Reform District Spending, or Red Ink will keep flowing

I wrote the following article in response to unwise call for tax increases:

Reform district spending, or red ink will keep flowing - Detroit Free Press (02/21/07)

Here is the original article as written:

Faced with another mid-year per-pupil funding cut, educators expressed a huge sigh of relief when Governor Jennifer Granholm instead proposed raising taxes with her “2 cent” solution.

Re-invigorated after their Proposal 5 defeat, the Michigan Education Association website is now promising, “an all-out lobbying effort to support Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s State of the State proposal…”

Calling it “Prop 5” or “2 Cent” doesn’t change the underlying problem.

Shifting funds or raising taxes only provides a short-term fix, and we’ll continue to face these tax increase debates until schools get spending under control.

Data from Michigan’s CEPI website shows total revenue – and total spending – for schools in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb counties increased more than the rate of inflation over the past 10 years. And, these increases are despite the “spending cuts” that schools are quick to point out year after year.

Here are the facts for each county:

	1994-95	2004-05	10 Year Increase	Percentage
Oakland Revenue	$1,298,409,624	$2,007,591,469	$709,181,845	54.60%
Oakland Pupils	170,557	201,884	31,327	18.40%
Oakland $ Per-Pupil	$7,613	$9,944	$2,332	30.60%
Macomb Revenue	$762,673,159	$1,150,736,533	$388,063,374	50.90%
Macomb Pupils	114,135	134,527	20,392	17.90%
Macomb $ Per-Pupil	$6,682	$8,554	$1,872	28.00%
Wayne Revenue	$2,297,171,454	$3,011,680,076	$714,508,622	31.10%
Wayne Pupils	322,091	320,593	-1,498	-0.50%
Wayne $ Per-Pupil	$7,132	$9,394	$2,262	31.70%

These numbers are state, local, and federal revenue, and don’t include bond dollars.

Also note inflation during this time period was 24.9 percent.

Michigan taxpayers and business attempting to survive in a horrible economy should feel insulted with a tax increase now, especially given that it serves in part to bailout local school boards who refuse to adapt.

But the alternative – simply holding school boards accountable – might result in our children paying the price.

So as the debate begins legislators should make sure that any tax increases be directly coupled with requirements that school boards start spending wisely.

In the 2000-01 school year, schools spent 21.4 percent of their funding on benefits, which totaled $2.8 billion dollars. By 2004-05 benefit spending skyrocketed to $3.6 billion, and represented 25.0 percent of spending. The state legislature bears some responsibility for maintaining an out-of-date retirement system, but school boards are the larger problem because they continue to approve employee health benefits they cannot afford.

District organization also wastes money. There are scores of high-performing districts around the country with 30,000 to 50,000 pupils, but not in Michigan.

Following that sizing model in the tri-county area suggests 15-20 districts might be appropriate, but there are currently 83. Macomb County has 21 school districts, Wayne has 34, and Oakland County has 28.

Just a one percent savings achieved through district consolidation would translate into $60 million more available dollars every year to spend on teachers, or programs – or to avoid layoffs and cuts.

These ideas are nothing new; school boards simply ignore them, and it’s this lack of responsible action that leads to increased school demand for more of tax dollars.

Governor Granholm also chose not to address the benefit problems, but did recognize the value of consolidation. Unfortunately she wants to rely on incentives, which have been offered in the past without success. This time the governor said she’d consider penalties next year if the incentives don’t work.

Under less dire circumstances incentives would be appropriate, but this budget shortfall demands swift and effective action. School boards are known for neither – with or without incentives.

Assertive leadership, and a coordinated approach with Republican lawmakers could solve much of this now, rather than waiting for a definite “maybe” in the future.

Pull the concept of penalties forward a year. Include a similar plan to help drive reform on health benefits. Revamp the retirement system to match what the state does for the rest of its employees. And if there’s time left, then finish the job of moving elections to November!

Any discussion on new taxes should include specific and immediate requirements for wise spending at the local level.

Bold leadership is needed now to solve the budget crisis, and perhaps more importantly these moves are necessary to ensure the long-term health of Michigan’s public education system.

==> Mike

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Are Schools a drag on Michigan?

Manny Lopez wrote a great opinion piece today:

Yes, let's invest -- in accountability and results - Detroit News (02/25/07)

It makes us realize how "investment" is being considered the omnipotent answer to every problem facing the state:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is big on investments these days.

Almost as big as she is on buzzwords, catch phrases and public relations campaigns. Nary an interview goes by without her breathlessly insisting that Michigan's future rests with investments.

We need to invest in education, worker retraining, health care, kids and the elderly, she says. We need to invest in roads, technology and new economy jobs.

It's hard to argue with that, but how we do it is another game altogether. When pressed about how we can invest without having cash on hand, she sidesteps: "How can we afford not to invest?"

Pardon me while I hurl.

Mr. Lopez astutely points out, "We can't afford to pump any more money into the system until spending is tied to results"

Now consider those thoughts in the context of the interesting piece by Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press:

Choosing to Move - Detroit Free Press (02/25/07)

It summarizes a discussion with a young couple that is moving due to "more security, growth, and activity in Chicago."

Surprisingly, the article doesn't mention education, but it does include many other reasonable points: concern over crime, taxes, stability, growth, and "quality of life" issues.

It ends on a sad note, with Mr. Dzwonkowski suggesting were he 30 years younger he might be following them to a brighter future.

So what do we do to rebut those concerns? How do we stop the caravan of U-Hauls out of Michigan? And more importantly, what could be done that might attract that couple -- or other new residents who become new taxpayers -- to relocate (back) to Michigan?

Mr. Lopez points out, "More money isn't the answer. Michigan doesn't need to invest more, it needs to invest better."

What it takes is leadership.

Schools are a major part of this equation, and those of us involved in education need to be held accountable.

Consider these two factors:

1) Schools receive over one-third of the state budget. When combined with federal and local spending, the total dollars dedicated to education tops $20 billion dollars. Per-pupil spending by the state has increased at twice the rate of inflation over the past 10 years, and is among the highest in the nation. But despite all of this funding, school spending is out of control. There is plenty of investment, but no financial accountability.

2) Despite this huge “investment”, schools are generally producing poor results. Michigan schools -- and Michigan parents -- can myopically rattle off the best performing schools in their local area. But what most Michiganians don't understand is that Michigan schools in general don't rank well against many other states when looking at many national statistics, such as the NAEP (used as “The Nation’s Report Card”). And, the "best of our best" are not very remarkable when compared to their peers in other states on things such as ACT, SAT, International Baccalaureate, and Advanced Placement Participation.

These two factors are a major drag on Michigan.

First, the financial aspects are putting incredible pressure on lawmakers to either reallocate more tax dollars to education (and away from other important items), or instead increase taxes. Education's insatiable appetite for money is making it exceedingly difficult to invest in other things, and is a major contributor to the push for higher taxes.

Secondly, the lackluster school results can serve as one more compelling reason for people to leave the state, and they also works against us as we work to attract people back to the state.

Imagine how these factors – strained finances, potentially higher taxes, and mediocre schools – look to companies considering whether to make – or maintain – a major investment in Michigan. Imagine what it takes to persuade existing employees or new hires to move to or stay in Michigan.

Fortunately, Michigan has a great State Superintendent in Mike Flannigan, and he's working hard to fix this problem. But that is not enough. Most of the change must happen locally, where school boards are failing miserably to do anything other than whine about money.

Michigan needs a "culture of education" to drive improvement. This REQUIRES citizen involvement.

Whether you have children in the schools or not, you need to start paying attention to what your school district is doing. Check back soon and I’ll share some ideas on how you can go about doing your part.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

MESSA Claims: Fact or Fiction?

In his Feb. 1 Detroit News letter, “Intervention in school health benefits unjustified”, MESSA lobbyist Gary Fralick reveals interesting new data, but his overall premise is still just wrong. (Update: Cynthia Irwin, MESSA Executive Director, contributed to the PR campaign with a similiar message in the Feb 13 Detroit Free Press opinion, "Teachers have sacrificed much for districts")

He rejects the idea of state intervention by saying, “Michigan school employees are doing their part to help districts balance their budgets through health care savings”.

However, verifiable public data on the Michigan Department of Education’s CEPI website paints a different picture, and suggests intervention is very justified.

CEPI Bulletin 1014 shows school board spending on employee benefits rose $212 million dollars between 2004 and 2005; a 6.2 percent increase. These costs skyrocketed by nearly $845 million since the 2000-01 school year; a 30 percent increase.

School Year	Benefit Spending (Instructional & Support Staffs)	Benefit Cost Per Pupil	Statewide Spending Per Pupil	Benefits as Percentage of Spending
2000-01	$2,817,399,458	$1,637	$7,628	21.4%
2001-02	$2,982,210,021	$1,723	$7,920	21.8%
2002-03	$3,261,322,292	$1,863	$8,110	23.0%
2003-04	$3,450,116,712	$1,990	$8,327	23.9%
2004-05	$3,662,252,049	$2,126	$8,507	25.0%

Benefits - The cost of both mandatory and non-mandatory fringe benefits for the staff directly involved with a given function.

And that came despite the fact school boards employed 1829 fewer teachers in ’05 than in ’04.

Meanwhile, Fralick’s point is based on data that cannot be verified because it’s stuffed in the MESSA “lockbox”. Basically, MESSA will not release data to schools or the public.

Ironically, the “intervention” opposed by MESSA is a bill considered by state legislators that would release MESSA data, and promote competition.

But Fralick’s claims – if accurate – suggest there may be evidence showing some education workers around the state are doing their part.

If factual, then those employees deserve to be recognized for being part of the solution, and MESSA should tell us who they are.

And, if Fralick’s claim is true that 42 percent of MESSA members are paying part of their health insurance premiums, then what does that tell us about the other 58 percent – plus those not covered by MESSA – who are generating the increases shown in the public data above?

Is this 42 percent mostly support staffs, administrators, or teachers?

Can the remaining 58 percent follow the example set by those cited by Fralick?

More openness by MESSA can help to address the financial crisis facing education, and Governor Granholm does need to get involved as Nolan Finely suggested in his Jan 21, “Students pay for Granholm’s fiddling.” Requiring MESSA to share its data would be a great start.

More good commentary is available from the Mackinac Center and Thomas Washburne in a piece called "Elected School Boards or Unions: Who Rules the Roost?".

==> Mike

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

District Consolidation Incentives - Show Me the Money!

Michigan's Governor Granhom gave her State of the State Speech on February 6, 2007.

The full text can be found here:

The Detroit News: Full Text of Granholm's State of the State (02/07/06)

Here's a quote that shows she's onto something... but should've been more prepared.

Early in the speech she talks about the excessive number of local goverments (cities, townships, etc), and encourages them to consolidate and share services. She then moves into talking about schools:

"It’s simple. When they show us they’re consolidating or sharing, we’ll “show them the money.”

We will also ask our school districts to cut costs by consolidating services at the county or regional level.

My budget proposal will include incentives for districts to consolidate their business services in the coming school year.

A year from now, I’ll submit a budget that will penalize those who haven’t embraced this common sense way to put more dollars in the classroom. For example, it just doesn’t make sense to have 10 school districts in a single county buying separate software when they can save dollars and cents buying it together.

Consolidation of services makes sense, and it saves money. And whether it’s by using a carrot or a stick, we are going to make it happen."

--- Governor Jennifer Granholm

I have been an advocate of district consolidations or mergers for some time, as shown by the opinion pieces I wrote as early as 2004. Most people that look at the issue -- except for most school boards and most district administrators -- seem to see the value and potential.

It's great to see the Governor jump on the bandwagon.

But, I'm worried that revealing her idea without a firm plan may hurt more than it will help.

First of all, anyone that might currently be thinking about consolidating or sharing services is likely to put all plans on hold until the plan is revealed and passed. After all, it wouldn't be very smart to consumate a deal only to find out that waiting would've rewarded you with an incentive from the government.

And, this incentive plan will now serve as a rallying cry to everyone opposed to significant consolidation efforts. How can legislators even consider trying to force the issue now? The response will be, "Let's give the incentives a chance."

That would be fine if we had time, but do we?

And where are we going to get the money for any significant incentives?

I think it's unlikely that the government will be able to effectively define a meaningful consolidation of services. It's hard to see where they will be able to offer much in the way of incentives. And, it's unlikely that they will be able to do it quickly.

Consolidation seems to hold a lot of promise. Districts could see significant savings without a reducation in service. But school boards and district administrators, whose positions and jobs would be the first to go, are not likely to advocate for or effectively market the ideas. It needs to happen higher up the food chain.

Maybe a direct approach is best. The incentive could go to districts that publicy identify and begin discussions with a potential merger partner before the 2007-08 school year begins, and the penalty in the 2008-09 year would be a reduction in funding if you don't go through with it!

In the end, the most plausable scenario is that the government will devise small incentives that will entice districts to dabble in sharing services.

I guess baby steps are better than nothing, but it sure not the kind of bold leadership we need!

==> Mike

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Teacher Pay Per Hour

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research released a report by Jay Greene and Marcus A. Winters entitled "How Much Are Public School Teachers Paid? (Well, that is their website headline; the report is actually called Civic Report 50, that that doesn't tell you much!)

The full report can be viewed here:

How Much Are Public School Teachers Paid?

There is a short synopsis here:

Wall Street Journal: Is $34.06 Per Hour 'Underpaid'? (02/02/07)

I don't know that I agree with the whole point of the report/article, but I think it adds value to the discussion and is a great "myth-buster".

From the report, TABLE 2 (here) is a short table that shows how the average hourly pay for teachers stacks up against other professions.

The interesting thing about this report is that it does take into account the extra time teachers put in -- and they do put in a lot of extra time -- but it also takes into account the extra time many of the other professionals also put into their jobs.

The report also takes a look at the number of hours put in per week by teachers nationally, and compares it to other professions locally. The data is found in Table 4A (found here).

I think we need to be careful looking at just the hourly rate. While teacher pay may be high when viewed as an hourly rate, it still doesn't compare as favorably when viewed as a annual rate, and that is undoubtedly a concern as we try to attract talented people into the profession.

The report does consider the annual compensation issue, but correctly points out:

"More important, we do not report annual earnings because any comparison between public school teachers and other workers is complicated by the fact that teachers typically are contractually obligated to work nine months out of the year, while other white-collar workers and professionals are 12-month employees. All else being equal, anyone working fewer months per year will have a lower annual salary.

But that would be an apple/orange comparison."

To make it more appealing as an annual rate will require fundimental changes in compensation structures, and that will be an enormous task.

First, schools should look at merit pay, which would reward those teachers that truly make a difference. Of course, the unions are generally opposed to that (see my entry on the Florida Merit Pay Plan).

Second, schools should consider higher annual pay but only if they tie it to year round school.

Third, schools need to examine their mix of salary and benefits, and the annual increases in both. Benefits are out of control, and rising much faster than inflation. Salaries, meanwhile, are governed by an out-of-date step system that was created in a completely different economic era. Teachers receive abnormally large pay raises for the first ten years, and then paultry raises after that.

This system requires a complete overhaul, not a few tweaks.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Portage School Board seems un-American

The Portage Board of Education is the new poster child for board audacity.

They’re attempting to squelch board member Wendy Mazer, who dared vote against the majority’s “Groupthink”. They now want to limit her right to speak her mind; a practice that they don’t even enforce in the Kremlin anymore.

The ridiculous actions of school boards are legendary. Even Mark Twain once quipped, “God made the idiot for practice. Then He made the school board.”

But the stunt in Portage moved beyond ridiculous, and is offensive.

According to a recent Kalamazoo Gazette story, they’re attempting to a enforce a board rule that says, “Even if a member voted against the majority, the member should voice support for the board's decision when speaking with the public.”

How exactly should the dissenting member phrase that support? “The board wisely ignored my opinion, and I’m glad they did!”

What response does the Portage board believe would be appropriate when a dissenter is asked why they voted no? Perhaps “Uh, I dunno”, or maybe “None of your business!”

While board actions may indicate members relinquish their brain when elected, I have yet to see where it’s specifically required. Until now, that is.

An individual board member cannot speak for the board. And a board member has a responsibility to accurately convey a board’s decision, and perhaps in fairness should present the reasons supporting the decision. But in the end the majority is perfectly capable of defending their decisions, and shouldn’t demand that a dissenting member do it for them.

In fact, a board member should feel an obligation and responsibility to explain their actions to the public on a regular basis, which is something else that boards don’t seem to like to do.

Can you imagine the outcry in any other governmental body that expected those in the minority to stay silent! In some cases it would be a blessing, but it’s un-American nevertheless.

Consider that most forms of government have a two-party system, which inherently contains a set of checks and balances. But school boards are generally a one-party system, with little or no meaningful debate, discussion, or historical record of why decisions were made.

Boards get away with this silliness because nobody is watching.

They waste precious education dollars to hold poorly attended elections in May, where it’s quite typical to have ten percent or less of the registered voters participate.

Meanwhile, our state legislature puts one-third of the state budget into the hands of these school boards, and expects very little in return.

School boards have lived up to those expectations, and have returned very little.

An Anderson Economic Group report shows per-pupil funding has increased 59.6 percent since the passage of Proposal A, versus an inflation rate of 24.9 percent. Yet, every district claims to be broke.

Test scores, both statewide and nationally, are unimpressive at best.

The credit – or blame – for this falls squarely on the shoulders of local school boards.

Unless we are happy with what we have, it would appear school boards need more vocal dissenters. Thank you Wendy Mazer

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

May Elections are about keeping control

John Roach of Bloomfield Hills deserves to be recognized.

He had two editorials published today regarding May vs. November elections:

Detroit News: Save taxpayers' money and coordinate school elections (01/16/07)
Oakland Press: Vote on twin high schools should be moved from May to November (01/16/07)

Bloomfield Hills is looking to build two new high schools for $140 million, and appears ready to place the issue on a May ballot. John advocates moving the vote to a November election.

He makes so many strong points that it's hard to choose a quote! But perhaps the most powerful is his rebuttal to the weak argument that May elections provide more attention to school issues:

"Adding school candidates and questions to the end of the (November) ballot would lead to less attention being paid to school issues, critics fear. But less attention cannot be paid than having the electorate fail to show up at all. The real issue appears to be fear of losing control."

A typical turnout for a May election is roughly 8% - 10%. If things are heated, or if there is "money on the ballot" (like a bond issue), a district might see 15% - 20% in May election.

Ruth Johnson, Oakland County Clerk (and former Michigan House Legislator) was one of the sponsors of the legislation that offered November elections to schools at little or no cost. She estimates that Oakland Districts spent approximately $1 million in 2005, and another million in 2006 to hold these private school elections. This is money that should've been spent in the classrooms.

But John's point speaks more to turnout. Clerk Johnson has release figures that show 8.9% of registered voters turned out for school elections in May, while 59.8% voted in November 2006 and 73.9% in November 2004.

Perhaps the most outrageous abuse of these "off-season" elections can be seen in the Romeo school district (Macomb County). They are holding a special election in February 2007 to try to pass a $91 million bond, and will then vote again 10-12 weeks later in May 2007 to elect two school board trustees. I'd bet the total cost to the district will be $70,000.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Teacher Bonus Plan is an unwarranted attack?

Well isn't this just great.

Florida came up with a plan to reward the top 25% of the teachers in it's state. (View the plan here).

But, instead of embracing a chance to reward and recognize those teachers that are most effective, the teacher's union in Florida want's to drag them down.

School boards have until March 1, 2007, to submit their plans, or lose out on the money.

The Palm Beach County School District created a plan, and announced it with this motivating comment from teacher leader Theo Harris:

"There's no way we can place our stamp of approval on this process," said union President Theo Harris. "It was something we were forced to do. We did what was required."

Sun-Sentinel: Palm Beach County teachers, district agree on bonus pay (12/20/06)

The plan "proposes 5 percent bonuses based on student learning gains on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, other tests and annual job evaluations."

"In October, Hillsborough County became the first to have a merit pay plan approved by the state Board of Education."

Broward School Board apparently approved a plan, but "agreed that the (state's) performance plan was flawed but did not want to risk losing the district's $15 million share."

This is nearly $150 million in additional money for teachers, and these guys are all huffing and puffing! Why? Because it's not equal for all. They seem to feel everyone should get more, whether you're good, bad, or just average.

In December 2006 the Florida Education Association filed a lawsuit to challenge the bonus program, and on January 12, 2007, the Miami-Dade teacher's union, filed a lawsuit to halt the plan.

CNN / AP: Teachers union challenges Florida's pioneering bonus-pay plan (01/15/07)

Their press release is here.

The most absurd statement to come from the union was this comment about the STAR bonus plan, which they say is "forced upon the Miami-Dade School officials by the State Department of Education":

"It is just another example of the continuing unwarranted attack on dedicated teachers and on public education."

Offering a bonus is now an "unwarranted attack"?

They also described it as a "misguided attempt", "this latest gimmick hatched by some Tallahassee politicians", and an "ill conceived tactic".

I don't think any of this does much to serve their self-described goal of "fostering... professional status for teachers".

The union had one legitimate concern, which is that some teachers are not eligable for the bonus, such as special education teachers. The union should've celebrated the opportunity to reward outstanding teachers now, but kept lobbying for change to the law to make it more inclusive.

But no, it seems they just want more money, no strings, expectations, or other "meddling" allowed.

I wonder if we'll see picketing soon, with "No Bonus for Me!" placards.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Why can't districts evaluate the Schools of Choice program?

Dave Groves of the Oakland Press wrote an article that provided an interesting look at movement of student populations that result from the Michigan Schools of Choice Program.

Oakland Press: Schools of Choice (12/24/06)

The second sentence concludes, “Administrators said it is difficult to judge whether the policy has helped raise academic achievement levels, but note that it is not difficult to see how struggling districts have been devastated by the loss of state funding that follows their students to districts they choose to attend.”

The money argument is loaded with hypocrisy, but I’ll address that another time. For now, let’s look at the more important student achievement piece, and how schools fail to track student achievement.

I have no doubt that many administrators would indeed find it difficult to conclude whether a child is having more academic success in one school versus another.

Isn’t that sad?

One would think the first thing that a school would do when a child transfers into the district is assess where they are. Are they below grade level, on par, or above? Where is the student academically after one year in the district? Shouldn’t there be some comprehensive data collection, reporting, and analysis?

This type of analysis should be going on with ALL students!

What if there is a large influx of School of Choice students that are entering the district below grade level, and the district incurs substantial cost to bring them up to level. Wouldn’t the district want to know the financial impact?

Wouldn’t a district want to share their success of helping those children?

Another scenario might be that a student enters achieving at grade level, and basically maintains that status. But, districts can’t even determine if that is what is happening!

And, regardless of individual student performance, administrators should at least be able to judge whether the student has more educational opportunities at one school or another by examining the curriculum.

It seems to me that it’s not that judging is difficult, but rather whether schools are that interested in measuring student achievement and opportunity.

==> Mike

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Absurd Art Teacher gets canned...

There is a story that started last December about a high school art teacher that paints using his butt.

AOL/AP: Virginia School Fires Butt-Print Art Teacher (01/10/07)
USA Today: School district fires 'butt-printing artist' (01/10/07)

There is a video clip on YouTube where he is interviewed, and demonstrates his "talent":

Unscrewed with Martin Sargent, Episode #164

Be advised that it's as stupid as it sounds.

Well, let me take that back... it was amusing, but not for a professional teacher.

Artists -- at least the interesting ones -- are unique and creative. But this person is more than an artist; he is a teacher, and therefore a role model.

Being a teacher doesn't mean he gives up all of his individual rights, but it does mean that he carries a huge responsibility.

This is about respect for the profession.

He showed poor judgment, and a lack of respect for his employer. It is unbelievable to me that he had no idea how this would impact a high school and the students.

The argument that he was doing it on his "free time" is true, but completely ignores the disruption it caused the school. This would be no different than a group of female teachers choosing to pose nude for a calendar... on their own time.

The distraction to the school -- and the learning environment -- matters. That type of behavior, while certainly allowed in our society, has no place in public education.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

$1600 Per Pupil that doesn't lead to student achievement?

Jay Mathews, the highly-respected education reporter for the Washington Post, covered a new report called "Frozen Assets: Rethinking Teacher Contracts Could Free Billions for School Reform" from the Education Sector.

The Washington Post: Cutting Provisions In Union Contracts Could Free Funds (01/08/07)

(You may need to register -- for free -- in order to read the article. I would encourage you to sign up; you should be reading Jay's "Class Struggle" column every week anyway!)

Just so everyone is clear, the report is not advocating a reduction in education spending. They specifically say, "This is not excess money that could be withdrawn from the public education system with no impact on student learning, but rather money that might be spent differently and with greater effect. "

The report considers 8 common provisions of teacher contracts:

• Increases in teacher salaries based on years of experience;
• Increases in teacher salaries based on educational credentials and experiences;
• Professional development days;
• Number of paid sick and personal days;
• Class-size limitations;
• Use of teachers’ aides;
• Generous health and insurance benefits; and
• Generous retirement benefits.

The point of the report is that these particular provisions don't necessarily do anything to improve student achievement, and that their inclusion in teacher contracts effectively locks up $77 billion that could be devoted to programs that demonstrably improve student performance. If there are roughly 48.4 million K-12 students nationwide (per the NCES), that $77 billion figure could represent nearly $1600 per pupil.

Of course, the union leaders quoted in Jay's article attempt to defend the contract provisions cited, and then promptly ask for more money.

The report really addresses an ongoing battle in school districts around the country, where district officials are trying to strike a balance between what is best for students vs. what is best for teachers. While those choices are frequently in sync, they are not always in sync. Union contracts are perhaps the best example.

Unions tend to approach the subject from an emotional standpoint, and paint any discussions as "an attack" on teachers. Until that changes, it's going to be tough to have reasonable discussions that lead to fair agreements for teachers, that also help to improve our education system.

An important point from this report that is likely to get missed by many is:

"Teachers also pay a price for the rigidity of the provisions, at least indirectly. Restricting resources that could be better used elsewhere diminishes the quality of schools and, as such, the professional lives of teachers. Conversely, teachers as well as students would benefit if resources were used more effectively."

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Gifted Programs in Middle School

A friend in Grosse Pointe sent this link:

Middle School Honors Classes Come to Grosse Pointe

It addresses a move in Grosse Pointe to increase rigor in Middle School, which is a largely ignored area. It has brought out some of the tired old rhetoric against "ability grouping", but this time it appears that the desire to help children won out over the fear mongering.

I started trying to pull a few quotes from author Laura Vanderkam, but there are too many that are important, and to the point. Go read the short blog!

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Grosse Pointe Schools - Feeling the Pinch?

The article below by Daniel Howes provides an interesting view into one of the better funded districts:

Detroit News: Pointes expose school fund woes (01/05/07).

The point implied by the district administrators is that a lack of increased funding is going to erode their education system.

Even though Grosse Pointe is one of the highest funded districts in the state, they -- like most school districts -- claim whatever they get, it's not enough.

I believe that schools in Michigan are now starting to feel a budget pinch due to their own self-inflicted financial mismanagement. These money problems are not solely caused by demons in Lansing.

But more than that is the question of "bang for the buck".

How is it that Forest Hills and East Grand Rapids on the west side of the state, or East Lansing and Okemos in the center, can all do a splendid job of educating their children when they receive $2000 - $3000 less PER PUPIL than Grosse Pointe?

Yes, Grosse Pointe is clearly at the top by almost any measure. (The measurements, by the way, which we now have thanks to No Child Left Behind!)

But with 20% more money, are they 20% better? I'm not knocking Grosse Pointe, and consider them to be one of the finest districts in the state. But I think the question merits discussion.

And, more significantly, is it the extra money per pupil that does it?

I'm sure it doesn't hurt, but I'd bet that their impressive results -- and the results in the other districts I mentioned -- are really driven by an education culture pushed by the teachers, and more importantly by the parents!

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Call the board to order with new priorities

Rochelle Riley wrote a great article on Wednesday:

Detroit Free Press: Call the board to order with new priorities (01/03/07)

I thought it was right on the money!

Sadly, I don't think the problem is limited to Detroit Public Schools, and is evident in many of the suburban districts I've watched.

School boards seem to be populated with followers, who wait for the district administrators to lead the way.

Board are "trained" by the Michigan Association of School Boards to understand the board's role is "policy", not day-to-day management. While that is certainly a good guiding principal, what they fail to discuss is reasonable oversight. In practice, a board member that attempts to address or discuss meaningful objectives or concepts is accused of "micromanaging."

Even if you have board members with the capacity to lead, it's easy to get buried with the complexity and volume of data. The board itself has no staff that can provide any research, or write policy drafts, so it is limited to reviewing whatever details the district administration decides to share, and ends up debating policies written by the administration.

Sure, there might be some discussion, but it's usually not very substantive. Most matters brought before a board were only submitted to board members a few days prior, and a board member frequently does not have adequate resources to be able to effectively analyze or challenge the plan.

That in and of itself is not necessarily a problem if the district has a good, strong, candid administration that keeps the board well informed, solicits input, and seeks direction.

But not all superintendents are like that, and boards seem unable to differentiate.

It's frightening to think how education - arguably the future of our state - is dependent on such a weak governing institution. It's even worse when you consider the enormous sums of money controlled by these groups. Most school budgets exceed that of the cities in which they reside!

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

An idea on school funding...

I floated the idea of splitting up the way the state funds school districts.

Detroit Free Press: A smarter way to budget schools (11/20/06)

Instead of looking at the idea, most of the (negative) public feedback printed in the Free Press "letters" suggested that many in education viewed it as an attack, rather than as a way to try to manage costs, and keep our public education system solvent.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Prop 5 should be a beginning, not an end

The defeat of Prop 5 does not mean that voters don't care about education.

It simply means there are limits to what taxpayers are willing to spend, and that they do consider what their money is being spent on.

The whole campaign on Prop 5 did a good job of educating the public, and hopefully we won't lose the momentum the debate generated.

I expand on those thoughts here:

Detroit News: Listen to voters and reform school benefits (11/09/06)

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Guaranteed Funding Increases Won't Solve the Problem

Schools are "non-profit" institutions and should devote every dollar they can to student achievement.

But, they should not spend MORE than they get.

This should all be controllable through prudent budgeting, but in practice it's not.

Managing a school budget is much easier than managing a business budget, but you won't hear that from any educators. To begin with, your revenue is very predictable, and can be estimated with 98% or so. A full 85% -- or more -- of expenses are comprised of salaries and benefits, which can be predicted.

The rest of the items, such as maintanance, supplies, etc, can be budgeted.

There are some things which may be tough to predict, such as energy costs, but managers need to do their best and come up with contigency plans.

The problem is that schools try to do things backwards. Instead of looking at what they are likely to receive, and then working backwards from that, they instead calculate increases in their expenses and determine how much they need.

If they don't have enough, then they complain there is a funding problem, and look to start cutting student programs, or increasing class size.

The flaw in this process is that the calculcated increases are figured using variables that the school can control!

Managing benefits is a prime example, as I expand on here:

Detroit News: Prop 5 doesn't remedy school costs (09/27/06)

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Do Schools Deserve Guaranteed Funding Increases?

If a state legislator advocates for lower taxes, to be paid for with improved efficiency, they are not treated as a pariah.

But, voicing a similar thought -- that schools should get their financial house in order before demanding more money -- creates quite a stir when it comes from a school board trustee.

I believe there are additional things schools could do that would benefit students, but those things cost money. I would advocate for additional funding if I felt schools were being better stewards of taxpayer funds, but they are not.

This opinion piece elaborates on those thoughts:

Detroit News: State schools don't deserve guaranteed funding increase (12/01/05)

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Schools must show they can handle their funds.

As a school trustee, I feel my first responsibility to the students -- and their parents -- to make sure they are getting the best education possible. But I also feel I have an equally important responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure they are getting the best value possible.

I'm sure all in the education community would agree with my first statement. Sadly, though, many -- including many school board members -- do not feel the second responsbility is as important. To them, money is the only answer.

I expand on these thoughts in this opinion piece:

Lansing State Journal: Schools must show they can handle their funds (07/10/05)

This was the beginning of battle over Proposal 5, which appeared on the November 2006 ballot.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......

Local Educators Talk AP

Dave Groves of the Oakland Press wrote a great piece on Advanced Placement in Oakland County.

Oakland Press: Local educators tout AP courses (08/26/06)

There were some encouraging signs in the article, but only time will tell whether Michigan's education culture can play catch-up, or will instead remain behind the times.

==> Mike.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THIS POST......