Ann Arbor schools budget plans contain potentially controversial moves
About two years ago, Ann Arbor school board Trustee Randy Friedman raised eyebrows in the district when he suggested its marketing campaign focus on attracting students from outside the district through schools of choice.
That suggestion landed with a big thud, never to be raised again in a public board meeting.
Flash-forward to Thursday night.
As Ann Arbor Superintendent Todd Roberts announced a draft plan for making up a $20 million budget deficit in the next two years, he included opening 100 schools of choice seats in the district in kindergarten, first grade and sixth grade - along with 50 seats at the district’s alternative high schools.
Parents and others in attendance at Thursday's meeting broke into smaller groups to discuss the proposed budget cuts.
Melanie Maxwell | AnnArbor.com
Roberts projects the district could gain $1.5 million in revenue from that move. The state pays Ann Arbor, like every other district, a per-pupil grant that forms the bulk of the district’s revenues.
While the proposal has a long way to go before it’s put in place, it could be part of a package of changes coming to the district that have been resisted for years - even while they were implemented in neighboring districts.
Roberts said he’s gathering feedback from the community on his proposal first and could tweak it before sending it to the school board for approval.
Also sure to spark conversation are proposals to possibly privatize busing, implement pay-to-play athletics and privatize custodial workers. Read the entire list of proposed measures.
School board President Deb Mexicotte said the inclusion of such proposals means the district is serious about looking everywhere for savings.
The possible moves were outlined by Roberts during a community meeting on the district’s budget issues. Three more similar meetings will occur this month, with the next one at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at Skyline High School.
After Roberts outlined his proposals, the 100-plus people in attendance gathered in small groups around tables to discuss the moves. Other cost-cutting measures include eliminating 34 teaching positions, seven administrator positions and eight clerical positions.
The draft plan also calls for a 4 percent cut in wages and benefits for all staff - something that would have to be bargained with the various unions.
Teachers union President Brit Satchwell was at the meeting and said he thought the plan offers a starting point for discussions. He said he was also hopeful the district could take care of the teacher position cuts by attrition and not filling positions that opened up.
Several parents in attendance supported the ideas presented by Roberts.
“We all thought it was fair and there were no bombshells,” Wayne Baker, who has a second-grader at King Elementary School, told the large group as he reported on the discussion in his smaller group. “It looks like the right thing to do.”
But plenty of questions were also raised, including some who wondered whether the district looked at capacity numbers that could lead to school closures. Some concerns were also raised about privatizing workers.
Mexicotte said when the district privatized its food service workers a couple years ago, it was able to build clauses into the contract to protect wages and benefits for workers.
Parent Steve Norton said his small group thought the district was looking at the right things, but wondered about details. It was a view that appeared to be shared by many parents in the room.
“I think we all have some reservations about how things will turn out.”
More coverage: • Ann Arbor superintendent outlines draft plan that cuts 34 teachers, institutes pay-to-play sports • Ann Arbor student-athletes may pay to play to cover budget shortfall • Background on the district's budget.
David Jesse covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at davidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2534.
Comments
PhillyCheeseSteak
Wed, Feb 3, 2010 : 11 a.m.
Out sourcing custodial and bus driver services, at best, will only save a small amount of money. To see real saving, cuts have to be made at the highest levels, such as school prinicipals. The Ann Arbor's middle and elementary schools are under capacity and student populations will continue to decrease in the foreseeable future. Ann Arbor needs to close 1 or 2 elementary schools and 1 - 2 middle schools to eliminate principal and office staff salaries and the costs of operating those buildings. Why would we, Ann Arbor taxpayers, fund fully staffed schools that are hundreds of students below capacity?
Lisa Starrfield
Thu, Jan 14, 2010 : 11:58 a.m.
aataxpayer, Just out of curiosity, with whom do you think teachers' salaries should comparable?
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, Jan 11, 2010 : 11:19 p.m.
No, aataxpayer, I haven't misstated anything. Civil servants still exist in every government agency, and they may indeed receive what you describe. I'm sure many of them deserve more. Teachers, on the other hand, are an essential part of a "mission-critical" institution for our economy and our society. Why are teachers so much less deserving than doctors, or lawyers, or name a profession that earns pay far above the average? I believe that education is a public good, and that investments in education have huge payoffs. Apparently, many of the posters on these pages disagree. I think that is very sad, as well as being self-defeating.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, Jan 11, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
aataxpayer, I agree that it does not seem equitable, but then there is the question of whether we want it to be. If I'm depending on a doctor to treat my child, I want that doctor to be focusing on proper care for my child and not worried about making ends meet by churning patients through. Similarly, I want the best future for my children, and in an old tradition I want their future to be better than my present. I believe education is the foundation of all that. So I want my children's teachers to be focused on giving them every chance for success, and not on finding second or third jobs to help pay the bills. I'm not surprised that my doctor is paid more than I am; should I be scandalized that my children's teachers get compensation that is more secure than mine? Quite the opposite: I want them to focus all their energy on what is most important to me - my kids. Now that doesn't mean that I should not expect teachers to do their best (most do), or that I am willing to pay any amount without question (same goes for my doctor). But it is an unspoken compact: I'll help make sure you don't have to worry about updating your resume too often or working second jobs, and you focus all your energy on my kids and not on scrambling for financial security. As to pensions, the 18% is determined strictly by accounting rules which MPSERS has to follow to meet its expected obligations in the future and its current obligations to retiree health care. Yes, the MEA has been trying to defend their members' pensions, which is what they are paid to do, after all. But the MEA does not get to call the shots. After all, we had about a decade of Republican control of the governor's office and the legislature, but no significant changes were made to MPSERS in that time - even though the majority party had little obligation to the MEA. The biggest changes to occur came in 2007, where a Republican majority in the Senate forced a Democratic governor and House to accept tightening of teacher pension rules as a price for allowing the temporary increase in the sales tax. Fiscal analysts say these changes will save hundreds of millions of dollars, but we won't see savings for another seven years or more (when people employed under the new rules start to retire). MPSERS is on shaky ground in any case; it will be harder and harder for it to keep up with its obligations. There are fewer teachers paying in, and the number of retirees is growing. But any effort to change it will take resources. More than half of what districts pay into MPSERS now goes right out the back door to fund current pension and health benefits for retirees. The rest is going to shore up the plan's assets in light of the collapse in stock prices. We will have to find a way to cover current retirees once current teachers switch to contributing to individual accounts.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, Jan 11, 2010 : 12:12 a.m.
Let's lower the temperature on pensions. The state teacher's pension system is administered by a state agency and is governed by the state legislature. Absolutely no control over it at the local level. Moreover, the mandatory contributions of nearly 18% of payroll are not being saved for current teachers. They are half to fully fund pension obligations (driven by accounting rules) and half to pay the health benefits of current retirees. In fact, if I were a teacher currently, especially if I was a ways away from being fully vested, I would be very concerned about the solvency of the program. If equities stagnate for the next many years (as many analysts predict), and health care costs continue to balloon, I would be worrying that the state pension system would collapse before I got any benefit from it. Those that decry the current defined benefit system should not then make it sound like the 18% contributions are being saved for current teachers. They are not. That's how a defined benefit system works: current workers pay in to the system and support current retirees, and hope that when they retire in turn there will be enough workers to pay their benefits.
Lisa Starrfield
Sun, Jan 10, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
JNS, As a middle school teacher, I have to tell you that I am appalled by the quality and price of food served in the cafeteria. Teachers have stopped buying lunches in the cafeteria and are bringing their own or ordering food delivered.
jns131
Sun, Jan 10, 2010 : 11:10 a.m.
@Chai - Food Service used to be part of the AAPS and the workers worked for the school district. Now the food service is totally outsourced. The workers were let go and a private company brought in new people. The net result has been that even though lunch prices are up, the total revenue from the program (which is run as pretty much break even) is flat to declining - meaning that fewer students are eating a hot lunch and more are eating a cold lunch from home. After the privatization of the Food Service Workers, we noticed a definite increase in food prices for a hot lunch in the elementary level. Once our child entered Middle it was a sticker shock. After doing the math? I was stunned. I found that by packing a "healthy" lunch for ours? Saves us $60 a month by NOT eating at the middle school. In this economy who can eat a hot lunch at school by spending this much? Wow. Save your pennies and brown bag it. Also, health experts have said that school lunches are not that healthy. I hope hot lunches disappear completely. There is no savings in what they serve.
Lisa Starrfield
Sun, Jan 10, 2010 : 10:57 a.m.
aataxpayer, At the same time that the food services were privatized, the union voted to cut 30(approximately) teaching positions and restructure the middle schools. Don't blame us.
L'chaim
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 8:49 p.m.
@Donbee Yes, the Food Service was a teamster bargaining unit. I'm a Teamster rep for drivers/monitors. I was here in 2006. We lost about 33 positions when they outsourced FS. The workers lost wages, benefits and pensions, and students lost flavor, food choices...interest. Chartwells is now taking over vending machines in the district to supplement their income, out of desperation, it seems. The district hasn't saved the $500K they claimed they could --as you correctly said, they are paying about the same as before. @aataxpayer Thanks, your point is more clearly made. And, it's a valid point. But you say that "the teacher union's demands basically forced the school district to privatize food service employees," which you first characterized as "strong bargaining" which hurt the FS workers. First, a question: were these defined benefit pensions as low as $500k per annum? That's the savings they claimed to expect from the privatization. They could not hope to recoup the expense of the pensions with a trifling privatization, but perhaps they were on a spree for as much as they could get, from anywhere they could get it. Second, I disagree with saying that teachers forced the district to privatize. The district did what they wanted to do. Sadly, they got no organized resistance from any of the unions, and none from the community. But the teachers demands didn't break the bank. They still had income at that point. (The problem now is that they don't have income, essentially). Sure, theoretically they had less cash to spend after negotiating with teachers, but privatization isn't the "teacher's fault." It's too easy just to say that and it undermines our solidarity --the basis of truly strong bargaining. Who's to say they didn't have colleagues at chartwells they were throwing bones to; or out to bash the union for the likes of local real estate CEO's and Co.? These are contextual political factors, too, that should not be totally ignored.
DaisyMay34
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 12:50 p.m.
A copy of the "bid form" going out to privitize is on the aaps website: www.aaps.k12.mi.us go to current bid request view current bids pick whichever you want to view, it will only show the first page of the paperwork, you then have to click on the pdf file to view the whole thing. It looks to me like they are trying to write in the contract to keep current employees, as far as I understand...
sh1
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 12:07 p.m.
Glad to see pay-for-play sports is being discussed. It's been a sacred cow for too long in our district.
DonBee
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.
@Chai - Food Service used to be part of the AAPS and the workers worked for the school district. Now the food service is totally outsourced. The workers were let go and a private company brought in new people. The net result has been that even though lunch prices are up, the total revenue from the program (which is run as pretty much break even) is flat to declining - meaning that fewer students are eating a hot lunch and more are eating a cold lunch from home.
L'chaim
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.
Cuts in wages should be proportional, like some kind of a graduated scale that rises as the earnings do. Given that service workers have not kept up with inflation for a decade and have frozen wages for more than a year already, it should start somewhere down around.01% and go up to around 40% or so. That's my deflated 2-per cents on that issue.;)
L'chaim
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 10:16 a.m.
aataxpayer said: "'Strong bargaining' has already hurt the food service workers that are privatized - " I think I understand the gist of your overall statement, but I don't understand this part. What do you mean?
essene
Sat, Jan 9, 2010 : 12:16 a.m.
That idea of course relies on the current financial structure being maintained at the state level to provide the additional income. The LA district has just seen support removed from that kind of agreement by the state of California, so good luck here.