drag everyone down to the least walkable model. The way they are framing this sounds a lot like “because kids at Poupard no longer have a neighborhood school, no one should,” instead of doing everything we can to restore and protect neighborhood access where it’s still possible. The kind of consolidation they’re pushing would finish the job of undoing this district: we already have mountains of evidence that reconfiguration and consolidation are destabilizing, that kids and families are not products on a shelf you can keep shuffling. The crisis being described—collapsing enrollment, bloated staffing, families fleeing—is not what our current numbers actually show, but it will if we close schools. This community is tired of being lectured to by a self-anointed authority that has the “real” lens; they are firmly behind recommendations of merging high schools and closing a middle school to create a smaller, less walkable, less stable Grosse Pointe Public Schools, and many of us have learned from past mistakes that we need to recognize this argument and reject it.