Poll...School increases by inflation rate

**Ingefanclub** · 10-05-2006, 12:05 PM

Coming up for vote in November.

Should schools be allowed an increase in funding tied to inflation every year in Michigan?

**Sparks4Ever** · 10-05-2006, 12:12 PM

That sounds like a dumb idea.

**shabba4detroit** · 10-05-2006, 12:35 PM

This is the proposal I know the least about. What are the arguments pro and con?

**Sparks4Ever** · 10-05-2006, 12:41 PM

I don't know the proposal, but tying any sort of spending to inflation is a dumb idea -- especially when you're in a state that's losing population.

**qsilvr2531** · 10-05-2006, 12:50 PM

On the surface it makes sense, but you would need to tie it to spending per student rather than overall spending, and I don't think that would be possible.

Tying overall funding to inflation ignores all of the other factors that impact school budgets.

**billms** · 10-05-2006, 12:53 PM

good to have you back Q and congrats btw

The main problem I have with this is that it ties the spending hands of the lawmakers. Sure, they've done a crappy job in the past, but I'd rather hold them accountable than give up on the issue.

**Oblong** · 10-05-2006, 01:47 PM

The Detroit News was adamantly against it. I trust their editorial board.

**billms** · 10-05-2006, 02:53 PM

Do they still lean strongly toward the GOP point of view?

**Oblong** · 10-05-2006, 03:14 PM

It's a lot more libertarian now. They didn't endorse anyone in the 2004 presidential election.

**wolverinefan** · 10-05-2006, 09:25 PM

I don't quite understand the proposal, but schools do dear;y need the money.

**Oblong** · 10-05-2006, 09:33 PM

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...318/-1/ARCHIVE

Prop 5 is a teacher money grab; voters should say No

School funding initiative wouldn't help student

Michigan voters face a misleading, irresponsible proposal on next month's ballot that promises to increase funding for K-12 education and universities and colleges. But Proposal 5 will hurt schools and threatens to starve other programs and force the state to raise taxes.

Voters should see this deceptive façade for what it truly is: teachers' unions protecting their own narrow self-interests.

Michigan is hungry for better schools, and rightly so. The initiative purports itself as the fulfillment of that desire: If passed, it would require the state to provide annual funding increases equal to the inflation rate for K-12 schools, state universities and community colleges.

But it isn't.

The problem with Michigan schools is not a revenue shortfall. It's the uncontrollable cost of employee pensions and health care.

Unions know this. They are pushing this initiative to make sure their health care and pensions are covered -- regardless of the harm it does to everyone else.

Under the proposal, the state would need an additional $708 million during the first year alone, triggering an immediate financial crisis, according to Gary Olson, director of the non-partisan Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency.

The state Legislature would be forced to cut other programs or raise taxes -- or both -- regardless of other needs or changing circumstances.

Funding to local communities, police and fire, even educational programs not covered by the proposal, such as the School Readiness pre-school program, would face the ax.

Colorado is a case in point: Its similar state education spending mandate experience suggests that both tax increases and cuts to other programs will occur.

"I tell school districts that they should beware: They may do better in funding short-term, but long-term, they'll probably do worse," says Olson.

History shows that: Michigan's K-12 funding has generally been higher than the inflation rate over the longterm, he says.

Proposal 5's power play would force the state to begin picking up 20 percent of contributions for the public school employees' retirement system.

Currently, local school districts pay for that cost out of the state-provided per pupil funding.

Skyrocketing health care and pension costs are eating up local districts' funds.

Rather than bargain to reduce these costs, the Michigan Education Association and its allies are trying to push the responsibility to taxpayers.

Thus, Proposal 5's additional state funding will be sucked up quickly by these rising costs -- rather than trickling down to the students.

Neither the local school districts nor the unions will have an incentive to solve the root problem.

Michigan's schools and colleges need many reforms -- reduced classroom size, better curriculum, more need-based financial aid for college students and lower university tuition rates.

Proposal 5 will not deliver any of these fixes.

Michigan voters want better schools, not higher taxes to fund teachers' already fat pensions.

Vote No on Proposal 5.

It's a fraud.

**TigerCap** · 10-05-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by wolverinefan

I don't quite understand the proposal, but schools do dear;y need the money.

They DO??? clearly?

**djhutch** · 10-06-2006, 06:36 AM

I'm against it for one basic reason. I don't buy into the idea that "If we just spend a little bit more on schools..." This proposal is way too open ended. I'd like more restrictions on what the schools can spend the money on. What's to prevent them from taking that money & putting a pool in the teacher's lounge?

**Ingefanclub** · 10-06-2006, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by wolverinefan

I don't quite understand the proposal, but schools do dear;y need the money.

I agree but a governor and legislature can allocate the increase without a constitutional amendment.

**MotownRandy** · 10-06-2006, 04:50 PM

I'm actually undecided about this. To me, education should be a top priority. But our state has alot of budgeting problems, especially with the single business tax being eliminated. I'd rather see the Democrats get a majority and increase educational spending that way.

**ewsieg** · 10-06-2006, 07:50 PM

Cutting education is a campaign killer for both sides of the aisle. I don't like when something is demanded, such as a balanced budget. It takes away potential oppurtunities down the road.

If public schools really need the money, why don't they fire all their counselor's. I've never understood why some overpaid person should expect the money they get for doing almost nothing. Actually, hire some of the students to co-op and give them a piece of paper with this procedure:

kid never gets in trouble / average or above grades -> take these college prep courses

Kid is borderline from average to bad -> ask kid which way he wants to go, then give him the determined class list

kid is below average / gets in trouble -> push him towards skill trades

* Should parents object to any of these, set up talks between parents and teachers, once they figure out what the kid is going to do, give him appropriate list of classes.

**wolverinefan** · 10-07-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by TigerCap

They DO??? clearly?

Yes they do.

**shabba4detroit** · 10-07-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by wolverinefan

Yes they do.

How much money should you throw at the schools? Money alone isn't the answer. There may be an answer without additional money.

**billms** · 10-07-2006, 02:52 PM

And there may not be. Deep thoughts, by S. Detroit. :)

**wolverinefan** · 10-07-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

How much money should you throw at the schools? Money alone isn't the answer. There may be an answer without additional money.

There is no set amount, and there is a possibly that we will not need more money. I doubt it though. It's hard to go to schools and learn where the lights don't work, the ceilings drip,because you don't have the money for renovations, and you have 30 year old books because you don't have the money to get any halfway recent schoolbooks/supplies.

**CMRivdog** · 10-07-2006, 03:30 PM

At first glance, I am against tying funding to the cost of living or inflation. There probably needs to be a revamping in many districts on how the money is spent.

On a related subject, I feel that there are too many school districts in the state. Does every Podunk village need their own school system?

**Melody** · 10-07-2006, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

On a related subject, I feel that there are too many school districts in the state. Does every Podunk village need their own school system?

I believe that they do. There are many reasons. For one thing, it preserves parental authority and encourages their participation. For another, the further the decision makers get from the community being served, the less likely the local community is to get the service they need. For example, a rural school district has different specific challenges and needs than an urban one does.

And if some whacko group gets ahold of a single school district in the state, the other districts don't get screwed up. It contains the damage.

**CMRivdog** · 10-07-2006, 05:30 PM

But at the same time does a county like Oakland here in Michigan need 30 seperate school systems. I think several of the smaller ones could be consolidated. The services would probably be the same, but cost could be cut in the administration of those services.

http://www.cepi.state.mi.us/scm/dire...tCountyCode=63

**Melody** · 10-07-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

But at the same time does a county like Oakland here in Michigan need 30 seperate school systems. I think several of the smaller ones could be consolidated. The services would probably be the same, but cost could be cut in the administration of those services.

http://www.cepi.state.mi.us/scm/dire...tCountyCode=63

Looking down the list, it looks like at least half of those are public school academies, which is a charter school. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/PSAQA_54517_7.pdf (PDF document on the site) describes how these work. You couldn't really consolidate these, and for that matter, many of them may share administration. They are called "districts" but not a separate district in the same sense that the others are.

**shabba4detroit** · 10-07-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

At first glance, I am against tying funding to the cost of living or inflation. There probably needs to be a revamping in many districts on how the money is spent.

On a related subject, I feel that there are too many school districts in the state. Does every Podunk village need their own school system?

There are 555 different school districts in Michigan, serving 8 million residents. The Detroit School District serves approximately 1 million people (recent census counts notwithstanding -- it screws up my easy math) So that leaves 554 school districts serving 7 million residents. So, excluding Detroit, the average Michigan School District serves approximately 12,600 residents. And which school district is broken beyond repair and headed to receivership, while its board members make 6 figures and have drivers?

Anybody feel free to guess....

**Melody** · 10-08-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

There are 555 different school districts in Michigan, serving 8 million residents. The Detroit School District serves approximately 1 million people (recent census counts notwithstanding -- it screws up my easy math) So that leaves 554 school districts serving 7 million residents. So, excluding Detroit, the average Michigan School District serves approximately 12,600 residents. And which school district is broken beyond repair and headed to receivership, while its board members make 6 figures and have drivers?

Anybody feel free to guess....

Your school board members draw a SALARY? Some larger districts down here pay some token amount for attendance at board meetings only, if that, and of course expenses if they travel on School Board business. Of course, we have the odd problem on the travel bit; it's supposed to be business not taxpayer funded vacations.

**shabba4detroit** · 10-08-2006, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Melody

Your school board members draw a SALARY? Some larger districts down here pay some token amount for attendance at board meetings only, if that, and of course expenses if they travel on School Board business. Of course, we have the odd problem on the travel bit; it's supposed to be business not taxpayer funded vacations.

They don't get paid salary statewide. They do in Detroit, however. Most districts pay a token amount plus expenses.

**One Man's Fool** · 10-08-2006, 03:14 PM

School districts should have to make their case for funding every year, regardless of what the inflation rate is. Just because something is a priority, and education certainly is, doesn't mean the people administering the service should be exempt from the budgeting challenges that everyone else has to deal with.

This is a horrible idea.

**CMRivdog** · 10-08-2006, 03:40 PM

And which school district is broken beyond repair and headed to receivership, while its board members make 6 figures and have drivers?

I've tried googling Detroit School Board Member salaries and havn't come up with anything. Can you name your sources?

I admit the appointed board was bad. Probably their elected predicessors as well judging from what I know about the schools from my six years here. I just have not seen any salary figures.

I just wonder why communities like Livonia (Livonia and Clarenceville Public Schools). Fenton (Fenton Area and Lake Fenton Comunity Schools) Dearborn Heights (Crestwood Schools, Dearborn Heights #47, Westwood Community Schools) have multiple districts.

**One Man's Fool** · 10-08-2006, 05:15 PM

Here is a link to the DPS budget document.

It doesn't specify board salaries, but it does budget $5.7 million for "general administration" salaries and benefits. not to mention another $111.7 million for "operations" and "central services."

Almost all of their $969 million in revenues comes from the state, which is not enormously surprising post-Proposal A, but all Michigan taxpayers have an interest in how this district does things. It sure doesn't scream out for automatic inflation-adjusted increases in the opinion of this taxpayer.

**wolverinefan** · 10-08-2006, 05:17 PM

School Board members get a 6 figure salary ANYWHERE?

Here, and in many other places they get like 30 dollars for a monthly meeting..

**shabba4detroit** · 10-08-2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I've tried googling Detroit School Board Member salaries and havn't come up with anything. Can you name your sources?

I admit the appointed board was bad. Probably their elected predicessors as well judging from what I know about the schools from my six years here. I just have not seen any salary figures.

I just wonder why communities like Livonia (Livonia and Clarenceville Public Schools). Fenton (Fenton Area and Lake Fenton Comunity Schools) Dearborn Heights (Crestwood Schools, Dearborn Heights #47, Westwood Community Schools) have multiple districts.

Because small districts keeps the operations local and the operators accountable.

**shabba4detroit** · 10-08-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I've tried googling Detroit School Board Member salaries and havn't come up with anything. Can you name your sources?

After reconsideration, I realized was thinking of the Superintendent with a six-figure salary and a driver. This was the only link I could find regarding the school board salary. It is proposed legislation to cap it at 90% of a Wayne County Commissioners' salary, which is about $68,000.

link

**CMRivdog** · 10-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

Because small districts keeps the operations local and the operators accountable.

At the same time there is a duplication of services at the administrative level.
You are paying the salaries of several superintendents and administrative staffs. Paying for multiple tramsoprtation services that could be consolidated into one district.

You can still hold the administration accountable, I just don't see the difference whether it is one large district or several smaller districts.

Kalamazoo County for example has nine seperate community school districts, not counting academies and RESA's. for about 54 thousand school age people.I think you could consolidate a couple of those districts and save quite a bit of administrative expenses. And still have the 10 per cent or so of the voters who actually care enough vote in school board elections have the proper representation.

**One Man's Fool** · 10-08-2006, 08:48 PM

Or you could keep the districts local and keep the administrative staff to a minimum. Other than a superintendent, a secretary and someone to coordinate bus drivers, what do you really need? Everything else can be handled at the building level.

**CMRivdog** · 10-08-2006, 09:03 PM

Or you could farm them all out to private companies....eliminate all buracracy.

**One Man's Fool** · 10-09-2006, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Or you could farm them all out to private companies....eliminate all buracracy.

Actually a lot of school districts contract out a lot of work to private companies, who are established just for that purpose. It cuts down on payroll and health care costs, and gives districts a lot more flexibility in budgeting. Usually gets the job done better too.

**CMRivdog** · 10-09-2006, 09:00 AM

No argument there, no real problem with district size either to be honest. My background is from Virginia where the government system is a bit different. (Counties and Indepandent Citiesl, where each maintains their own system). I know it seems to work well in Hampton Roads, Richmond and SW Virginia. I have no experience how well it works in the the monstrosity known as Northern Virginia.

I do agree that increases in school funding should not be tied to inflation or cost of living rates.