Beckmann Interviews Steve Kovacs on Campaign Finance Pledge

Trustee Steve Kovacs of the Rochester School Board is running for re-election on the 2007 November ballot. He is one of six candidates.

He created a pledge (found here) that he has asked all of the candidates to sign.

The pledge basically affirms that each candidate will put the interests of children first, and refrain from accepting campaign contributions from special interest groups that may distract from that priority.

I think this is a good idea. By signing -- and abiding by -- the pledge, candidates can avoid making choices that may later compromise their objectivity.

I also find it disappointing that one would even need to create such a pledge.

And for those that don't think it's needed, check out this list from the Education Action Group (EAG).

WJR Radio Personality Frank Beckmann interviewed Steve on this topic, and the interview can be heard by clicking here. (If you would prefer to download the file and listen to it as a podcast, you can right-click on the link and "Save target As".)

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

Who does Representative Vagnozzi represent?

I’ve attached a piece by Representative Aldo Vagnozzi (D-Farmington)that appears to have run throughout a number of Eccentric papers in and around Oakland County:

Eccentric: Teacher benefits should not be cut by Legislature (08/26/07)

In it, he attacks Representative Marty Knollenberg for suggesting that we look at responsible reforms to educator retirement and health benefits (I wrote about Knollenberg's article in this post on June 29, 2007). Vagnozzi uses silly and untrue phrases like “severely slash” that entirely mischaracterize Representative Knollenberg’s points. Vagnozzi uses analogies like “depression era wages”, and tries to suggest that any changes would prevent teachers from “enjoy(ing) a decent life after they leave the classroom.”

These outrageous comments are so exaggerated that it's hard to picture who would take them seriously.

Consider these thoughts as you read his article:

First, Vagnozzi’s attack on Representative Knollenberg fails to include any disclaimer that Vagnozzi received substantial contributions from teacher union PAC’s (Political Action Committees). Here is a link to his campaign committee: http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/com_det.cgi?com_id=509626, which shows he received $5000 – the maximum allowed by law – from MEA PAC, which is the PAC for the state’s largest teachers union. He also received $1200 from the American Federation of Teachers, $250 from the Detroit Federation of Teachers, $375 from the Oakland Educators PAC, and hundreds from various MEA teachers.

With that type of backing, it’s no wonder that he quickly launches the tired old attack strategy that demonizes anyone that dares to suggest that we cannot offer a blank check to educators.

Second, it comes as no surprise that Vagnozzi believes the solution to our state’s woes is to provide unrestricted protection of benefits along with increased pay.

Yet he fails to expand on minor little details, like how he intends to pay for them.

In fact, he fails to explain how we can pay for the current system.

Somehow the words “tax increase” didn’t make it into the final cut of his editorial.

Third, Vagnozzi seems to operate under the delusion that the benefits offered by school districts are reasonable and normal. They aren’t.

They cost at least 25% more than benefits offered in the private sector. And the defined benefit retirement program – with medical coverage – began disappearing from the private sector in the 1980’s. They were discarded by the private sector because they are unaffordable and unsustainable. Our state recognized that years ago and switched plans for most of its employees.

Fourth, the record clearly contradicts the cheap shot Vagnozzi takes at Knollenberg. Vagnozzi suggests Knollenberg is hypocritical, citing the fact that Knollenberg himself is " covered by an excellent (state-funded) life-time health insurance, plus a good retirement plan..."

But in the very article attacked by Vagnozzi, Knollenberg says, "I have introduced similar legislation to reform another lucrative retirement system -- lifetime benefits for lawmakers. It is simply absurd for the taxpayers to fund lifetime benefits for myself and my colleagues after six short years in the Legislature"

And that's not the only time Knollenberg has been quoted as saying that. Here is another article that discusses Knollenberg's ideas on benefit reform for legislators.

Makes one wonder whether Vagnozzi even understands what he is reading -- or writing.

And finally, keep in mind that Vagnozzi is eligible for these very cushy benefits he is fighting to preserve.

There are many solutions that school boards – or the legislature – could explore that would reform benefits while still providing comprehensive and effective insurance to our valued educators. These are the same benefits that keep a majority of our citizens healthy, and are provided in a way that doesn’t dramatically impact their finances.

Changes would include shared insurance premiums, increased copays and increased deductibles. These types of changes are effective because they help turn insured employees into more effective consumers. They will give more thought when scheduling doctor visits. They will ask their doctors to explain the purpose of various tests and procedures. They will consider generic rather than brand name drugs.

The bottom line is that legislators like Vagnozzi are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Inflammatory rhetoric bent on preserving the status quo for his supporters will drive our state into bankruptcy. It's time for Vagnozzi to consider a realistic alternative.

Here is the article in case the link doesn't work:

------------------------------------------

Teacher benefits should not be cut by Legislature


Now comes State Rep. Marty Knollenberg with a proposal to balance the state budget on the backs of teachers and other school employees.

At a time when everyone agrees that educating our children is the most important challenge we face, Mr. Knollenberg, is proposing that we discourage good teachers from entering the profession.


He is suggesting that we take an axe to teacher retirement and health benefits so that teachers can no longer enjoy a decent life after they leave the classroom. His proposal reminds me of the Depression era, when teachers were paid in script, a form of today's food stamps.

Here is a legislator who earns nearly $80,000 a year and is covered by an excellent life-time health insurance, plus a good retirement plan, telling teachers, who often start at a salary of around $30,000 to tighten their belts and see their retirement and health care coverage devastated by action of the state Legislature.

I don't understand how anyone in public office can claim that we need good teachers while at the same time proposing that we severely slash their pension and health care benefits. Why would anyone enter the teaching profession under those circumstances? When you consider that teaching is becoming an increasingly difficult job, what incentive is there in entering the profession?

Consider that college tuitions have just gone up all over the state, leaving future graduates with a substantial debt in earning their teaching degree. Again, what incentive is there to enter the profession?

I would suggest that Mr. Knollenberg read the advice that Lee Iococca has in regard to teacher compensation. In his new book, Where Have All the Leaders Gone? he makes an impassioned plea on behalf of teachers.

He makes the statement that pay and benefits for teachers should be at the top of the list for professionals, not at the bottom, as he points out how important they are in helping to develop the leaders of the future.

Iococca is someone we should listen to, because of his vast and successful career in the business world. As the head of a major corporation, he has had the experience to know how teachers impact and what significant role they play in our society.

I urge Mr. Knollenberg to pick up the book, read and absorb what Iococca has to say about teachers and why they should be paid substantially more than they are getting now.

I also urge Mr. Knollenberg to look at what has happened to teacher health benefits in recent years. Through the process of collective bargaining, many teachers have taken a hit on their health coverage. Co-pays have gone up dramatically. Teacher retirees now face co-pays as has as $50 per prescription. Many teachers also contribute as much as $1,500 to $2,000 a year for their health insurance. Compare their benefits with legislators, who get full health coverage after six years of service without any co-pays.

I will oppose any attempt to drastically cut teacher retirement or health benefits. Let this issue be settled by the time-tested collective bargaining system. It has worked in the past. It will work in the future without interference by the state Legislature.

Aldo Vagnozzi, of Farmington Hills, is state representative for the 37th District, representing Farmington and Farmington Hills.

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

Tim Skubick's "Off The Record" (The short version!)

Tim Skubick, senior Lansing Capitol Correspondent, taped an "Education Funding Forum" on August 20, and it first aired on PBS the next day on August 21.

The panelists were Senator Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland, Chair of the Senate's Education Committee), Dr. Ryan Olson (Director of Education Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy), Tom White (Executive Director, Michigan School Business Officials), and Ms. Lavetta Quinn Shelton, the President of the Saginaw PTSA.

It was an interesting forum, with substantial audience participation. Tim Skubick did a good job of challenging audience and panelist comments, although the audience seemed stacked with participants carrying the same message of, "Give us more money!"

I'll be putting together more commentary on this, but for now here is the link:

WKAR: Back to School: An “Off the Record” Special (08/21/07)

You'll need the RealAudio Player, which is installed on most computers. If it's not on yours, it can be found by clicking here.

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

Open Government and Accountability is likely to be opposed

The Lansing State Journal angered many state employees when it published a database that included each employee and their salary.

Now there’s talk – just talk – that schools should do the same. It’s discussed in an interesting article:

Lansing State Journal: Privacy vs. openness: A delicate balance (08/12/07)

This is probably not welcome news to anyone that would be subjected to such a policy or law. It probably does feel like an invasion of privacy.

But, as one quote from the article points out,

"... such concerns aren't new.

"The exact same things were said when photographs started appearing in the press that were taken when a person had not posed and didn't necessarily represent them in the best light,"

The philosophical question is, as the headline suggests, a question of taxpayer-funded employee privacy versus the taxpayers’s right to know where their money is going.

The article covers a few of the risks, the most prominent being identity theft. But I believe there are laws that already protect the confidentiality of social security numbers and other private information. If not, then lawmakers could include that provision in any legislation.

And, granting access to this data is nothing new; taxpayers can already obtain it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But that system is cumbersome and inefficient, which would be corrected by internet access.

What caught my eye was the great point offered by State Representative Dave Agema, R-Grandville:

"If people see what their money is being spent on and they can easily obtain it through their own personal computer, there's a greater degree of accountability, which forces those colleges more to toe the line," Agema said.

He acknowledged that university and school district employees could perceive that - the posting of their salaries in particular - as an invasion of privacy. But the benefits, he said, would be worth the cost.

"My goal is not so much the individual, it's the excesses," he said. "But the only way I can show the excesses is to show all the individuals."

I think this concept, as applied to public schools, would primarily help to shine a spotlight on the absurdity of the current pay structure, which is based on the number of days worked, and not on achievement or results.

People already know the system is ridiculous, but seeing it in writing is much more powerful.

One might argue that if this is truly good policy, then why isn’t it applied in private sector? Well, it already is. Salary information is available to the owners and managers of a company. In fact, a good manager will regularly look at – and compare – the salaries of employees to make sure that those who are most productive and effective are earning more, or at least seeing their wages increase faster.

The concept discussed in the LSJ article provides a means for the “owners” of the school system – the taxpayers -- to make similar evaluations of not just employee salaries, but of the managers that are responsible for setting the compensation of district employees and of the elected officials responsible for overseeing the system.

Of course, they’ll come up with other excuses to oppose this idea, but it’s this “accountability factor” that will cause the education establishment to vigorously oppose this step towards a more open government.

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

Detroit School Board deviates

Here's a link to an enlightening editorial concerning school board oversight responsibilities in Detroit Public Schools, which succinctly spotlights a problem facing so many passive school boards in this state:

Detroit Free Press: Begin repairs on Detroit Public Schools (08/01/07)

A board member -- fulfilling her oversight responsibilities -- drew attention to a potential problem, and now the board is investigating.

Unfortunately for children and taxpayers, this type of leadership and attention is rare among school board.

The Michigan Association of School Boards (the MASB) encourages board members to stay out of such operational matters, deeming them the superintendent's job. Indoctrinated MASB trustees then passionately promote the notion that school boards should focus SOLELY on policy matters, which in effect undermines operational oversight.

Fortunately, it appears there are some trustees in Detroit that recognize the danger inherent in such passive oversight.

To quote the Free Press:

"Also encouraging, it was a board member, Paula Johnson, head of the contracts and procurement committee, who first raised concerns about the pattern of wire transfers of funds. She asked the kinds of questions that voters should expect from their elected stewards but have not traditionally been aired by school board members. More important, Johnson's board colleagues did not engage in their usual infighting and factionalism to stall the probe. It went promptly forward."

Perhaps there is no impropriety by the DPS administration, but a vigilant school board sends a clear signal to administrators and the public that an effective system of checks and balances exists.

Equally impressive was the fact that other board members -- presumably the traditional rubber-stamping MASB-trained type -- didn't stand in the way.

Hopefully whatever they're putting in water in Detroit's that's influencing their trustees will make it's way up here to the suburbs!

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

Excessive Spending Increases

I wrote the following opinion piece, which ran in the Oakland Press:

Oakland Press: Cut unrestrained school spending before asking for more (07/15/07)

The article makes the point that school board claims of "poverty" need to be closely examined. Schools budgets increase unreasonably each year, and school boards believe those increases are pefectly acceptable.

If the link doesn't work, the full text can be found here:

School boards propose unreasonable spending increases, then lambaste the legislature for not funding them. But it’d be nearly impossible for the state to provide the level of funding schools claim they need. Taxpayers must examine these claims, and expect school boards to address the spending problems that only they can solve.

The May 2007 Michigan Economic and Revenue Outlook is forecasting 2.4 percent inflation for 2008, and state legislators must determine reasonable K-12 spending levels for next year – beyond the $13.8 billion Michigan currently spends.

An inflationary increase would equal $331 million – or $194 per pupil – which may be tough to find in this struggling Michigan economy.

Yet based on recent school budget news, even that amount won’t come close to satisfying local school boards. In fact, funding increases triple the rate of inflation wouldn’t be enough for some.

These boards honestly believe their prescribed budget increases – at two or three times the rate of inflation or more – are perfectly acceptable. Funding below those levels generates howls of protest and accusations that Michigan legislators aren’t adequately funding education.

In Rochester, where I serve as a trustee, the board just approved a budget that increases spending by $7 million, or approximately $475 per pupil. I voted NO because it’s impossible to pay for spending increases like that without tapping one-time sources like the rainy-day fund.

Rochester isn’t alone, but is unique because it currently has a sufficient fund balance. Other districts with smaller balances also want to increase spending by that much – or more – but must then scale back. They label this spending restraint as “cuts” or “shortfalls”.

Clarkston just announced cutbacks of $5.5 million from their 2007-08 budget, and will still run a deficit of $2.7 million. Farmington has been using their $13 million shortfall as a rallying cry to march on Lansing. And Avondale has said their 2007-8 budget will be shy by as much as $7 million.

The list goes on. Here are a few examples of these increases, cuts, or shortfalls, taken from recent newspaper articles or school budgets:


If Michigan taxpayers were to fund increases of this magnitude statewide, we’d need to increase school funding by $1.2 billion – annually!

It’s probably safe to say that Michigan schools aren’t going to see funding increases of that size.

Instead, districts will drain their rainy-day funds, just as the state’s done for years. Once they’ve emptied their accounts, they’ll layoff teachers, increase class size, and cut academic programs.

When parents finally choose to react to this misguided approach, they need to understand the problem begins at their local school board office, not Lansing.

State legislators control how many tax dollars are sent to your school board, but they don’t control how they’re spent.

School boards routinely approve employee contracts they cannot afford. Health care benefits for public school employees cost 25 percent more than private sector benefits. Schools districts refuse to consider merging, which could save millions of dollars. Boards still issue no-bid contracts.

But cost containment isn’t the only solution. Schools must innovate, and break out of the 1950’s school structure they’re still using today. They can make better use of technology, try lecture style classes for advanced students, or look at flexible scheduling in order to better utilize facilities and reduce staffing needs.

If school boards direct their administrators to explore these options, and we find there still isn’t enough money, then we can justifiably press the legislature.

Michigan taxpayers have, and will continue to support education, but they understandably want proof that their money is spent wisely. There are still far too many signs that it’s not.

Public education’s future rests with your local school board, and it’s time to hold them accountable.

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

Merging Districts -- Real World vs. Theory

The Mackinac Center, a well-respected Michigan think tank, released the report, “School District Consolidation, Size and Spending: an Evaluation” by Andrew Coulson. (I wrote about it in a blog found here, and their full report can be found by clicking here.)

The report attempts to use data to determine whether merging districts would save money, and concludes it would not.

But their reasoning warrants a closer look because it views districts from a theoretical, one-size-fits-all perspective. Suburban and rural school districts are the proverbial apple and orange, and this approach is akin to throwing them into a blender in an effort to determine which is the ideal fruit.

The concern is that those who seek to preserve the real-world, administratively top-heavy status quo may abuse these theoretical findings. It’ll make things tougher for those of us in the trenches attempting to encourage districts to investigate and pursue efficiency.

The report uses complex mathematical formulas to “debunk the myth” that merging school districts saves money, suggesting instead that dividing up the state into districts of 2911 pupils would save Michigan $363 million per year.

This defies common sense.

Larger districts create economies of scale in purchasing, and could realize cost reductions by eliminating the duplicated administrative overhead existing between adjacent suburban districts.

And while merging smaller rural districts may yield little or no savings, pooling resources may create opportunities to enrich education with planning and curriculum development services currently missing in smaller districts. The report highlights this potential expansion of staff as a cost concern, but that concern is misplaced because Proposal A prevents districts from increasing taxes to expand staff.

Sadly, no attempt is made to identify where mergers might make sense. Instead, all districts statewide are lumped together, causing input data to be heavily weighted with small rural districts. These rural districts – which comprise the majority of Michigan’s 550 districts – are not only smaller, but spend far less per pupil than their larger suburban counterparts.

Viewed from a purely mathematical standpoint, a district of 2911 students might appear fiscally ideal on paper. But such districts oftentimes don’t employ professionals whose expertise guides curriculum development, assessments, and technology. They’re simply too small to afford them.

In reality, adding such positions might help improve student achievement in those smaller districts, which on average score lower on MEAP assessments. Statewide, districts with less than 3000 pupils – the report’s optimum size – have the lowest MEAP math scores (excluding the City of Detroit).

Lagging achievement cannot be blamed on district size alone, and this report correctly notes there’s no correlation between spending and achievement. But achievement should be our schools’ primary goal, and it’s unbelievable that achievement wasn’t considered in the study. Perhaps the results would’ve been different if they were.

Actually, the more appropriate question to answer would be, “What district size produces the best academic results in the most cost effective way?”

That question might’ve directed attention toward a larger district like Utica Community Schools in Macomb County. The state’s second largest district, – at nearly 30,000 pupils – spends merely 2.5 percent more per pupil than the average sub-3000 student district. Yet Utica’s 8th grade MEAP scores in math are 15.5 percent higher, and their ACT scores and Advanced Placement exam participation rates are notably higher too.

The Utica example, while statistically insignificant, shouldn’t be summarily dismissed. Consider how their model might be applied in Oakland County, with 28 school districts ranging in size from 1,500 to over 15,000 students.

Details are unavailable on the precise the number of central office administrators in Oakland County, but a review of district websites suggests smaller districts have a 500 to 1 ratio of students to administrators, medium sized-districts are 750 to 1, and larger districts are 1000 to 1. It follows that there may be 270 administrators in Oakland County, presumably costing taxpayers – with benefits and retirement – at least $38 million per year. Many of them do the identical work of their counterparts in neighboring districts.

But merging into five new districts of 40,000 students each, and using the administrative structure of Utica as a model could eliminate this duplicated administrative overhead. Utica’s student-to-administrator ratio appears to be approximately 1500 to 1, which if applied here would project a need for 26 administrators per district, or 130 administrators in Oakland County.

This represents less than half the number of current administrators, and the savings could return $100 per pupil to the classroom. Incidentally, this doesn’t consider savings resulting from merging services, pooling purchases, etc., nor does it entail closing or merging a single school.

District mergers are not some panacea. The Mackinac Center correctly notes, “… neither mergers nor consolidations are likely to bring about dramatic reductions” in state spending. The potential savings proposed here are relatively small when compared to the nearly $2 billion spent on education in Oakland County.

But every percent of savings is meaningful to taxpayers, and more importantly to our children.

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

Teacher Merit Pay makes sense

Here is interesting article that ran today on merit pay for educators:

Oakland Press: Many teachers skeptical of merit pay linked to student scores (07/08/07)

Teacher unions ignore the fact that merit pay is embraced and works well in private sector businesses that are similar to education. Professionals who are responsible for non-manufacturing creative work can be rewarded in environments where they cannot control every single variable.

What’s even more unfortunate that most teachers don’t seem to realize the current system is imperfect too, and is perhaps even worse than a merit pay system.

The current “all for one” system boosts pay for mediocre teachers, and restricts pay for those teachers who are outstanding. It does nothing to reward those that go above and beyond; they receive the same amount as those that do the bare minimum or less.

Teachers are currently rewarded solely for their ability to endure. They receive a raise for showing up, year after year. Perhaps the biggest flaw in this practice is that it’s so limiting to those that do the best job. It actually seems insulting.

And those that complain about teacher merit pay seem to forget there’s already an incentive plan in place for educators. They receive additional pay for earning higher degrees, which they certainly seem to do in great numbers. One might argue this isn’t fair for those who cannot afford additional schooling, but the unions seem to gloss over that fact. And despite this “flaw”, it shows that financial incentives do work in education, although the system misses the mark because there is no requirement that the degree be in the teacher’s actual line of work and doesn’t measure whether the additional degree is effective or beneficial to students.

But the union isn’t the only problem; school officials don’t help the situation either. I asked that we move the Rochester superintendent to a merit-based system, but the board’s status quo-based majority rejected the idea.

The article provides some insight into why teachers don’t like the idea. A teacher from California states, “When I look into the eyes of a student who I have taught in the past — or I stand at the door in the morning and my students say, ‘Mrs. Gore, I love you,’ or ‘Mrs. Gore, you’re such a good teacher’ — am I effective or not? I think I’m effective.”

Creating a relationship with a student is certainly one of the keys to teaching. We can give Mrs. Gore the benefit of the doubt that she is indeed loved, but that says nothing about whether she is teaching our children anything.

Educators also, “worry that educators in struggling schools, where students might be poor or speak another language at home, would have trouble getting their student scores up enough to earn the “effective” label.”

These are legitimate concerns. But the article goes on to say, “For their part, many educational policy-makers say that a merit pay system could take such circumstances into account.”

A merit pay system could be crafted to consider any number of factors. But it would need input and cooperation from teacher unions, and they rebuff any overtures. Their approach is to simply expect more taxpayer funds, with no strings attached.

The concern in general seems to be over the “uncontrollable” factors in life.

“Can you account for the child’s emotions? Can you account for whether their parents are getting them to school on time?” asked Sharon Vandagriff, a third-grade teacher near Chattanooga, Tenn.

“They’re looking at this as if we’re manufacturing automobiles,” said Sandy Hughes, who teaches high school English, French and Latin, also near Chattanooga. “With children, you’re working with unique individuals, all of whom have unique qualities. Our variables are so extensive.”

Despite these concerns, there is very clearly a science to teaching. Rochester Community Schools has among the best MEAP scores in the state. (MEAP is the Michigan test that measures how many children can demonstrate minimum proficiency in the state’s standards and benchmarks.) Rochester outperforms districts with overall higher socio-economic demographics, and also outperforms other districts with higher funding. It outperforms other districts that are larger and smaller. Rochester’s success is clearly measurable, despite the so-called extensive variables.

But even within the Rochester system, there are some buildings, and some teachers that clearly seem to outpace the others. I find it very frustrating that the union prevents the district from financially rewarding those responsible.

And finally, the “we’re not manufacturing widgets” argument is getting tiresome. There are many businesses that aren’t repetitive manufacturing companies, yet are able to design merit pay plans. Advertising and pharmaceutical companies are two great examples where creativity and hard work must prevail over an uncertain and uncontrolled environment.

Merit pay plans may not be perfect, and might occasionally need to be adjusted. But they would help to reward those teachers that do a great job, and serve as an incentive for those that could do better.

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

School Board Spin

I remember talking to my father some 25 years ago about my perception that the UAW was going to destroy the auto industry. His simple reply stuck with me to this day:

“Perhaps they will, but don’t forget there are two signatures on every contract.”

That popped into my head this morning as I read a rebuttal to an opinion piece I wrote last month (found by clicking here).

The letter is from Frank Reid, the President of the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB).

Detroit News: School boards can handle tough decisions (07/06/07)

The piece explains “school boards have held firm on (benefits) and other tough issues at the board table during negotiations”.

Since when?

The article somehow misses the fact that school boards got us into this mess in the first place by putting their signatures on the outrageous contracts that have been approved over the past 10-15 years or more. And they've not done much to correct it ever since.

These contracts are draining the state budget, and they’re so far out of whack now that "normalizing" them is going to be a long and painful journey.

I don't mean to suggest all school boards have been irresponsible, or that none are trying to fix these sins of the past. But the overwhelming majority deserve much closer scrutiny than they've been getting. And taxpayers need to start rejecting the spin that comes from school boards.

The article claims that “about half of the approximately 600 Michigan school districts have negotiated "less generous" health care packages for their employees”, but doesn't provide any specifics. That statement could be quite misleading, in part because it's only relative to the "overly generous" packages that school boards have been approving for 10-15 years or more.

Rochester, for example, approved a contract with a so-called "less generous" health care package in its recent settlement with its teacher’s union. The projected savings – after the projected 10% annual increase – equals $150,000 of the $10,000,000 health care tab for it’s 880 teachers and their families. Progress, yes, but hardly a significant step.

What the article fails to recognize is that taxpayers want reasonable, responsible, and meaningful reform, not token steps.

Mr. Reid - also a Trustee for Farmington Public Schools - points out that Farmington moved to a self-insured plan that “benefits taxpayers and still delivers high quality benefits to employees”. Rochester is also self-insured. But being self-insured – rather than having MESSA, the MEA-backed insurance plan – only saves districts from paying the inflated administrative costs of MESSA, which might amount to a one-time reduction of 5%, but does nothing to curb annual increases. The real problem is the level of benefits offered, and whether a district is self-insured or has MESSA doesn’t really impact the 90 percent of the cost driven by those benefit levels.

Unfortunately, the article does not reveal the average per-employee cost of Farmington’s insurance, so we really don’t know how prudent the Farmington board has been with taxpayer funds.

If it’s like most Oakland County school insurance plans, then it’s costing taxpayers 25% more than the average cost of private-sector benefits, and is increasing at a rate of 10% or more annually.

The article attempts to lead us to believe this “trend” towards “less generous benefit package(s)” is having some sort of impact, but the cost of benefits – both health and retirement – consumed 21% of education spending in 2000-01, and 25% in 2004-05.

Sadly, this letter simply shows how out of touch school boards are with reality. They need to stop trying to convince themselves that they’re making progress, and start taking real and meaningful steps to control their budgets.

Otherwise, any funding increases will continue to be funneled into benefits rather than curriculum development and other learning intervention strategies.

------------------------------

In case the link doesn't work, I've pasted the full opinion piece below:

Friday, July 06, 2007
School boards can handle tough decisions

I would like to respond to a June 19 column regarding school boards' inability to negotiate: ("Teacher health reforms aren't worth tax hike").

The current trend in reform in school districts is to move to a less generous benefit package and smaller salary increases. Many school boards have held firm on this and other tough issues at the board table during negotiations; to assert otherwise is incorrect. The education management community, including the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), believes that it's important to explore all possible reforms before going to the public with a tax increase. I applaud any efforts by the legislature to address both revenue and school reform measures.

The writer implies that a May election date contributes to low voter turnout and union-endorsed candidates, but interest group participation occurs in any election, no matter what time of year it happens.

Some years ago, Farmington Public Schools was able to negotiate a self-insured plan that benefits taxpayers and still delivers high quality benefits to employees. In fact, about half of the approximately 600 Michigan school districts have negotiated less expensive health care packages for their employees. MASB supports school districts gaining access and using claims data to make meaningful decisions regarding benefits. MASB also supports legislative efforts to address problems in the current structure of school district legacy costs, retirement and retirement health care, for those coming into education professions.

Frank Reid
President, Michigan Association of School Boards
Board Member - Farmington Public Schools

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

Year-round school: the results speak for themselves

I stumbled across this last fall and have been waiting to post it.

It was written in 2006, but it's as relevant this year as it was then.

Washington Post: Summer Vacation of Our Discontent (07/12/06)

It addresses the outdated practice of 3 consecutive months of summer break. Perhaps having the full summer off made sense when the kids were needed to help work the farm, but I believe most of us are past that.

Modern year-round schools are starting to emerge, and their results are impressive. Lake Orion's Carpenter Elementary is among the best elementary schools in Oakland County based on MEAP results. Their socio-economic demographics suggest that they should not be doing as well as they do, but the results speak for themselves. (Click here and choose DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT. Then select Fall 2006 Test Cycle, ISD: Oakland, District: Lake Orion, School: Carpenter Sorry for the cumbersome instructions, but the MDE doesn't provide an easy way to link...).

I haven't seen any study on Carpenter showing that the year-round school calendar is driving their success. But, if it quacks like a duck...

And for those that believe year-round schools mean NO summer vacation, I've included this note from Carpenter's website:

"Year-Round Education is an alternative to the traditional September-June school calendar. The school year is restructured so that the long summer vacation is shortened and vacation periods are distributed throughout the year, resulting in a more balanced calendar. It is a way of adjusting time to advance learning. "

I've posted the text below in case the link doesn't work:


Summer Vacation of Our Discontent

By Frederick M. Hess
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; 12:00 AM


Can our kids afford to take summer vacation? Right now, about 50 million children are on summer vacation across the United States. Many are discovering new interests at summer camp, playing ball at the Y, or traveling with Mom and Dad. But millions of others are loitering in parking lots and shopping malls, cruising iffy websites, and slouching toward academic disaster. For this second group, it's time to take a fresh look at the traditional summer break.

Summer vacation once made good sense -- back when we lived in a brawn-based economy, academic achievement mattered less, an absence of air conditioning or modern hygiene turned crowded schools into health risks, and children had moms who were home every day.

Historian Kenneth Gold has noted that summer vacation, as we know it, was an invention of the mid-19th-century belief that "too much schooling impaired a child's and a teacher's health." Community leaders fretted that summer was a "period of epidemics, and most fruitful of diseases generally," and sought to keep children at home or send them to the countryside.

In that era, the nation's first professional educators believed that too much schooling would exhaust both teacher and student. They thought that placid summers under parental supervision would be more beneficial than time spent in humid, crowded schools.

Today, things have changed. We know that, for today's children, knowledge and academic skills will be critical to their future success and happiness. In many communities, children are safer in well-run schools than they are at home alone.

Other advanced nations don't provide an American-style summer vacation. Most industrialized nations offer no more than seven consecutive weeks of vacation. Meanwhile, American school districts offer up to thirteen.

In a long-gone world of plentiful manufacturing jobs and self-contained economies, such comparisons mattered less. Today, however, our children will find themselves competing with peers from Europe, India, and China for lucrative and rewarding brain-based jobs.

Summer vacation can also be a massive inconvenience for today's middle-class families. In the 1960s, reports the Population Resource Center, more than 60% of families consisted of a father working out of the house, a stay-at-home mother, and multiple children. Now, as U.S. Census data show, two-thirds of American children live in households where two parents work or with a single working parent, meaning no one is home to supervise children during the summer. For these families, summer vacation can be more an obstacle than a break. Parents must find ways to occupy their children's time and to monitor their socializing and web usage from work.

The Urban Institute reports that, at most, just 30% of school-aged children in families with an employed primary caretaker are cared for by a parent during the summer. The Urban Institute study also notes that forty-one percent of working families with school-age children pay for child care during the summer, typically spending about 8% of their summertime earnings. Meanwhile, expensive school facilities, computers, texts, and transportation sit idle.

But the biggest problem with summer vacation today may be its impact on the academic achievement of low-income kids. In scores of studies, researchers¿including scholars at places like the Johns Hopkins Center for Summer Learning and the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory -- have reported that these students lose significant academic ground in the summertime, while their more advantaged peers -- those more likely to read and attend pricey summer camps -- do not.

This has been a big factor in aggravating the "achievement gap" for urban and minority children. Programs with extended school years have had much success in boosting the achievement of these kids. The widely praised KIPP Academies, for instance, have employed a lengthened school year and a mandatory 3-4 week summer school session to boost achievement among their predominantly minority and urban students.

Today, "modified-calendar" schools exist in 46 states but enroll barely two million kids -- about 5% of all K-12 students. Why aren't more schools offering an extended academic calendar?

One fierce opponent is the "summer activity industry." The nation's golf courses, amusement parks, and beachside resorts depend heavily on a cheap teen workforce. Movie theaters want teens with spending money, and the summer camp industry depends on families needing a place for their kids.

Teachers unions, too, are reluctant to see the school year extended. Efforts to add even two or three days to the academic year typically provoke objections from teachers and angry opposition from union officials.

Let's be clear: This is not a "national problem" or a uniform one. Summer vacations are still a wonderful time for many families and communities. Legislators need not pursue one-size-fits-all solutions to "fix" the school calendar.

Rather, it's time to acknowledge that 19th-century school practices may be a poor fit for many of today's families. It should be much easier for interested families to find schools that operate into or through the summer.

State officials should strike down laws -- often supported by the summer recreation industry -- that restrict the permissible school year for most schools. They should also help provide the operational funds necessary to support schools that operate through the summer.

School boards and superintendents should encourage more of their schools to move in this direction and appropriately compensate teachers and staff. Extending the school year will have the added benefit of helping to make teaching a full-time, more lucrative profession for educators who choose to work in these schools.

Additional schooling should not be an invitation to drudgery or an attack on childhood. It would allow schools to include more recess and athletics throughout the year, give teachers more time to conduct rich and imaginative lessons, and provide more time for music and the arts¿all without compromising academic instruction.

Summer vacation can be a grand thing. But in the 21st century, for many children and families, it may also be an anachronism.

Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and currently working on Emancipating Education, a book that examines why American schools look like they do and how we might reinvent them for the 21st century.

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

Marty Knollenberg on Benefit Reform

Representative Marty Knollenberg is proving himself to be a responsible legislator. He has spoken out on trying to implement needed reforms in health care and retirement benefits for educators AND legislators.

His plans would still provide reasonable protection and benefits, but do so in a way that more closely resembles the benefits provided to taxpayers in the private sector.

He shares some thoughts in this opinion piece:

Detroit News: Get more money in classroom by reforming health benefits (06/29/07)

There’s a passage in his article that warrants further discussion:

“Unfortunately, in a recent House Education Committee hearing on reforming school employee retirement health care, some of my colleagues actually argued that if we passed much-needed reforms on retiree health care, we would no longer have anyone willing to work in public schools. I almost fell out of my chair.”

Reasonable and informed debate will always lead to better laws, but in this case this particular claim by the defenders of the status quo has no basis in fact, and shows a complete lack of understanding about free-market principals.

I have been told on several occasions that when Rochester Schools posts a general education teaching position, the district will frequently receive over one thousand applicants. Based on the top-notch hires made lately, it’s clear there is an abundance of talented people entering the profession.

It’s absurd to suggest that these relatively minor tweaks to the retirement system are going to suddenly and drastically reduce – or eliminate – the number of highly qualified teachers seeking employment in Michigan.

First of all, these doomsday hyperbolic claims are based on the assumption that teachers are money-grubbers that only chose the profession because of the benefits offered to teachers. Most teachers I’ve come in contact with are dedicated professionals who teach because they love to teach. Money is certainly important, but as is the case with most professions, money is not the primary motivating factor.

Secondly, it assumes that these changes will make Michigan’s retirement system so far below average that teaching in Michigan will become the career of last resort for teachers, when they cannot find work anywhere else. It appears to me that even after these tweaks, Michigan’s retirement plan will STILL be one of the most desirable around.

But perhaps most importantly, these changes will eventually save money, and will also provide an incentive for teachers to stay on the job, rather than leave their careers early. Creating a 30-year vesting period may help to keep talented teachers on the job longer. There is a lot of knowledge that leaves the profession each year... perhaps too much.

The packages introduced by Senator Kuipers and Representative Melton will not cause the sky to fall, but will actually help to improve things.

One final note: the real reform needed for this system is a move from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program. Private sector employers began the move from pension plans to 401(k) style programs 30 years, and it’s time for the government to catch up.

------------------------------

In case the link doesn’t work, I’ve provided the full text of his article below:

Get more money in classroom by reforming health benefits

Rep. Marty Knollenberg

Michigan ranks 48th in the nation in the amount of school operation dollars actually getting into the classroom. With an average of more than 17 percent of each school district's payroll being spent on retirement, Michigan needs to overhaul the system with the state's best interest in mind.

Under the current retirement system, the state could pay 100 percent of retiree health-care premiums after as few as five years of employment. Imagine a part-time employee drawing lifetime health care coverage after five years on the job.

Our education system is broken. We fight to get enough funding into classrooms while our schools face skyrocketing health care and retirement costs. It is clear, and has been for some time, that we can no longer wait to fix this structural problem. We must take action on necessary reforms now.

Unfortunately, in a recent House Education Committee hearing on reforming school employee retirement health care, some of my colleagues actually argued that if we passed much-needed reforms on retiree health care, we would no longer have anyone willing to work in public schools. I almost fell out of my chair.

While House Democrats were busy talking, the Republican-led Senate approved a legislative package sponsored by Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, that phases in eligibility for retiree health care, closes some of the more egregious loopholes and caps the state's cost at 90 percent of retiree health-care premiums. House Education Chairman Tim Melton, D-Pontiac, introduced this package in the House.

Under the Senate plan and similar House proposals, if you became fully vested after only working 10 years, you would get 30 percent of your health care cost paid for by the state. If you worked 30 years, you could qualify for 90 percent of the premium paid for by the state.

It is time to change retiree health-care benefits for school employees. The common sense reforms reward employees for service much like what the private sector has done.

This is a move state employees made long ago, and one that would save millions of dollars each year. The nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency reported that nearly $300 million would have been saved in 2006 alone if this legislation had been enacted 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, savings wouldn't occur immediately in this legislation because it would affect only new employees hired after the legislation takes effect. It would not affect any current teachers, custodians, food service personnel or bus drivers. This type of long-term thinking will help eliminate future budget crises rather than accounting gimmicks and quick fixes.

The intent of this plan is not to single out school employees. I have introduced similar legislation to reform another lucrative retirement system -- lifetime benefits for lawmakers.

It is simply absurd for the taxpayers to fund lifetime benefits for myself and my colleagues after six short years in the Legislature, the same way it is absurd for the taxpayers to pay for lifetime benefits for school bus drivers after only five years of work. I hope my House colleagues agree with me and support this legislation.

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

My interview on The Frank Beckmann Show

School boards are an aberration of government.

No other form of government is so devoid of discussion or debate. And no other government body gets such a free ride from the media.

This is especially puzzling given that there are so many issues that should be tackled, or at least discussed.

Sadly, many in the public pay little attention to school matters. For example, most school board elections attract less than 10% of the registered voters.

This is likely caused by the fact most media outlets pay little attention to school matters, and school politics. They repeat what they hear from schools, and never bother to check the facts, or consider the story from other angles. For example, a story on teacher layoffs typically includes a superintendent quote calling on Lansing for more funding. What the story doesn’t point out is that salaries and benefits are driving 6.5% increases, and the district would need nearly $400 per pupil in increases to avoid layoffs.

Anyway, there are exceptions to this rather negligent media approach. The first is The Detroit News (www.detnews.com), whose editorial staff in particular truly understands the problems caused by school boards. The other exception is Frank Beckmann, whose daily talk radio program airs on WJR 760 in Detroit (www.wjr.com). Frank also writes a column for The Detroit News.

In the interest of full disclosure, The Detroit News has published articles written by me, and I was recently a guest on The Frank Beckmann show (the interview can be heard by clicking here). But my contributions to the debates have been small when viewed in the entirety of what they both provide on a regular basis. The point is that The Detroit News and Frank Beckmann follow these issues, and dedicate a lot of ink and airtime.

In the Beckmann interview, we cover many topics, including benefit costs, MESSA and the MEA, district mergers & consolidation, and union influence over elections.

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

Put teacher union leaders back in class

Once again the Detroit News pens an insightful editorial on yet another little-known flaw in education spending:

The Detroit News: Put teacher union leaders back in class (06/25/07)

This editorial details the practice of funding all or part of the salary and benefits of union presidents, who frequently have no responsibilities in the district.

The article pegs the cost of this practice at $105,000 for Rochester Community Schools. This is a colossal waste of education dollars.

When I voted “NO” on the last teacher’s contract, it was in part because of this practice. I pointed out that any highly qualified teacher paid by the district should be in the classroom.

The union collects more than enough in dues from it’s members, and if they see a value in having a full-time president, then they should be willing to fund that position.

The editorial points out that there is no data available to document how widespread this practice may be, but most board members I’ve talked with in districts around the county and the state suggest this is quote commonplace.

If every district in Oakland County subsidizes the union president at $105K per year, then the cost to taxpayers is nearly $3 million. Even if they’re only funding half that amount, that’s money that belongs in the classroom.

I've included the text of the op-ed in below in case the link doesn't work.


Monday, June 25, 2007

Put teacher union leaders back in class
Students get hurt when schools pay instructors not to teach

While public school educators and elected officials complain that schools have been "cut to the bone" with layoffs and other moves, some actually pay teachers not to teach. Taxpayers should demand that this stop.

The practice is not widespread, but some districts actually force taxpayers to subsidize presidents of teacher union locals so they can focus exclusively on their union duties. Rochester Community Schools pays more than $105,000 in salary and benefits for its teacher union president to stay out of the classroom. Livonia's local president spends half of her time overseeing a teacher mentoring program and the other half doing union business. The district pays her full salary.

A Mackinac Center for Public Policy survey a decade ago found that about 16 percent of school districts provide some form of subsidized leave time from the classroom for teacher union presidents. No one has done a survey since.

Sometimes local presidents turn from teachers into quasi-administrators. Birmingham's local president works halftime as a special education consultant; the district only pays for that part-time help. Jackson's local president, who works half-time on union duties, once worked exclusively on professional development and a new teacher evaluation process.

Union officials argue that releasing union leaders from teaching helps districts operate more smoothly. The leaders are available to handle grievances and other disputes, says Doug Pratt, a spokesman for the Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teacher union. And their teaching time isn't constantly interrupted, which would hurt students, he argues.

By the same token, however, students are robbed of experienced teachers when districts are laying off instructors. We suspect parents might be willing to let students suffer an occasional interruption to have an extra teacher in the building. Or school and union officials could save their matters for after-school hours.

Teacher union presidents also tend to be more experienced and better instructors. Keeping them out of the classroom may hurt student achievement.

Full-time or even longtime release from teaching is an artifact of an era when Michigan was flush with money. Jackson seems to realize this and is requiring its union president, a former co-educator of the year, to teach four high school classes by 2009, with one class hour and one conference period set aside for union business.

"That is a progressive thing to do in tight economic times," says Justin King, executive director of the Michigan Association of School Boards.

If it is essential to free a local president for union duties, the union should pay for it. While Detroit's school system pays the $144,000 annual salary of Detroit Federation of Teachers President Virginia Cantrell and those of other union officials, the union reimburses the district for the full amount. Grand Rapids and Flint do the same.

The next time a teacher contract is being bargained, taxpayers and parents should know whether a teacher is being paid not to work. Only public pressure may force districts and unions to think about students first and getting inactive or halftime teachers back in the classroom.

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

Livingston Press & Argus is a Howell Board Watchdog, not Lapdog!

The Howell school board has been interesting to watch. They seem to have something in common with the Rochester school board: as soon as someone begins questioning the status quo, the board becomes dysfunctional.

I’m writing this entry because the situation just took an interesting turn, and can give people a glimpse of what reform-minded trustees face.

Wendy Day and Phil Westmoreland are two board members in Howell that are reasonable, dedicated, and solution-driven trustees. They’re doing what needs to be done on school boards across this state; they’re attempting to discuss the academic and financial challenges facing schools in a realistic and objective way. But rather then be called upon to debate these issues, they’re attacked. Wendy, in particular, has had to face vicious attacks from those who would prefer to take the ostrich approach, and pretend that problems don’t exist, or that there may be another point of view.

Among the most hateful of the critics has been someone who goes by the handle “Puppet Watcher” on various Howell chat boards. He doesn’t attack Wendy’s positions, but instead attacks Wendy.

Then, in an unbelievable move, the Howell Board of Education just appointed Mr. Dean Miller –- aka “Puppet Watcher” –- to the board to fill a vacant seat.

I guess the board felt the open discussion had gone too far, and they needed to bring in an attack dog. An enforcer. Someone who is willing to body check -- brutally -- anyone that dares to question the status quo. Who cares whether he knows anything about education or finance.

The board could not have made a more divisive choice.

But fortunately the local media is watching, and weighed-in with two opinion pieces in the same issue. The first was by the managing editor of The Livingston Daily Press & Argus, Ms. Maria Stuart. The editorial board of the paper offered the other.

Livingston Press & Argus: Maria Stuart: What message did Howell school board appointment mean to send? (06/24/07)


Livingston Press & Argus: Miller's appointment a slap in the face to Day, district taxpayers (06/24/07)


Both of these opinion pieces are encouraging. First, it hopefully signals that the Press & Argus will continue to cover education issues. Objective media coverage is essential if we are to have hope that parents and taxpayer can eventually become more involved in electing action-oriented school board trustees. The second thing I find encouraging is the unusual candor in both of these pieces. Journalists are supposed to serve as the watchdogs of governments, but all too often the local papers instead serve as lapdogs for school boards. Bravo to both the Argus and to Ms. Stuart!

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

Establish a "Prevailing Benefit" Cap for Schools

Senator Mike Bishop offered the following opinion piece:

Detroit Free Press: Add competition to public benefits system (06/21/07)

In it, he reminds readers of the The Public Employee Health Benefits Act, which Senate Republicans proposed in an attempt to drive competition in public sector benefits through the use of pooling, and through access to claims data.

This is truly a needed reform. Responsible leaders on school boards could use this as a first step in trying to wrestle control of school health care costs.

A legitimate concern, though, is that many school boards might not act responsibly. I write about that concern in a Detroit News opinion piece that coincidentally ran one day earlier. The article can be found in my blog entry here.

For example, schools had the opportunity to move their elections to November, but chose to keep them in May. The annual cost of these elections in Oakland County alone has been totaling approximately $1 million, which is money that belongs in the classroom. Despite what would appear to be a no-brainer decision to move to November elections, school boards have been able to concoct a variety of weak excuses for maintaining May elections. With nobody watching, many continue to get away with it.

Likewise, with this legislation, boards could solicit their required four bids, but the benefits would remain a negotiated item, subject to collective bargaining with the MEA. School boards will likely offer weak excuses about why they need to (or are being forced to) stick with coverage that provides excessive benefits. Again, with nobody holding boards accountable we run the risk of seeing the same poor decision-making pattern be repeated.

But all things considered, Majority Leader Bishop and the Senate Republicans earn high marks in my book for making this good first step. Hopefully it’ll prod school boards into making responsible decisions. Or, if they don't, it may at least cast a spotlight on the types of poor business decisions that have gotten schools into the financial crisis they presently face.

And Bishop also points out that he and his team are continuing to explore other measures as well that can bring long-term structural reform.

A great option would be to create a "prevailing benefit" cap, which would limit public sector benefits to the levels found in local communities. This should be a familiar concept to the unions, which have ardently supported provisions in public sector construction contracts that require districts to pay the "prevailing wage". What's good for the goose...!

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

Trading Reform for Tax Increases

Everyone seems to talk these days about being willing to accept tax increases in Michigan, assuming the government reciprocates by cutting spending and reforming operations.

I too think that is a reasonable approach.

The problem lies in trying to determine what are the appropriate levels of cuts, and what is true reform. I don't think we're anywhere close!

I wrote the following article to address some of the talk that has focused on education reform, and specifically education benefits:

The Detroit News: Teacher health reforms aren't worth tax hike (06/19/07)

The headline is a bit provocative. A more accurate description would've been, "These two specific teacher health care reforms aren't worth tax hike", but that's not up to me!

In the article I discuss the concept of health care pooling, and gaining access to MESSA health care data. Those are both valuable and important reforms, but they can only succeed if school board's do their jobs, which very unlikely unless school boards change dramatically. Therefore, I'm concerned that we'll agree to a tax hike, but really get nothing in return.

I think a more appropriate reform might be to create a "prevailing benefit" cap, determined in a way that's similar to the "prvailing wage" requirement demanded by unions in government construction contracts.


Here is the original piece submitted:

There’s a desperate need to reform education health benefits before they financially kill our public education system.

Fortunately, this is one of the few things on which state leaders seem to agree.

Reforms under consideration involve merging district health plans into one large pool, and providing access to teacher healthcare claims data. They’re necessary reforms, but it’s unclear whether they’re truly systemic changes that’ll produce tangible and meaningful long-term savings, especially if the ultimate responsibility for change rests with local school boards.

This is particularly alarming if they’re being offered as bargaining chips in exchange for Governor Granholm’s tax increases.

These reforms would threaten the stranglehold MESSA has on teacher insurance. MESSA is a subsidiary of the Michigan Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union. They’ve given critics plenty of reasons to get behind these reforms.

Districts are strong-armed by MEA negotiators into purchasing benefits through MESSA, who arguably charges excessive administrative fees, and offers no cost-effective plans resembling what’s seen in the private sector. They maintain a near-monopolistic practice of withholding claims data from school districts, which effectively prevents districts from obtaining competitive bids

But MESSA isn’t the root problem. Rochester Community Schools, where I serve as a trustee, is self-insured and doesn’t have MESSA. The healthcare costing data I’ve seen for Rochester is outrageously expensive – just like MESSA.

The problem lies in the fact that most K-12 schools provide nearly 100% coverage of health care bills. Unfortunately, neither of the proposed reforms address benefit levels.

The initial effect of these proposed reforms would likely be a reduction in healthcare administrative charges. MESSA reportedly charges an administrative fee equal to 10 – 12 percent of the roughly billion dollars in annual healthcare claims. However, even cutting those costs in half won’t offset the increase in health plan costs, which are projected to rise 8 – 10 percent next year. Reducing excessive administrative costs is a correction long overdue, but it’s a one-time fix and isn’t structural reform.

The push to receive access to claims data holds greater potential, but depends entirely on school boards taking action. History suggests this will look better in theory than in practice. Rochester has access to its data, but benefits approved in a recent contract still cost nearly 50 percent more than benefits offered by private sector employers. Many non-MESSA districts have access to claims data, but school boards have failed to use it in a meaningful way.

To achieve cost savings, boards would need to bargain with the MEA to eliminate over-the-top benefits as identified by claims data, or negotiate a switch to a carrier with more cost effective choices. Otherwise, access to claims data is likely to do little more than confirm health care is indeed expensive.

For example, MESSA’s policy provides for no in-network deductible, and covers massages, diet medication, and cosmetic drugs such as Rogaine and Propecia. Knowing what’s spent on those specific benefits doesn’t help, and the high cost of providing them is unlikely to significantly change with pooling or competitive bidding.

It’s risky to bank on these specific reforms because the potential for success depends entirely on local negotiations conducted by school boards. As a school board trustee I’ve witnessed first-hand the inability of boards to reach meaningful settlements on healthcare. The MEA bargains with a “just say no” strategy, and many board’s simply have a weak backbone.

School boards haven’t shown any ability to control their budgets, and are the wrong place to seek solutions. Trustees are elected in low-turnout May elections, and many are supported with MEA union PAC money and endorsements. Boards consistently show they don’t understand the long-term impact their poor financial decisions have on public education. Quite frankly, school boards are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

True reform requires employees to become effective consumers, which only happens when they’re required to share some of the costs when purchasing health care services. Private sector employees reluctantly, but successfully made this transition years ago. The public sector can do so too, while still retaining strong insurance for individuals that have expensive major health care needs.

Perhaps the solution lies in benchmarking private sector benefits, and preventing public sector employee benefits from exceeding that benchmark. Or the state could determine the average private sector premium, and require public sector employees to self-fund any cost exceeding that average.

Taxpayers should expect stronger reforms if they’re coupled with a tax increase. The thought of accepting tax increases based on the assumption that school boards will drive reform is nothing short of scary.

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

AP benefits students of all ages

Great column in the Washington Post today.

Washington Post: AP - It's Not Just for Seniors Anymore (06/14/07)

I've collected most of the data for an update to my AP Participation in Michigan report (here is the most recent version), and I'm just waiting for the state to release the ACT scores so that I can produce the Balanced Achievement Indicator I created last year. Hopefully they'll release the data this century.

But in the meantime I'm attempting to contact some of the Superintendents and Principals of the districts and schools that have high AP achievement, and one of the things that seems clear is that many are NOT restricting AP classes to Seniors, or to Juniors and Seniors. I recently talked with the head counselor at one high school who had some gifted 8th graders take AP Calculus BC, and pass the exam with 4's!

Here is the Washington Post article, in case you can't retrieve it through the link above:

AP: It's Not Just for Seniors Anymore
Thursday, June 14, 2007; T08

Dear Extra Credit:

In your May 31 response to Elaine Jean of Loudoun County, you mentioned that the number of students who overdo Advance Placement classes is very small. How do you know this? Do you have any facts to support this? I have a real problem with a journalist who cannot back up claims with facts. You spoke about how honors courses rarely merit the name. How do you know this? Where are your facts? That is a big statement you are making. I have a problem with that.

I think you might be wrong, by the way. I have worked with honors-level teachers at Potomac Falls High School. They do terrific work. How do you know so much? You say that an outside standard such as AP is needed to prepare students for college. AP is great. I have taught it for a number of years. But I think of hundreds of students who did not take it, and they turned out just fine.

Do us all a favor and be careful of what you say. Especially if you really do not know for sure or cannot substantiate your claims with facts.

Jay Whitehead
Warrenton


I apologize. When I do this column, I like to give readers such as you the maximum amount of space for your good thoughts and questions, and limit my responses, since many are sick of reading what I write. But in this case I did not provide enough facts. Here they are:

According to the College Board's AP director, Trevor Packer, using 2003 to 2006 data, 47.4 percent of AP students took just one AP test, 22.3 percent took two, 12.4 percent three, 7.2 percent four and 4.3 percent five. College admissions officers say three to five tests is fine if you are seeking admission to a very selective college. So, 69.7 percent of AP students took fewer, and 6.4 percent took more than five. Those who took six were 2.7 percent of the total; those taking seven were 1.6 percent. I often hear of students taking a dozen, but nationally they constitute less than a tenth of a percent.

As for honors courses, some are rigorous and well-taught. But my reporting over the years, and what little data exist, suggest that most do not do much to prepare students for college. I have burrowed into three very different high schools -- one poor, one affluent and one average -- for several years at a time, and in each case found several honors classes that did not merit the title. A study of 81,445 University of California students from 1998 to 2001 showed that students who took honors courses in high school had first- and second-year college grades that were no better than those of students who took no honors courses.



Dear Extra Credit:

As Ms. Jean said [Extra Credit, May 31], in Loudoun County, as well as in Fairfax, when an AP class is offered in a given subject, the honors class is not offered. So, for instance, in ninth-grade history, one could take honors or regular history. Then in 10th grade, because AP history is offered, honors is no longer an option. This puts a student in the position of choosing AP or a regular class. Her point was that that was not a very good choice for a lot of students. The difference in the level of difficulty between regular classes and honors is significant, as well as the level of difficulty between honors and AP.

I do not believe in having my children take an AP class in 10th grade, unless they are exceptionally gifted in that subject. Given that my children are considered very smart and have been in gifted-and-talented centers throughout their schooling, I still would not place them in that class in 10th grade. Why? It is a college course! Three years before they start college! Do you think we are getting a little out of control around here? But honors was not offered. So instead of being challenged, they were bored in regular history.

In 11th and 12th grades, when AP is more appropriate, the choice still is AP or regular. So, for example, my son loves and is great in science. He took many APs in that area. But he is not in love with history, and he chose to take "only" three APs in his junior year (BC calculus, AP chemistry and AP English). He chose not to take AP history and therefore was stuck taking regular history, a class so easy that he did his calculus homework in class. Had he been able to take honors English, he would have been challenged and had to work hard.

Marcy Newberger
McLean



Many people agree with you about ninth- and 10th-graders not being ready for AP, so I hope the many students in other school districts in this area who have taken AP in those grades (or their parents) will tell me what they thought of the experience. I have visited some ninth- and 10th-grade AP government courses in Montgomery County and saw no significant difference between the quality of student discussion and student work and what I have seen in many 12th-grade classes.

The problem, I think, is the weight you and many others put on the word "college." Your son was probably right not to have too many APs on his plate. But I would challenge the assumption that because AP is a college-level course, it is too far above a regular high school course, and there should be an honors course alternative for students who cannot leap so high. But the difference between high school and college courses is sometimes not so great. I had college courses 40 years ago that were not as difficult as some of my high school courses then, and that situation still exists. These AP courses are intro college courses, and like the introductory courses in average state colleges, not that demanding if you do the reading and listen in class (something many of us during freshman year of college did not do).

Some advanced college courses are, of course, out of the reach of ninth-graders, but those do not include AP geography or AP world history, the AP courses most often taken by ninth- and 10th-graders. One of my children also did fine in AP chemistry in 10th grade, and he will assure you he is no science genius. That is why he, like his parents, went into journalism. But I would like to hear from people who have more recent experience in ninth- and 10th-grade AP.

Please send your questions, along with your name, e-mail or postal address and telephone number, to Extra Credit, The Washington Post, 526 King St., Suite 515, Alexandria, Va. 22314. Or e-mailextracredit@washpost.com.

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

I'm still around...

What a busy couple of weeks!

Thank you all for the kind "Where the heck have you been?" emails.

The end-of-year activities for both of my kids have kicked into high gear, along with the beginning of summer activities around the house.

Plus, last week included a board meeting, plus three consecutive nights of commencement ceremonies for each of our high school graduating seniors.

I've got plenty of accumulated stuff in the "to be shared" folder, so check back soon. Note that you can set your browser to receive my RSS feed, or register on with Feedburner in the area on the right to receive email notification of new posts.

In the meantime, check out this great editorial:

Detroit News: Michigan must streamline cost of employee benefits (06/11/07)

I absolutely agree with the premise of the article, which is that, "The structural deficit plaguing state government can't be erased for the long term without a radical restructuring of public employee benefits. This is perhaps the most pressing reform the state must make as it turns the budget crisis into an opportunity to create a more efficient and sensible government."

However, I'm not sure that insurance pooling is the panacea that some are making it out to be. More on that soon...

As an interesting aside, I thought the Rochester Board of Education fully deserved the dishonorable mention in today's Detroit News editorial, which read, "School districts must be financially punished by the state if they do what Rochester schools recently did and approve contracts that maintain the health insurance status quo, which in that community costs $15,000 annually per teacher."

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

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings supports Parent Expectations

This article by Clarence Page briefly discusses US Education Secretary Margaret Spellings:

Detroit News: Bush schools chief speaks up for parents (05/30/07)

It discusses a controversary brewing over the $1 billion per year "Reading First" program. There are allegations that some of the materials selected for use in the program (before Spellings took over) provided personal gain to those making the decisions.

I'm not familiar with those issues, but I was impressed with the outcomes as described by Page:

The irony of the Reading First controversy says a lot about other clashes in the Bush Education Department. Despite the allegations, reading scores for students in the program have dramatically improved.

The percentage of first-graders who met or exceeded proficiency standards on reading fluency grew from 43 per cent to 57 percent in a study of the years 2004 to 2006, and third-graders who improved grew from 35 percent to 43 percent. A scandalized program may actually have produced encouraging progress for students.

I was also impressed with these quotes attributed to Spellings:

But, as she showed in our interview and on "The Daily Show," she speaks up forcefully for a large group that too often feels shortchanged in school debates: the parents.

I laid on her my biggest complaint about standardized tests: Doesn't every child learn differently?

"Yes, but," she said, "I think sometimes that's used as an excuse for masking underachievement."

Then she got personal: "I'll tell you what, Clarence. ... I've yet to meet a parent who didn't want their kid to be reading at anything less than grade level -- this year! Not in 2014 (the goal year set by the administration for closing that academic achievement gaps). This year! And that's not an unreasonable expectation for parents to have of their schools and their kids."

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

A little business sense could redirect money to education

Great Editorial by Nolan Finley in Sunday's paper:

Detroit News: Business is essential to fixing schools (05/27/07)

He discusses a new survey by the Detroit Regional Chamber, which apparently shows that businesses are overwhelming unhappy with the output of schools today, and are reluctant to provide more funding until schools get their financial act together.

It's a shame businesses can't vote. If they could, perhaps they could help drive the election of school boards that would fix these rather obvious problems!

If schools were open to advice from business, I'm sure they could get lots of pointers on how improve business operations. But, they're generally not open to suggestions from business people and as a result maintain very poor business practices.

I see this as a huge problem.

My original motivation to get involved in education was driven by a desire to make public school more challenging and rigorous. But every attempt to suggest an improvement was met with "We don't have the money!"

So, I started trying to look at the business practices, hoping to find some savings that could then be utilized to improve education.

There are plenty of places to find savings.

For example, Rochester Community Schools spends $1500 on basic desktop computers. Go try to configure a desktop PC on Dell's website, and see if you can even spend that much!

The district sends out plenty of mail. Report cards, bus schedules, and state required notices are all mailed, and usually paid for with first-class postage. Why not send this stuff via email, or post grades and bus schedules on a secure website, like most business do? Instead, the Board of Education just approved the purchase of a $45,000 postage meter!

In this year alone the board has approved nearly $200,000 in consulting contracts, each essentially designed to baby-sit or oversee other consultants or contractors.

The $65 million dollar bond issue from 2004 continues to be managed by a general contractor that has received the work on a no-bid basis. They are joined by financial advisors, healthcare consultants, lawyers, and technology consultants that continue to enjoy contracts awarded by the board on a no-bid basis.

The board has refused several requests I've made to look at whether there would be any savings in merging with neighboring districts.

And I can only assume that the union contracts are approved based on emotions, because they certainly don't make business sense. The most recent contracts are projected to increase at nearly $370 per pupil. That's a 6.4% annual increase. It is double what the best case scenario is out of Lansing for next year's funding increases.

These are just a few high-level observations. Imagine what might be found if the districts were to seek mentoring partnerships with local CEO's to come in and help mentor central office leaders and building principals.

==> Mike.

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