| K-16 Coalition; Looks like a vote. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 22 2006, 03:42 PM (2,859 Views) | |
| Grant1 | Mar 19 2006, 04:10 PM Post #76 |
We have just begun to fight!
|
Without legislation in place to mandate that this money goes directly into the classroom I fear it will end up in the same places and be cheating the students out of another opportunityfor better education at the classroom level. |
 |
|
| cmic | Mar 19 2006, 04:37 PM Post #77 |
Principal
|
Why shouldn't districts get a cost of living increase equal to inflation? Are they supposed to work with less money? These are our kids and I am willing to pay more to get them the best and withholding money is not the answer. |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Mar 19 2006, 04:58 PM Post #78 |
Principal
|
I for one do not want to withhold money per se, but I do want some assurances that all money is spent wisely and i don't want cuts to many other vital programs. These are tough economic times and many industries would be THRILLED to get a cost of living increase in the form of additional revenues every year. In health care, we are seeing decreases in revenues we receive from the government via medicare and medicaid reimbursement and have for several years. We have been forced to operate more efficiently in order not to cut from patient care. I want children in Michigan to have the very best education, but I am not willing to GUARANTEE increases for education when other areas that are also very important in our lives and the lives of our children are getting decreases. Should we give guarnteed increases to education and cut that money from health care, hurting the programs that provide care to people, including many children, with no insurance? Maybe the money could come from welfare or food stamps? The mental health industry has been devistated, leaving thousands of patients literally with no help at all. Do we cut more there? These are tough choices. I'm sorry, but I don't think education should take precedence over everything else by being the only sector getting such guarantees. There needs to be some balance. |
|
|
|
| Grant1 | Mar 19 2006, 04:58 PM Post #79 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
I would agree that many of us would gladly pay more for education for our children. But without the proper controls the money may not make it to the classroom |
|
|
|
| cmic | Mar 19 2006, 05:02 PM Post #80 |
|
Principal
|
I don't think that the K-16 plan is asking for education to take precedence over everything else. Why would you suggest that? Help me to understand because I think that we are talking apples and oranges. Mental health, Medicaid/Medicare has never been supported the way it should be but that doesn't mean schools should suffer. Those other organizations need to get organized and fight as well. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Mar 19 2006, 05:05 PM Post #81 |
|
Principal
|
Believe me, we have fought. The bottom line is that without a tax increase to support this K-16 measure, the money HAS to come from somewhere else in the state budget. Where would it come from ? Which state program should have funding reduced to pay for that guarantee? |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 19 2006, 05:09 PM Post #82 |
|
Principal
|
Where will the money come from? It will be like taking money from Peter to pay Paul. The money will come from yearly tax increases placed on the taxpayers or a reduction in government services. This proposal comes with no guarantees that the additional funds will make it into the classroom and or improve academic achievement. |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 19 2006, 05:22 PM Post #83 |
|
Principal
|
What about the districts that get less money from the State and have higher test scores and offer their students more educational opportunities? What about the districts that operate with less money but manage to balance their budgets? What is their secret? Is more money the answer? Maybe it's how they manage the money that they have been given---not how much money they get? |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Mar 19 2006, 05:38 PM Post #84 |
|
Principal
|
To that point...it is not the teachers who manage the money. I love teachers.  I don't trust some administrators and board members to spend the money wisely. <_<
|
|
|
|
| cmic | Mar 20 2006, 03:38 PM Post #85 |
|
Principal
|
Which districts have balanced budgets? I really believe that most districts aren't balancing budgets because they don't have the increases in funding that they used to get. As far as taking from Paul to pay Peter, I guess it will be up to the voters this time. I think it is important for the increases to go through in order to ensure excellence for all children. I am hoping that people will vote to support it. The word in other districts is that the support is there. Unfortunately, there are opposers as well, but that is ok. Everyone has to decide for themselves. Peace!
|
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 20 2006, 06:48 PM Post #86 |
|
Principal
|
School Funding: Lack of Money or Lack of Money Management? In 1994, Michigan citizens approved a constitutional amendment that dramatically altered the way public schools are funded. Known as Proposal A, the amendment delivered much-needed tax relief to overburdened property owners in exchange for a sales-tax increase—and a significant shift in control of the education purse-strings from the local to the state level. Now, seven years later, some officials are saying it's time to let districts again tap local property owners for more school taxes. Do these officials have a case, or are schools missing opportunities to better use the resources they already have? First, a brief history lesson is in order. Prior to 1994, Michigan's property tax burden was 35 percent above the national average, thanks in large part to irregular millage elections that depressed turnout and ensured narrow special interests would always get the tax increases they wanted. Proposal A cut property taxes by one-third, but increased sales and use taxes by 50 percent. It also dedicated 4.2 cents of the now 6-cent sales tax to the state School Aid Fund and established a minimum "foundation grant"—a per-pupil allotment allocated by the state to schools based on their enrollment. Public school funding, meanwhile, has become a top state priority. Revenues for public schooling since 1995 have increased by more than 50 percent, from $4,200 to $6,500 per student—double the inflation rate. The National Education Association says Michigan outspends 43 other states in this area. Nevertheless, some school officials claim that a dearth of dollars resulting from Proposal A is forcing them to lay off teachers, close schools, and cut student programs. Paul Bosquette, a school board member in Wayne County's Redford Union School District, says that a lack of "proper funding" is to blame for his district's $1.3-million deficit. Is Bosquette right? It's hard to think so when per-pupil revenues in Redford Union are up nearly 40 percent since 1994. Redford's—and other districts'—problem is not so much a lack of revenue but rather that large amounts of education dollars continue to be consumed by unreasonable collective bargaining agreements, costly non-instructional services, and inefficient management practices. (The National Center for Education Statistics reports that Michigan ranks below only two other states in the percentage of education dollars it spends on bureaucracy vs. classroom instruction.) The result is that no amount of taxpayer money is ever deemed to be "enough" to fund public schools. Redford officials know how to cut unnecessary costs and fix the district's financial problems; they're just unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to do it. Earlier this year, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy met with officials to discuss their options—including competitively bidding out performance of non-instructional services to private firms. The officials agreed that quality services at significant cost savings were readily available. But they also know the powerful school employee union, the Michigan Education Association, opposes any move that would lessen its annual revenue stream of over $700 million in dues and premiums from school employees and districts. The result: Criticize Proposal A, because that's politically easier than risking a highly public union protest. Others complain that Proposal A hurts districts facing declining enrollment. Holland Public Schools claims that Proposal A helped force the closure of a popular elementary school. Officials there argue that a loss of students, without a corresponding reduction in "fixed" costs, is causing financial troubles—even though Holland receives over $2,000 more per student in 2001 than it did in 1994. In other words, Holland's budget is $10 million larger than it was before Proposal A, while at the same time the district has to educate fewer students. Declining enrollment does make certain budgetary decisions difficult, but what enterprise is immune to fluctuations in the marketplace? Every operation—including schools—must consider and plan for future changes in its customer base. This is simple economic reality. The fact is that most districts—including many that have received smaller funding increases than have Redford and Holland—are able to balance their budgets. Trenton Public Schools, for example, has not felt it necessary to ask for a single tax increase in over 30 years. Our schools need to learn the same lesson parents hope their children will learn: You can't spend all your money irresponsibly and expect your allowance to increase. ##### (Former teacher Matthew J. Brouillette is director of education policy with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and his affiliation are cited.) |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |
11:42 AM Jul 13