| K-16 Coalition; Looks like a vote. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 22 2006, 03:42 PM (2,858 Views) | |
| Administrator | Feb 22 2006, 03:42 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
Voters likely to decide school plan Web-posted Feb 21, 2006 Legislators expect guaranteed funding proposal to be on ballot By DAVE GROVES Of The Oakland Press Oakland County legislators on both sides of the aisle anticipate that Michigan voters, rather than state lawmakers, will determine whether public schools win guaranteed annual funding increases. Members of the K-16 Coalition for Michigan's Future are expected today to file about 300,000 petition signatures supporting such a guarantee. If and when the signatures are certified by the State Bureau of Elections, legislators will have 40 days to approve the proposal. Otherwise, its fate will rest with voters in the November general election. "I really support hearing from the people on this one," said state Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield. He said he has concerns about the plan's estimated $1 billion price tag and how it could come at the expense of other state programs. Still, Condino said, "I think people are able to understand the issues and make an educated decision on it." Rep. Shelley Taub, R-Bloomfield Hills, said that while public education is considered a top priority in Michigan, the notion of guaranteed funding increases has insufficient political support to win approval from the Legislature. "On the face of it, it sounds wonderful," she said. "But what it really does is tie the hands of legislators when it comes to appropriations. What will it mean we can no longer fund? The state police? Jobs programs for unemployed workers?" Brian Whiston, legislative affairs director for Oakland Schools and a key figure in the K-16 Coalition campaign, said supporters hope the Legislature will pass the proposal as written and negotiate changes that could later be approved by a simple majority in the Legislature. If voters approve the referendum, he said, any changes would require supermajority support. Whiston said he and other petition supporters had hoped lawmakers would address inadequacies of the 1994 school funding initiative called Proposal A before the coalition was forced to submit signatures. "I think there's a lot of discussion taking place but not enough action," he said. "Hopefully, this will generate more interest. Any legislation requires tuning up from time to time, and I hope they'll use this as an opportunity to tune up Proposal A." The outcome of a November referendum is difficult to predict, analysts said. The 300,000 petition signatures show considerable support. At the same time, powerful opposition is forming. Early this month, a conglomeration of Michigan business and municipal groups announced a campaign to thwart the measure. Leading the Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending Mandate is the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which argues the plan would lead to tax increases or cuts in essential state services. Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson said local municipal and business organizations will likely join the opposition. "When you provide one thing a guarantee, something else has got to give," he said. "We're definitely going to be opposed to this because it pushes everybody off the plate." |
 |
|
| Administrator | Feb 22 2006, 03:43 PM Post #2 |
|
Administrator
|
I am very interested to hear what everyone has to say about the K-16 Coalitions proposal. Whats your view? |
|
|
|
| fyi | Feb 22 2006, 03:52 PM Post #3 |
|
Principal
|
I'm not convinced that this is the solution to funding crisis---and if it's a step in the right direction. I'm wondering where this new money will go---if it passes??? |
|
|
|
| cmic | Feb 22 2006, 03:54 PM Post #4 |
Principal
|
It must pass or we are the schools as a whole will be screwed. |
|
|
|
| fyi | Feb 22 2006, 03:55 PM Post #5 |
|
Principal
|
Are mandatory funding increases for public schools the key to student success? No Earmarking sets dangerous precedent By Mr. Jim Barrett http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=7489 Michigan taxpayers cannot afford the K-16 education funding proposal. The non-partisan and independent House Fiscal Agency has estimated that this proposal would cost approximately $1.1 billion above current state spending on education – in the first year alone. Steady increases in state spending on education would follow. The K-16 Coalition’s plan to automatically increase annual state government spending on K-12 school districts, community colleges and state universities by the rate of inflation – regardless of education outcomes or changing needs – would remove $1.1 billion of public money from annual review and budgetary control, severely limiting the ability of the Legislature and governor to set and fund state priorities. According to a recent study prepared by Anderson Economic Group, the amount of funding available for K-12 public schools in Michigan has grown rapidly since the passage of Proposal A in 1994. Between 1994 and 2004, operating revenue increased by 71 percent, price inflation grew about 21 percent, and enrollment in Michigan schools increased by roughly 4 percent. (Most schools have received per-pupil operating revenue increases double or triple the rate of inflation.) During this same time period, property tax debt for capital expenditures grew even more rapidly – an astounding 217 percent. Despite all these increases in funding for public schools, the K-12 education establishment is demanding that more money be fed into a system with no link to providing higher levels of academic achievement. Michigan taxpayers have a right to know what has happened to all the money invested in our education system since 1994. While we are among the highest spending states for K-12 public education, Michigan remains solidly stuck in the lower half of states relating to academic achievement on almost every measure. If more money meant higher academic achievement, Michigan would be a national leader in K-12 education. In September, the Michigan Chamber Board of Directors voted unanimously to reaffirm support for a state budget process focused on outcomes where each year there should be a healthy debate in Lansing over setting the price and the priorities of government, along with the funding for each priority. And importantly, there should be an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of program expenditures. The two primary issues regarding the K-16 proposal are first, how much will it cost? Thanks to the House Fiscal Agency, we know the answer to that question, an additional $1.1 billion the first year with escalating increases for the future. And secondly, how will state government pay for it? The options are either a major tax increase on working families and job providers or a substantial reduction in spending in others areas of the state budget such as health care, public safety, or local government. Parents and job providers who study the K-16 proposal carefully will be surprised and disappointed to learn that nowhere in the lengthy wording of the petition is any reference to education quality, student achievement, test scores, or graduation rates. The proposal also does not include reform measures to reduce administrative overhead and contain health care and pension costs. The Michigan Chamber’s position on the K-16 proposal is consistent with the Chamber’s stand on similar proposals which tried to lock in guaranteed funding and bypass the decision making process of the Legislature and governor. In 2002, the Michigan Chamber opposed a proposal by the medical community to earmark tobacco settlement revenue for health care-related programs and projects. Proposal 4 of 2002 was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters – 66 percent "No" to 34 percent "Yes." Interestingly, the loudest opposition to Proposal 4 came from school boards, community colleges, teacher unions, state university presidents and other education leaders – people who now want voters to support an attempt to earmark funding and tie the hands of the governor and Legislature in the budgeting process. The K-16 Coalition will try to persuade voters that this proposal is different but, despite some procedural and definition variations, it is fundamentally the same concept. Protection for funding increases would be afforded to K-16 public education without assurances of improved performance or accountability measures. In an editorial that appeared in the Detroit Free Press on Oct. 18, 2002, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan and Peter McPherson, then-president of Michigan State University, wrote: "Responsible budgeting demands frequent reassessment of needs and resources and a good deal of compromise which is the hallmark of the legislative process." They also wrote that their opposition to Proposal 4 was "driven by the long-term negative consequences of the lockup of state monies that is at the heart of the initiative." Their remarks also included a statement that rings true with the current K-16 Coalition proposal: "While proponents might argue that this is the only way to fund some important initiatives, it is the Legislature’s constitutional responsibility to ensure that the best use of the public money is tested every year against other crucial and compelling needs." The Michigan Chamber of Commerce agreed with the rationale put forward by the education community in 2002 and we stand firmly committed to opposing such earmarking tactics now. We agreed with the Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Personnel when they urged their members to vote "No" on earmarking because "it would allow the new legislature no flexibility in dealing with the state’s budgetary crisis and would make it impossible to adjust these priorities in the years ahead based on changing needs or circumstances." (Capitol Report, October 2002) We even agreed with the Michigan Education Association’s Director of Government Affairs, Al Short, when he said, "Proposal 4 will destroy the Michigan Merit scholarship program and rip a huge hole in the state budget." He added, "If this passes ... it’s going to toss the budget in chaos in the future." (Published 10/20/2002) The education community needs to provide higher levels of academic achievement. Michigan taxpayers should reject guaranteed funding schemes for education or any other state program. Jim Barrett is president and CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. This text is part of the larger publication: Michigan Education Report (2005-03) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
| cmic | Feb 22 2006, 03:55 PM Post #6 |
|
Principal
|
Ok. Too much caffeine. I meant to say, that it must pass or the schools will be screwed. I really believe this is the last hope for public schools. |
|
|
|
| Grant | Feb 22 2006, 04:01 PM Post #7 |
Principal
|
It will be interesting to see how it plays out... How will eveyone feel if this results in a law by the legislature to change proposal A so that property taxes and/or the sales tax rate are increased every year to meet the funding requirement created by this new proposal? |
|
|
|
| fyi | Feb 22 2006, 04:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Principal
|
I remain skeptical. If this means more money to pad administrator's pockets, I will not support it. |
|
|
|
| cmic | Feb 22 2006, 04:05 PM Post #9 |
|
Principal
|
Please look at it before deciding to take a firm stance against it. Remain open minded and let's keep looking at both sides. I will promise to stay open as well. |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Feb 22 2006, 04:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
I am on the fence, and need to be convinced one way or the other. At least it will bring up some good discussion on the subject of school financing from now till November. |
|
|
|
| cmic | Feb 22 2006, 04:15 PM Post #11 |
|
Principal
|
I agree! |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Feb 22 2006, 04:28 PM Post #12 |
Principal
|
I am not sure that this is the right way to go. While I was against Prop A, I am not sure this is the right fix. I really do believe there is an awful lot of fat in the spending patterns of many school districts. Other states are able to acheive better results on less money. With guaranteed increases, is there sufficient motivation to make needed changes in both cutting waste from non-instructional areas and ensuring the quality of the academic outcomes? This state is at the tip of a potential crisis. We have an growing population of people who are losing their jobs and their health insurance. There will be an increasing need to fund saftey net programs to deal with the issues that will create. Frankly, if a child cannot get needed food, shelter and medical care, education becomes a secondary concern. It's rough out there. We need to be very, very careful about how we spend the limited resources we have from a shrinking tax base. |
|
|
|
| livoniamom | Feb 22 2006, 07:18 PM Post #13 |
|
Principal
|
I would have to say No Way. I agree with Brooks Patterson on this one. Isn't it true that MI is already near the top in the country when it comes to per pupil spending? There is no guarentee or evidence that this will increase the quality of education for our kids. Much like municipalities, there will never be "enough" money for schools. I think before this ever happens you have to look at a way to cut costs. A BIG part of this is in union negotiations and contracts. Much like the auto companies, school districts have promised their employees a lot and can no longer afford it. I still remember working in the attendance office in high school back in the 80's -- at the end of the school year the secretary would dump loads of office supplies in the trash (such as typewriter ribbons that had never been used and were dried out) -- she explained that this was the only way she could order new supplies and use her budget up. BTW, off topic -- I read in the paper a few weeks ago that the city of Westland ended the year (for the 2nd time) with a budget surplus! That is incredible considering how poor all the cities are crying. |
|
|
|
| fyi | Feb 22 2006, 07:27 PM Post #14 |
|
Principal
|
QUOTE (Grant @ Feb 22 2006, 03:45 PM) I personally don't think your going to get any funding increases anytime soon. The tax payers are going to shoot it down if you put it on the ballot. No one wants to pay more property taxes(certainly not in Michigan) and even many parents don't think more money is the answer. The state has a goal of eliminating the Single business Tax, so you can forget about raising funds from something other than property taxes. First you have to prove to the tax payer that the current funds are being used wisely. That is very difficult when the perception is other school districts around the country do more with less funding. The expenses have to be ruthlessly attacked to the point the public has a sense that nothing more can be done without more funding. I think the first step in that battle is getting to the point where the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom is as high as possible and not significantly lower than other more successful districts(and/or)states. The next comparison is amount spent per student is not significantly higher than more successful districts/states. Charter schools have lower funding per pupil than MI school districts recieve, so as long as there are lotteries to get into charter schools like the one in Canton, the public school districts will have a hard time convincing anyone that the most important problem is that they are not getting enough money per pupil. Fundamentally, the public school districts have an image problem in regards to how they are spending the money they are already getting. They need to improve this image to win the votes of the taxpayer. They need to improve their image such that parents actually will choose the school district over the charter and/or private schools. LI is doing the opposite, it is tarnishing the image of the school district and it is encouraging parents to move their children into private school. If LPS doesn't see this, then we need to replace the BOE and the administration. ****************************************************************** This is the reason I don't think I could support the k-16 proposal. Also, where is the money coming from for this proposal? Answer:
|
|
|
|
| fyi | Feb 24 2006, 04:45 PM Post #15 |
|
Principal
|
http://www.mipublicschools.org/ I find it interesting that the MEA is listed along with the K-16 Coalition on this website. Also, listed is Michigan association of principals and secondary principals, MI dept. of Education, MI ass. of school boards, and MI schools public relations ass. Who will benefit from the additional funding? The kids??? Makes me wonder...... k-16 slogan: "Our youth, their jobs, our economy" |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |
11:42 AM Jul 13