| K-16 Coalition; Looks like a vote. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 22 2006, 03:42 PM (2,863 Views) | |
| NFarquharson | Feb 28 2006, 07:04 AM Post #31 |
Principal
|
Because the people who adamantly support this LI are those that already have close ties to the administration and the BOE. Despite the fact that they have seen for themselves the inappropriate way that this was steamrolled over Livonia, they are supporting their friends. There may be others who are just uneducated or apathetic, but I believe you will find that those who are strongly in support of the LI are the hangers-on. |
 |
|
| Administrator | Mar 1 2006, 11:40 AM Post #32 |
|
Administrator
|
No LI supporters will chime in on this. I know we all know something about this subject. Why the silence? I just want to know how all sides feel about this.(K-16 coalition) |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 1 2006, 02:56 PM Post #33 |
|
Principal
|
Jimid, I don't know why people are not responding to this topic. Maybe they think it doesn't have a very good chance of passing? 
|
|
|
|
| Elisa | Mar 1 2006, 02:58 PM Post #34 |
Principal
|
I think that on some level, everyone understands that more money doesn't always solve the underlying issues. |
|
|
|
| Elisa | Mar 1 2006, 03:24 PM Post #35 |
|
Principal
|
Interesting commentary from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Michigan Chamber recommends 'no' vote on K-16 Coalition's proposal IF YOU ASK ME FLINT THE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Sunday, February 19, 2006 By Tricia Kinley JOURNAL READER Few citizens would disagree that education is a top priority for Michigan. Taxpayers have demonstrated their very generous support for public education with dramatic funding increases in the 10 years following the passage of Proposal A. But there are, and should be, limits to how much citizens are expected to financially support our education system. In November, Michigan voters will likely be faced with a ballot proposal to implement guaranteed, annual increases in school funding. This ballot proposal, backed by the K-16 Coalition for Michigan's Future, which includes the Michigan Education Association, would do real damage to Michigan's budget and would almost certainly lead to tax increases for Michigan citizens. Make no mistake. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce supports adequate funding for education. Unfortunately, the K-16 proposal has little to do with education improvement, student achievement or higher school standards, and everything to do with circumventing the state budgeting process and setting school funding on autopilot with no regard for expectations or results. The K-16 Coalition's plan to automatically increase annual state spending on K-12 school districts, community colleges and state universities by the rate of inflation would remove a large sum of public money from annual review and budgetary control - money used for such critical needs as police protection and firefighters - thus severely limiting the ability of the Legislature and governor to set priorities. The K-16 proposal has two likely outcomes: cuts to critical services or tax increases. Early estimates show this proposal would cost the state $1.1 billion more per year to fund. Ironically, in 2002, the education community opposed similar earmarking of tobacco settlement revenue for health care related programs. Now they want legislators and voters to support an attempt to mandate increases for education despite what it may mean to other critical services. Don't be misled. The K-16 Coalition wants citizens to believe that education funding has been "cut to the bone." In reality, between 1994 and 2004, appropriations for K-12 education increased by 42.9 percent, while enrollment increased by just 5 percent. At the same time, revenue sharing funds for cities, townships and counties went up by just 11.6 percent. The K-16 Coalition also claims that the Legislature could simply change the guaranteed funding increases, if necessary. What they aren't saying is that if the proposal is adopted by voters it would require a majority vote of both the state House and Senate to change the guaranteed funding - a nearly impossible feat to accomplish. Finally, rather than have their petition signatures certified right away, the K-16 Coalition's tactic is to extract immediate funding increases from the Legislature in exchange for dropping its ballot proposal. The Legislature and governor should set budget priorities based on outcomes, not threats. Taxpayers deserve nothing short of a system based on accountability and results. The Michigan Chamber has identified 16 reasons why the K-16 proposal is wrong for Michigan. The list is available on the chamber's Web site at www.michamber.com. Voters should flatly reject this ill-advised proposal. Tricia Kinley is director of tax policy and economic development for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 1 2006, 04:11 PM Post #36 |
|
Administrator
|
"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." Is this why no one will talk about it? The old grapevine....Administration...PTA...people... Keep it quite until they are ready to push the issue? I still need to be convinced one way or the other. |
|
|
|
| Elisa | Mar 1 2006, 04:41 PM Post #37 |
|
Principal
|
I am not sure there is much support for this, beyond the Unions and administration. Fall 2005 Issue Posted: Dec. 15, 2005 Are mandatory funding increases for public schools the key to student success? No Earmarking sets dangerous precedent By Mr. Jim Barrett 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 | Mar 1 2006, 06:09 PM Post #38 |
Principal
|
I think people don't want to talk about it because it is a hot topic. We can't tell the voices or body postures that are coming with the words and sometimes it feels like you are getting attacked if you are for it. I haven't had enough time to research this topic. When I have, I will share my thoughts although it will be hesitantly because I will probably favor an increase. I have felt that the schools should receive an increase equal to inflation. But, it is just my humble opinion and I am sure many people will be ready to shoot me down as quickly as I post this... so I will try to run quickly and hide behind trees!!!
|
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 1 2006, 06:23 PM Post #39 |
|
Principal
|
There are special interest groups on both sides of the fence on this issue. Here are sixteen reasons (given by the chamber), not to support the k-16 proposal: http://www.michamber.com/ba/k16/16reasonsbrochure.pdf |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 1 2006, 06:37 PM Post #40 |
|
Administrator
|
I will support an increase. I just want to be sure it is going into the classroom only. |
|
|
|
| Elisa | Mar 1 2006, 07:09 PM Post #41 |
|
Principal
|
"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." This would probably be my biggest problem with this legislation. Along with the seeming lack of accountability in terms of what the districts do with these increases. It was also quoted that per pupil funding received by most districts has doubled or tripled the rate of inflation. Do you believe that if this passes and additional funding is guaranteed that will be enough? I guess I envision a never ending plea for more and more money. I do not think that it will ever be enough as long as districts continue to operate in the same manner. I do not think that the educational system here in MI can withstand the "business as usual" approach. cmic, go ahead and put your thoughts out there. A healthy debate is good. I am not in favor of shooting anyone down!  |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 1 2006, 09:01 PM Post #42 |
|
Principal
|
That's the problem with the proposed legislation. There is no guarantee that it will go toward the kids. Unions, school boards, and administration support it because it will allow them to continue the status quo without any accountability. Trying to find information.... |
|
|
|
| ktmom | Mar 1 2006, 09:03 PM Post #43 |
Principal
|
Ahhh. Accountability, wouldn't that be nice. |
|
|
|
| cmic | Mar 12 2006, 01:25 PM Post #44 |
|
Principal
|
Do you really think school's don't have any accountability. I don't agree at all. We are mandated all over the place with what we can and can't do. We have to cross every t, dot every i and then send it in to be double checked. We have NCLB, MEAP, and parents riding us every step we take while administrators are coming up with more and more that must be added to the list. Accountability, yes! Time, no. Is there room for improvement? Yes. |
|
|
|
| Grant1 | Mar 12 2006, 01:27 PM Post #45 |
We have just begun to fight!
|
Accountability...One of the Six Habits of a Fiscally Responsible School District per the Mackinaw Center Publication on the same. |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |
11:43 AM Jul 13