ghostwriter

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 8:20 p.m.

@Eyeheart2 How misguided to think that because of one bad union busdriver and one private custodian, that these are examples of reasons to privatize. They aren't. The answer to your question is yes we can do worse by outsourcing. Those who think that this is just about custodial are clearly misinformed. The custodian who was identified in the student assault case is in jail now. I know this because as the union president at the time, I was looking to see who was cleaning our schools. With 6 high schools, 5 middle school and 22 elementary schools, shortages do happen. That's approximately 500,000 square ft. daily. Imagine to my surprise when said employee, takes initiative to clean a secure area; that he'd be happy to do it because he has a certificate in floor cleaning! I said, "Where did you get it? (seemed unusual) He said, "prison". Now we can talk all day about proper police checks ect., They are better now. But, I will not buy into the race to the bottom or put down your can of beer I got a good job for you. This was a management failure and putting more children at risk for their safety and quite simply the cleanliness of the buildings is whats at stake. The proposal isn't just about custodians, It's about 138 custodians who are not just janitors, they're caretakers of the facilities we pay taxes for. Let's not exclude the two full time delivery people who provide mail and teaching materials everyday. Their used to be 4 routes, now they're are two. One Laundry person for rags, towels, uniforms for our sport programs distributed throughout the district. One repair person for all custodial equipment, vacuum cleaners, carpet cleaners, extractors, lawn mowers, snow blowers, ect.. 2 locksmiths for all buildings. Their is no security in handing a private firm the keys to the school district to disburse amongst their employees (note another layer of management). Is the public aware of how much it costs to re-key a school. Teachers are aware of how tedious it is to obtain keys to their classroom, file cabinet and closet all in the name of security. This is not handled well with the general office, they don't have the time and they don't track the keys. The rest of the maintenance staff referred to in this proposal are electricians, plumbers (certified pool operators), carpenters, grounds, who have dedicated their careers to the district. The proposal does nothing for the families of these folks, a lot of whose children attend Ann Arbor. Imagine crewchiefs and supervisors attempting to deal with a gas leak, a power outage (a lot of damage occurs) if not dealt with properly. These site supervisors do not deal with the mechanics of a bldg, they call school maintenance. Johnson Controls is not the answer, their response time is lousy and cause the district substantial amounts in overruns. They lost their entire contract in Pinckney and now are understaffed because they have let so many workers go. The RFP for privatization is weak in how the real issues of running Ann Arbor Schools are addressed everyday. The workers are here because they want to be here. The Custodial contract is already two-tiered so that it has cost savings and a cap for the amount that they work for. Their is no magic to solving this cleaning/maintenance issue. The race to the bottom will hurt everyone who uses the building. This is a dedicated group that works the buildings and grounds year round so that they're ready in the fall. The mantra goes, "We'll be ready were always ready". The Union has always stepped up to get the schools open on snow days (grounds plowing), the first day of school. Ask Todd Roberts who was their on labor day to finish construction for the new preschool (union custodians). Who was there when contractors could not pass inspections at Allen and Thurston Elementary the day before school opened (maintenance Plumbing staff).These are just a few examples. Schools are open and stay open because of our services. An Outsource company cannot do this in Ann Arbor. It it to big of an operation. Sodexo of Marriot put forth a proposal years ago and attempted to do the same thing. Their suggestion was to put 1 day custodian at Pioneer. Just Imagine the lunch program, oh, your kid can't open their locker, oops. The pool is green and you can't see the bottom. These are just a few examples. I might add the union with management, mirrored (not everything, let's face some it was dumb) the proposal for the projected cost savings to everyone's satisfaction, without an extra layer of management. The real numbers of cost savings should not be foisted on the folks who make the least. Remember, that overtime cost is in addition to the 2.5 already proposed. Hey the service people can live with that, it's not negotiable (overtime). It's optional. It is also a demand for services that the union willingly steps up for and everyone benefits who enjoy being a part of the school community. This group has taken substantial cuts over the years and has been referred to as the sacrificial lamb to get to the teachers and administrators. We're not opposed to concessions, they need to be more equitable.

bornblu

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 4:04 p.m.

"Ann Arbor mayor and most council members take symbolic pay cut", AA.Com 1/19/10. Kudos and thanks for providing true leadership to Council members Honke, Derezinski, Taylor, Smith, Briere, Teall and Mayor Hieftje. Amounts of pay cuts are not important (3%), it is the actions of the leaders of Ann Arbor in response to difficult financial times, when they are requesting similar contributions by others. I adamently do not believe that this would mean the quality of their leadership will now decrease (because their pay is reduced). I believe not, and in fact, if I lived in Ann Arbor I would do what is possible to assist in their efforts to allow Ann Arbor to remain the quality residential location it is. @ Jack; all I am asking is that this same leadership be shown by those within the AAPS system (administration, teachers, support staff). If I were to see this, they also would have my complete support. @ Lisa; I aplogize for my previous comments, they were out of line and made out of frustration. I hope I never become defined by that type of response. Although I strongly disagree with your position, I sincerely respect your committment to education by your involvment in this discussion and, as Jack previously said, would also be delighted to have you teach my grandchildren

Jack Panitch

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.

I found the cite to the recent Mackinac Center article on educational attainment: What It Doesnt Take To Grow Michigan, By Mr. James M. Hohman | 12/11/2009, http://www.mackinac.org/11507. Then I went and found the article Mr. Hohman criticizes, Michigan Future, Inc.s, Michigans Transition to a Knowledge Based Economy Second Annual Progress Report, by Lou Glazer, President, and Don Grimes, Senior Research Specialist. http://www.michiganfuture.org/Reports/progress%20report%2009.pdf What I found in reading and digesting both was an unpersuasive attack by one group of experts the Mackinac Center to discredit another group of experts, Michigan Future, Inc., through use of a very old trick: shooting down an argument the first group never made, i.e., an argument mischaracterized by material oversimplification. So beware attempts to perpetuate this oversimplification. Please read the two articles and decide for yourself, but Michigan Future, Inc., in fact, does not argue that the path to future prosperity is simply to increase the number of B.A.s in Michigan. The actual focus of the Michigan Future report is talent,... defined as a combination of knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurship. The reports recommended strategy for increasing the pool of talent here in Michigan is: [beginning of quoted material] Building a culture aligned with (rather than resisting) the realities of a flattening world. We need to far more highly value learning, an entrepreneurial spirit and being welcoming to all. Creating places where talent particularly mobile young talent wants to live. This means expanded public investments in quality of place with an emphasis on vibrant central city neighborhoods. Ensuring the long-term success of a vibrant and agile higher education system. This means increasing public investments in higher education. Our higher education institutions particularly the major research institutions are the most important assets we have to develop the concentration of talent needed in a knowledge-based economy. Transforming teaching and learning so that it is aligned with the realities of a flattening world. All of education needs reinvention. Most important is to substantially increase the proportion of students who leave high school academically ready for higher education. Developing new public and, most importantly, private sector leadership that has moved beyond both a desire to recreate the old economy as well as the old fights. Michigan needs a leadership that is clearly focused, at both the state and regional level, on preparing, retaining and attracting talent so that we can prosper in the global economy [End of quoted material] Getting back to aataxpayers query why we wouldnt expect Michigan teachers salaries to take a hit when Michigans per capita income ranking falls rapidly, anyone reading this blog has to judge for him- or herself whether constant, consistent vigilance on the public v. private sector equity theme is truly paramount, or whether we ought to be applying a standard of prudent investment to allocate our diminished resources, tempered by fairness to all public employees, but with a lesser concern for an abstract sense of absolute fairness to all wage earners, public or private. One last observation: someone, many comments ago, informed us that there was a solution to the $4 million privatization issue that had not yet been presented to the public. I wonder when we will hear more about that.

DagnyJ

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.

Lisa, I would like to see the link to an article with data showing what happens when teacher pay is reduced. I would like to see an article not from an advocacy group (NEA, Heritage Foundation, etc.) but from a more neutral and respected source, like a research group or journal. Thanks.

DonBee

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 1:32 a.m.

Lisa - You posted: "Teacher quality IS responsive to teacher salary. You reduce our pay, the quality of teachers will go down. Good teachers will go elsewhere. Good teachers will leave the profession and seek other opportunities. Good teachers will stay home with their kids. Student performance IS responsive to teacher quality. You reduce teacher quality, the quality of student performance will go down. You get what you pay for." Can you provide a link to ANY peer reviewed study that shows that this is true? Can you provide any study that shows there is a direct link between teacher salaries and teacher quality? I appreciate the personal comments, but I suspect with the local economy and the fact that AAPS seems to be near the top of the districts in Michigan that the number of applications to teach in Ann Arbor would drop dramatically with a small decrease in salary. I am NOT advocating that there be a cut, only that if an experiment in reduced salary were run that the quality and quantity of people who want to teach in AAPS would decrease. I am looking forward to the links to the studies. Thank you Lisa

DonBee

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 1:24 a.m.

Steve - Sorry - in absolute dollars 27 percent over 7 years is a pretty good increase. You say many districts, not unusual and use other general terms. Would you care to quantify the number of districts that have both sinking funds and bond millages passed since 2002 and in effect now in the state? How about a percentage? Of the 83 counties in the state, how many have a special education millage? I think you are avoiding numbers because you know the percentages will not be in your favor. So I challenge you Steve, if you think it is more than 50% on either count, post the numbers. I will work this weekend to dig out the numbers, so if you don't have time, I will work on it this weekend. I have a feeling that I will find that when I do the research that AAPS is in better shape (3 for 3) than most of the districts in the state. In absolute dollars from local voters per student, I suspect that we are doing very well today. Again if you disagree, please do the research and post the numbers. I work hard to dig out numbers and links and try to document what I find. If you are going to disagree, than I invite you to provide your own numbers. The $243 million is a real number. It is in the budget. All of that money is important to the district. Yes I remember buckets, and the other day when I was in the school, I saw a couple - flat roofs do that, even with good roof maintenance. Yes there was deferred maintenance, and there still is. Every large organization has some, even the airplanes you ride on. Not everything can be fixed at the time it is found. Yes the backlog is down, but the reality of it is, that if the sinking fund had not passed, it would have been computers, networks and furniture that would have been deferred into the future, not fixing the roof and the boilers. Health and Safety have to be handled, and the fire marshall(and others) are responsible for making sure this is true of any school before it opens. Yes Skyline would not have been built, who knows if that would have been a good thing or a bad thing. The pre-school rooms also would not have been built - and given that the program was supposed to be revenue neutral (see the original statements about pre-school at the time of the millage) and they now drain cash from the schools, maybe the bond were not a good idea. I will leave it to each person to form their own opinion. I am still agnostic on it, even though I reluctantly voted for it. I believed in some things and not in others. The majority of the voters who went to the polls voted for all three of these millages - and the way you are discounting this local support seems to say (to me anyway) "Oh that money was not important to the schools, only this new millage was important to the schools, see that money does not really count." I know that is not what you are trying to say, but that is the way your posts seem to read. Only the operating funds are important and any discussion of total revenue and total expenses is not important, we need to just focus on this one piece and "see it is not growing". I agree the one piece you want to focus on is not growing. But the total spend is growing. The idea that the school has cut spending is in absolute terms not true. They have trimmed what they wanted to spend - just like if I put lobster on my shopping list (consider this my budget), I am likely to come home with a chicken instead (my spending), because that is what I can actually afford. So I could argue that I have trimmed my budget by the difference in the cost of the lobster vs the chicken. It is dishonest to talk about spending cuts when the reality is that the overall costs are up. I can agree, some programs have been trimmed and some staff positions have been trimmed to keep costs under control. I can agree that some areas have not gotten the money that they should have gotten. BUT, and this is a big but, the total spending is up and more than inflation. So the money is being spent somewhere. Someone is prioritizing where the money is being spent and what is being cut. Either we are making the right decisions or the wrong decision. I don't know. All I can do is look at what others are doing against what AAPS is doing and ask "Why are we different?" I don't see responses to those questions. Have you pulled down the budget presentation from Plymouth-Canton? If not why not? What do you think of those ideas? Can we run the athletics with 1 athletic director? If not why not? I see you and Lisa both saying "We need more money!" I am sorry, until people talk about the real issues of where the money is going and why and why AAPS needs so much more than the surrounding districts and...I am not interested in another millage. I will continue to dig into the "User Friendly" budget that AAPS posted and the surrounding districts budgets and budget ideas. I am disappointed that work has taken me out of town for every single budget meeting. I asked here and in an email to the school for a weekend meeting on the budget. I want to be involved in finding solutions. I really do support good education.

Jack Panitch

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 10:47 p.m.

I just went to the Mackinac Center's web site and plugged the terms "educational attainment" and "college attainment" into the Center's internal search function. The only relevant hit I got was a 1991 article that pushed for greater educational attainment. Can anyone help aataxpayer and I out with a cite to the Mackinac Center literature that supports the explanation of "educational attainment" aataxpayer just provided?

Lisa Starrfield

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 8:56 p.m.

aataxpayer, Teacher quality IS responsive to teacher salary. You reduce our pay, the quality of teachers will go down. Good teachers will go elsewhere. Good teachers will leave the profession and seek other opportunities. Good teachers will stay home with their kids. Student performance IS responsive to teacher quality. You reduce teacher quality, the quality of student performance will go down. You get what you pay for.

Jack Panitch

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 3:26 p.m.

aataxpayer -- Doesn't the answer to your last question depend on where we all want to be in the future and what we believe is the best way to get there? Let me explain. I perused the article you cited to Mr. Norton, and found the following material: [Beginning of quote] "While our old pillars are collapsing, we are not doing what we should be doing to build the new pillars of our economy," Michigan Future President Lou Glazer said. The state needs to put more emphasis on improving the educational attainment of its residents and less on trying to attract new business and industries, he said. It's a controversial notion that has been criticized by some, including the Midland-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which says lower taxes and more business support will attract talented workers The state is having some success in attracting jobs in such areas as movie making and alternative energy. But no one knows if those industries will be sustained, according to the Michigan Future report. "State governments and local communities can create communities where people want to live," Glazer said. "There's no evidence they can create new industries." A smarter, more educated work force also is important in creating new businesses that will be the lifeblood of the state's economic future, said Mark Murray, president of Walker-based retailer Meijer Inc. [End of quote] Now I note that there is a disconnect in the article. Paragraph 2 speaks of a greater emphasis on educational attainment and paragraph 3 says that the Mackinack Center criticizes that approach. Im sure the Mackinac Center criticizes an emphasis on greater educational spending, not greater educational attainment. To me thats an important gaffe. Can we find a way to balance what are not really competing views? Can we agree that we need to be vigilant to ensure that there is minimal or no waste and that we are making the most of what we have? Can we also agree that a priority on investment in education now will pay dividends in the future? Can we marry the two principles and try to get a working rule that yes, we will put more into the system and more into teachers, but only if we are reasonably sure that we will be getting something valuable for it? And does the equity factor take a lower priority when viewed in that light? It may seem unfair, but if someone can convince us that it is a way to the promised land, could we agree that maybe it makes sense to ignore the differential? Whole lotta counterintuitive things in this life: I forget to watch my airspeed on approach. My plane stalls and my left wing drops. I instinctively try to pick it back up by rolling in right aeleron -- what always brings that wing back up when there is normal airflow -- and, instead, go into a spin. Lord help me, but I need to overcome that instinct and use my rudder, not my aeleron, to correct. Otherwise, pilot and passengers are going down hard and messy. Left aeleron feels right, but it will kill me. Maybe failing to prioritize prudent education investment now will kill Michigan's future.

dswan

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 3:16 p.m.

The posts on this story have varied from interesting ideas about how we approach this issue, sometimes backed by hard data; to cries of panic that any cuts will lead to an irreversible last-place finish amongst the state economies, usually with absolutely no data whatsoever. The data is available. Much of it can be found at http://www.mackinac.org/10361. Use the data to formulate ideas to mitigate this crisis, rather than ignoring the data to perpetuate fear mongering. Crisis brings opportunity...to re-evaluate our priorities and make short-term sacrifices that lead us to a path of slow but improving growth. Calls to Invest, Invest, Invest w/o any cuts are not realistic, unless China wants to expand their lending to every level of government. California's current budget issues have more to do with the state's cash flow problems, not privatizing public school services in the 90's. AAPS spends significantly more in some areas than other similarly sized and academically competitive districts (Ply-Canton being one example). With statewide elections coming up, it's up to us to know the data, force those running for office to present plans, and vote yes to begin work toward a new state constitution.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

Not sure who is reading this thread anymore, but: aataxpayer: figures for state K-12 spending as a percentage of Michigan personal income can be found in this article by BoE member and economist Glenn Nelson on the CMC site: http://a2cmc.org/node/38 Combined state and local K-12 spending as percent of state personal income is my own calculation, based on similar data (MDE publications on school spending, semi-annual consensus revenue estimates for personal income figures). Current overall tax revenue compared to Headlee limit is calculated in each semi-annual consensus revenue estimate report, as required by law. DonBee: Once again, you have confused two different pots of money. The district did indeed set aside $7 million in previous years for the "capital needs fund," an account the BoE created to hold money they wanted to earmark for capital projects which come come up every year. The sinking fund has allowed the BoE to reduce the earmark to $1.5 million this year; that is a direct response to the declining real value of the operating funds we are allowed by the state. However, sinking funds are not permitted to be used to purchase things like buses and technology hardware, so some earmarking from operational funds is necessary to keep up with these costs. The bonds are just that - bonds, sold to investors which must have a dedicated millage to pay them off. As the bonds are paid off, the millage declines. It would be difficult to sell those bonds if they were to be paid from general operational funds ("general obligation" bonds are considered quite risky and carry a much higher interest rate). Taking those revenues and plowing them into operations is probably illegal and would in any case put the district into default on its debt. Also, contrary to your assertion, nearly every district in the state issues bonds at one time or another for construction or renovation; many local districts have done that in the past few years. I think Chelsea just passed one in May. And how do you think Saline built their new high school - with operating funds? These bonds must have dedicated millages to pay them off. Check out the news archives. No one builds a new school from operating funds. Sinking funds are also used by many districts. Finally, regional millages to fund special education or vocational education (two of the allowed uses) are not at all unusual. The unrestricted kind, which WISD voters defeated in November, are very rare, however. So, the 2004 bonds which funded the "Comprehensive school improvement program" (CSIP), which built Skyline (40%) and included major renovations at every other building in the district (60%), did not replace operational funds. Almost none of that would have happened had the bond millage failed. The sinking fund has taken some of the burden of ongoing capital costs off the operational budget - but on the other hand, much of that work was NOT being done anyway. Does the phrase "deferred maintenance" ring any bells? Before the 2004 bond and the increased sinking fund, my kids' school had buckets out to catch the roof leaks. No exaggeration. My point is that all these things do not show that AAPS is lavishly funded by its voters. The bonds and sinking funds are used by nearly every district at one time or another, and very few of those projects would have been pursued otherwise. Without the special ed millage, our special ed enrollment would not have grown, and the range of services would be much more limited. None of that money can be used for operations, and much of it would not have been spent in the absence of the special ed millage. The bottom line is that the arguments you advance dovetail perfectly with those who would like to exaggerate the size and growth of the AAPS budget. But take a real look at what has been available for general education, and how it has fared against inflation over the last decade (badly), and you get clear picture of the bind we are in. Just because it suits some people not to see these facts does not make them any less true.

YpsiLivin

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 11:43 p.m.

DonBee said: All in (bonds, sinking fund, special education millage, etc) AAPS has a total budget of $243,963,246 up from $190,738,783 in 2002 (oldest public document on the AAPS website). That is an increase of 27.9% in the last 7 years. Actually, adjusted for inflation during the same period, it's about a 9% increase, but any increase in a protracted recession is a good deal when you can get it...

Jack Panitch

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 10:13 p.m.

Amen, Mr. Thomas. bornblu -- I don't think Ms. Starfield needs any propping up, but what the hey? I would be delighted to have her teaching my kids. She would strongly reinforce some of the important behaviors I'm trying to teach them: they would learn courage, they would learn leadership, they would learn to stand up for their beliefs, they would learn to take risks, they would learn to stand proudly and put their name on their work. Stuff like that. (Put their name on their work) (Put their name on their work) (Put their name on their work)

Andrew Thomas

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:44 p.m.

I think we're getting very close to a tipping point in terms of what is acceptable to the majority of district stakeholders and what is not. The District's original proposal did a very good job (in my opinion) of spreading the pain, of being fair to as many constituents as possible (given the financial situation we're in), and preserving those programs that are mission critical (and in Ann Arbor, this includes programs such as Community High that set us apart from most other districts). From the contact I've had with teachers, a pay cut of 4% is certainly not something anyone wants, but something most could live with. But when you start raising that to the 7-8% level (or higher), you really start hitting people where they live. It also sends a message (intentional or unintentional) that their services are not valued, and that they are being singled out to take a disproportionate hit. In the end, I think AAEA will do the right thing and make the necessary wage and benefit concessions. But don't expect them to carry the entire weight of the cuts, don't ask for something unreasonable, and for heavens sake, stop belittling them.

Lisa Starrfield

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.

Yep, bornblu, cause if teachers REALLY cared about their students, we would take a 50% pay cut happily, right? It would be selfish to expect decent wages and benefits appropriate to our education and experience. Right?

bornblu

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:28 p.m.

Well Lisa, it finally shows. Its not about the kids, their education, the community; it's about the money---yours. At least we know where you really stand.

Lisa Starrfield

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 8:51 p.m.

bornblu, How dare we defend ourselves, our salaries and our livelihoods? What kind of selfish people are we to not take a 8% or 10% or even 20%(as was suggested by one individual) without a fight? How DARE we ask that the community actually fund its schools properly? Don't we know how unreasonable it is to ask for folks to play a $16 a month tax when we could take thousands of dollars in salary cuts instead? How dare we expect the right to collective bargaining?

bornblu

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 5:07 p.m.

DagnyJ; no axe to grind, only some observations, some people agree, others do not, but just to assure you, I am quite content and happy. I would ask you read my post, no reference or indication was made that technicians know more about school subject matter than teachers. What I said was that all education is unique and for many jobs a BA or MA is not necessary but that the knowledge technicians obtain is still an educational value. I certianly agree with you in that "Both are valuable, and they are in different fields with different economics". Now if we can get all involved in the AAPS system to acknowledge this (see DonBee's statistics) we can move forward.

DagnyJ

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 12:08 p.m.

bornblu, I've been fairly critical of the way the AAPS is structured, and the bizarre belief that CHS is the saving grace of public education in this town. That said, your stance on teachers, their knowledge and skills, their work, is quite far from reality. Yes, I do think that many of my children's teachers know more about their subject matter than does an HVAC repairperson. But I wouldn't ask my kid's teacher to repair my furnace. Both are valuable, and they are in different fields with different economics. Something tells me you have an axe to grind.

DonBee

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

Steve Norton - Other districts in the state do not have the bond funds, the sinking funds or the county special education millage. They have to take money from the Operational budget to pay for those things. Believe me - without them the AAPS would be in much worse shape. They count, otherwise the school would not have asked for the millages to be passed. Ask the superintendent or the school board this - should we repeal them, since they don't count? I bet they would (and many readers here) would be up in arms if a petition to repeal them was started (though it probably would not be legal to do so). Steve - they count in the overall funds available to the district. OBTW - they took $7 million from the operating millage in 2002 to pay down bonds (I finally got an answer from AAPS). So having the bond millage means they do not have to do it again. @the Grinch - Where did I say that it was not, what I said was that the county voters had provided these funds. Indeed my words were "If they had not provided them" Read my message carefully. As to the bond fund and the sinking fund - without them those costs would have to come from the operating millage - so they count in terms of freeing money to go to running the schools. Take that money away and the AAPS would be in deeper trouble. If further discussions on the sick days - it seems that 2 of the 3 items I listed were correct and the other one was not. As I said - I spent 6 hours looking at the laws - only 6 hours - and that people should do their own research. As to veracity - how about your comments on the DDA in another thread? You did not even bother to look at the law before you blasted one of the best things that happened to Ann Arbor and provides an ever increasing amount of property taxes to the schools. We all make mistakes, I at least acknowledge mine and apologize. I also try to put numbers up when I can and encourage people to do their own research.

Andrew Thomas

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

aataxpayer, Just to clarify my previous post which you cited: Yes, you are correct that I said there is a trade-off between teacher salaries and privatization of bus drivers and custodians. The magnitude of that trade-off is about a 3-4% ADDITIONAL reduction to teacher salaries (on top of the 4% reduction already proposed) for a total reduction of 7-8%. This would maintain the current level of transportation and custodial services, performed by the same employees, with the same salaries and benefits. I did NOT say that I thought this would be a good idea.

bornblu

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.

DagnyJ, Grinch, Lisa and Steve: I will leave the numbers to DonBee as he can articulate this situation much better than I. What I will say is that it is the arrogance and pomposity of the AA teachers (that complain about loss of respect and salary), on this board, that bothers me. Just to clarify, in my immediate family there have been teachers and others providing services (paid and voluntary) to local schools. My children have been educated locally and graduated from both local Universities. In my utopian world, teachers would be paid the most at the early elementary level, with decreasing income through the 11-12 level, as that is where the basic building blocks "for" learning are provided. I also firmly believe that a vast majority of the teachers in AA could be exchanged with those (let us say) from Detroit (a system in peril), with the results not being noticable. In essence, all are quality teachers, each school enviornment though is extremely different. In addition, there are very few teachers who I would call upon to service my vehicle, re-wire or plumb my home, or fix my furnace/air conditioner. All of these technicians are also highly educated, just in a manner that is quite different than yours. Your implications that they are of a lower class because they did not obtain a BA, MA, or take some form of additional educational credit class is baseless and appalling. Again, in my perfect world I would love to see classroom ratios of 1-15 max, parapro's available as needed, transportation for all, the newest equipment and technology available, etc., with all employees excited and accepting as to income earned. We just can't afford that in the current economic enviornment. Finally, in any business or employment situation, I have never met someone totally satisfied with their salary or benefits (myslef included). What it gets down to at its base component is "what about me". This is where we are at with the AAEA and other bargaining units. Children are brought into the equation, by you, to elicit sympathy from those who control the votes for your salary and benefits. The value of your job is solely what others can afford to pay, no more-no less, and it seems the voters have spoken. I must also hold the administration accountable for what has occurred and how it economically impacts all employees, but that is another thread.

The Grinch

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.

DonBee, Like so many of your other posts (e.g., your statement in another strand that teachers could cash in sick time upon retirement; your insistence in another strand that the sinking bond fund count against the operating budget), this one has at least one glaring factual error: The sinking bond fund was, indeed, approved by voters. You'll forgive me, then, for not checking the rest of your "facts"

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:33 p.m.

DonBee, I do disagree - those things should not count. If the bond would not have been passed in 2004, we would not have built Skyline or done all the other work in every school anyway. Bonds pay for capital projects supported by the voters. If they don't support them (like the high school expansion proposal in 2003), then the project does not move forward. It's true that the sinking fund can help cover some capital costs that might otherwise have been spent from operations, but much of the repair and renovation work it has funded would have continued to be put off otherwise. As for special education, AAPS special education enrollment has expanded dramatically since we passed the county special education millage and the state was forced to pay more for special ed in the Durant case. Without those resources, overall spending on special ed would have been much lower and would have covered the minimum required by law. Not to mention that many students who come to AAPS for its special ed programs would not be here (so the services would not be provided). In any case, the rationale for the Durant case was that the state was increasing special ed requirements without adding revenue for districts to pay for them. We've had this discussion before. Lumping in bond income and other capital costs makes no sense. Special ed is the one segment of the budget to have grown faster than inflation since 2002, and that is because of increased special ed enrollment and increased legal requirements. General ed spending has been anemic, and fallen way behind inflation. Someone else will have to speak to the Plymouth-Canton comparison, but I ask: are they really doing all the same things we do in AAPS? Programming, content, options, and so forth? Different communities choose different levels of service. Ann Arbor used to prize education above other things, and was willing to sacrifice for it. I hope that may happen once more.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:18 p.m.

@beachbaby, I wasn't trying to say that doctors and teachers are the same, but I was trying to argue that many commentators here and elsewhere don't even see teachers as professionals worthy of treatment as such. You point out that doctors "have someone's life in their hands." Very true. And I want my kids to get the best medical care possible. But I also know that, in the long run, what they get out of school will have a much larger impact on their adult lives than will the doctors they see. (Or at least I pray that is the case.) @aataxpayer, I do think respect for teachers, teaching, and schools is at issue. Many people, especially in Michigan, have not yet absorbed the lesson that the good jobs with good pay and career potential that you could get with a high school diploma are gone for good. Some seem to think this is a reason to spend less on schools. But check out the unemployment stats at different educational attainment levels: people with a high school degree or an associates have been hit the hardest by far. The future will require advanced education. We won't get there by cutting our schools by the same amount our manufacturing economy has suffered. As to what we can afford: the fact is that Michigan as a state has spent a shrinking percentage of our income, whatever that may be, on K-12 education. State K-12 spending as a percentage of state income has been falling since 2002, and overall state and local spending as a percentage of state personal income has been falling since 2004. I'm not talking dollars, I'm talking the SHARE of whatever income we do have has been shrinking. This is a direct result of our tax policy, which funds schools with taxes that largely raise revenue where "the money isn't," in less dynamic areas of our economy. In fact, our state government is farther below the revenue limits set by the Headlee amendment than it has ever been since they started tracking it in 1978 - again, as a percentage of income, not dollar amounts. If memory serves me right, if state and local spending for K-12 education was simply at the same PERCENTAGE of income as in 2002, every district in the state would be receiving $1,000 more per pupil. That makes a big difference. Lastly, we all need to stop talking about school funding as if the cuts are something that has just sprung up over the last year. School funding has been under pressure for most of the last decade. The state had to take back money mid-year in 2003 and 2004, and only avoided a huge mid-year cut in 2007 with some accounting gymnastics and selling off more of the tobacco settlement revenue. So most districts, except those which have been growing, have been making cuts for years now. AAPS's per pupil revenue last year was worth 9% less, after subtracting inflation, than it was in 1994 - and that was before the current year's cuts. This is one of the reasons the other employee groups in AAPS are so upset about privatization: they've been making concessions for some time. Even the teachers, who have not taken a total freeze until this year, have been behind inflation on average. The health care cost controls have been in the contract for the last two rounds - they are not new this year. So as the cost of health care goes up, teachers take an effective pay cut. Yes, many white and blue collar workers have taken a huge hit over the last year, and that concerns me greatly (not least since I'm one of them). But things were better back in 2006. Not so for most school districts - they have been cutting for years. It's just that no one talked about it for fear of scaring parents away - and taking their precious per-pupil funding with them.

DonBee

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:48 p.m.

@The Grinch - Your per capital is from 2005 (see the footnote at the bottom of your link), it has fallen in Michigan since (see this week's issue of the Economist) - the 2007 ranking for Michigan for per capita income is 37 down from 20 in the the year 2000 and from the 25 shown in your 2005 table. Our ranking is continuing to fall. If you look at http://www.mlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/04/michigan_income_ranking_falls.html You will see Michigan is losing ground. While I agree we need to spend money in the Classroom, I do not agree we need to spend as much outside the classroom as we do: Compare Plymouth Canton to AAPS 1) 1 Principal per high school in P-C and 5 in AAPS 2) 1 Athletic director for 3 larger high schools - 3 in AAPS 3) More buses and miles driven in P-C - less average cost per mile (total cost) 4) Lower overall athletic budget 5) Lower cost for overhead (accounting, purchasing, HR) - compare their published budget with AAPS 6) Higher student count (by almost 2,000) If they can do it, why can't AAPS? All in (bonds, sinking fund, special education millage, etc) AAPS has a total budget of $243,963,246 up from $190,738,783 in 2002 (oldest public document on the AAPS website). That is an increase of 27.9% in the last 7 years. We are being asked to take a $4 million cut or about 1.6 percent of the total budget. On a per student basis AAPS is spending $14,840 per student. Before you start with those are not the real numbers - that the sinking fund and the bond fund and the special education and...don't count. Remember if the tax payers had not voted them, then the things they buy would have to come out of the Foundation grant. Local voters have provided almost $5,000 per student above what the state provides. When are we going to live within our means? I respect the teachers and do not want to see cuts in their classrooms or to their salaries. I would like to see a continued re-alignment of the benefits, but I leave that to smarter people to do. I think (personal opinion MESSA should go, but I respect the teacher's desire to have it and pay extra for it). Please do your own research and form your own opinions. The source documents for my comments on Plymouth Canton are all on their website. Also there is a very interesting set of budget cut documents where parent committees went deep into food service, busing, sports, and other areas looking for savings, some of them are very inventive. I have two more questions for people - Why with all the unemployment has revenue from adult education not changed in 7 years? It has in Plymouth Canton. Why is AAPS running a money losing Pre-school? The promise was that it would break even. Based on the user friendly budget, it looks like it is costing the district $3 million a year. Shutting it down would save all the Custodians and Bus Drivers. (please if my reading is wrong, point out how I misread the budget).

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.

@beachbaby: You are, of course, correct, and in a sane world such things ought determine salaries. But in the "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" world of many of the posters here, the ONLY thing that matters is what taxpayers can "afford". And so the question is a fair one. Should not doctors, many of whom receive substantial income from government sources (especially in this community) have their pay reduced as the teacher bashers want teachers' pay reduced? The logic, it seems, is the same. But I'm certain they'll be able to elaborate why doctors receiving income from taxpayers is different from teachers receiving income from taxpayers.

beachbaby

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 6:57 p.m.

"What, precisely, makes them totally different from teachers?" 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, 4-6 years of residency, depending on specialty, 2 years of fellowship for many, 6am-?? work days, several days on-call per month--and by on-call, be ready to go in at the drop of a hat. working on holidays, no MLK days off, etc.........for surgeons, having someone's life in their hands. Teachers are important, but that is a feeble comparison. cue the haters on 1......2.............

DagnyJ

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 6:19 p.m.

bornblu, you have got to be kidding. If all teachers are responsible for is proving an environment for learning, then why on earth would we pay a lot of money for their labor? I mean, they way you describe teachers they sound like babysitters. I do hold teachers responsible for student learning. I would like to pay them a lot. I would also like to be able to see those who fail removed from their jobs. Neither is possible at this time.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5:45 p.m.

Wow, this has really veered in some interesting directions. I do think we are getting down to some basic areas of difference. How much do people think schools are worth? How much do people think teachers are worth? For those who feel that public employees should earn no more than the "average" wage earner (defined how?), do you feel that way about your doctors? If you see a doctor affiliated with UM or St Joe's, they are largely paid out of public funds one way or another. If you don't see a problem with doctors earning several times the "average" salary, why not? What, precisely, makes them totally different from teachers? Do you feel teachers are professionals, or not? Saying that teachers should make no more than "average" might make sense if you believe that they don't know anything special about teaching than "average Joe Taxpayer" does. But I know that is not true, and I hope most of the people reading this do as well. Teaching requires specific skills, which also differ depending on the age of the children being taught (hence different qualifications for early childhood, elementary, and secondary). So, if you feel teachers are just glorified baby sitters, then I suppose it would be reasonable to say they should make no more than "average." However, if you view them as skilled professionals, helping to prepare our children for an economy in which a high school diploma will be sufficient for nothing other than minimum wage, then you might be willing to sacrifice so that you have the best people teaching our children. I know I am.

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5:24 p.m.

"Funny how so many teachers are able to afford advanced degrees when so many can't afford an undergraduate degree." Yeah!!!! Who would want someone who has taken advanced courses either in the discipline they teach or, as an alternative, in education theory and practice? Perish the thought!!! No, as bornblu makes clear, teachers are simply like so many hamburger flippers at Mickey D's who bring neither skills nor knowledge nor experience to job.

valenciah

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5 p.m.

I hope that U.S.A don't become like a Mexico "lower and upper class" Keep the american dream alive, give our children safety, and education. Budget plan 2010/2011 Limit District Funded Conference Attendece "Reduction" 150,000 Less opportunity to attend conferences that require overnight stay or travel expenses unless funded by grants. Requires getting information from different sources. (70%) Who needs to travel now? Reduce Discretionary Budgets "reduction" 900,000. Reduce funds for supplies and materials... (10%) If you do not know what this meens? If a teacher needs money for her classroom it comes from there, if the staff needs a new refrigerator, cookies, or wharever, it comes from there. They need to be more specific with their information. don't you think? Remember they try to save 23% on custodians or 2,500,000 There you have it.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

"Funny how so many teachers are able to afford advanced degrees when so many can't afford an undergraduate degree." We are required by law to take 6 credit hours every 5 years. It's not surprise that most teacher's feel it worth the time to just get those few extra credits for a Masters.

Jack Panitch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 4:52 p.m.

aataxpayer -- If that was your point, we are in complete agreement. Tax reform has to be part of the solution: tax reform that does not hinder economic recovery and that provides a more stable funding source for education is critical. Maybe there is a way of developing enough common ground -- after all, business needs an educated workforce -- to force Lansing to break the gridlock. We can not give up long-term hope before trying, and we have to get up off our keisters and try. What do you (and anyone else in this forum who wants to chime in) think?

snapshot

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 4:42 p.m.

To Lisa, Read a publication other than your union contract or the Ann Arbor Observer for all those exsamples you want. Here's a few suggestions, Money, Smart Money, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Baron's, New York Times, or Fortune. How do you think employees at The Ann Arbor News fared? You live in a world of economic isolation as a "public employee". While it is not expected for you to be economically savvy as an educator outside the financial arena, I would expect you to not be so condencending in your persistent denial of economic reality.

snapshot

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

I get a kick out of the folks who always proclaim "it's not going to solve the problem" and "you can't put a price on education, or safety". We put prices on education and safety all the time. You think folks like living in a bad neighborhood? Driving an old clunker? Funny how so many teachers are able to afford advanced degrees when so many can't afford an undergraduate degree. If you only have 5 dollars for food, you can't have a 10 dollar food budget. For all you Bush/Palin fans who are now joining the ranks of the "Bushwhacked" this is the economic "Trickle Up" affect. For you "Obamaphobiacs" who are crying in your Glendiddick, aren't you the same folks who cried for "welfare" reform but are perfectly fine being on your own form of "public assistance" to keep their jobs, pensions, and medical. Let me know when you find that 10 dollar lunch for 5 dollars because it'll more than likely be served by an "unqualified" non union worker with no pension or medical.

bornblu

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 3:59 p.m.

Grinch and Lisa Teachers are not, and and never should be, "responsible" for the education of our children. PARENTS and FAMILY are. Teachers only provide an enviornment, within a culture, where children can learn. If you feel this is not the case, do you advocate for the firing of all educators in districts where students drop out or fail in significantly large numbers (excess of 50%)? In my opinion, I also believe a review of those failing districts would show a salary level comprable to local teachers, administrators, etc.; so salary/income has no basis when discussing teachers/educations abilities or success. The question is only what can the people in your district afford to continue to pay for this educational sevice. To imply that everyone who disagrees with you, in the current economic condition, is disingenuous. You need to face the reality that in todays difficult times,the general population either can not afford, or does not agree with the value of your services.

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.

My Bad--had heard quite the opposite on the radio on Friday.

David Jesse

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 1:36 p.m.

@DagnyJ: According to this article (http://www.wwj.com/MEA-Not-On-Board-For--Race-To-The-Top-/6114821) the MEA is out. @the Grinch: According to this press release (http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140--229430--,00.html) over 700 districts have signed on

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 1:20 p.m.

DagnyJ, The MEA was asked to sign a blank check. Not only has the MEA opted out, but so have the vast majority of Michigan school districts who, similarly, would not sign on to a plan without being able to see its specifics. Last time I heard fewer than 2 dozen districts had signed up.

DagnyJ

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 1:13 p.m.

Hey, David Jesse, can you tell us whether the MEA supported the state's attempt to get part of the $4 billion in federal money for education that's in "Race to the Top"? or did the teachers opt out?

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

aataxpayer: Fine. Let's continue to disinvest. We've been doing it for more than a decade and we can see the results. Crowded classrooms. Drastic cuts to higher ed, causing tuitions to skyrocket and causing middle- and low- income student to forgo higher education (see report on this site about UM). Roads that are falling apart. Next to zero investment in the high-speed mass transit systems that the future will require. Hurtful cuts to public service. A state park system (one of the things that allegedly draws people to our Third World state) that is literally falling apart. I could go on. These are the things that will bring jobs and businesses to our beleaguered state. We can either invest in them or we can become Mexico. I'd prefer not to become Mexcio. You might feel differently. So be it.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.

Stunshlf, We in the public schools have seen our health care go up as well. In fact, health care costs have gone up for teachers every year I have been in the state; we've taken reduced pay to maintain our coverage as well. For example, our prescription co-pays doubled at the New Year. I, for one, would like to see some examples of all these private sector employers who are cutting employee pay by 20% or more as so many on these boards keep exclaiming. There are so many posters here to keep stating these 'facts' without citing specifics and to be honest, I am not sure I believe them.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.

Stunshlf, You drive 10 ear old cars? I bet you invest in them with proper maintenance, right? That costs money, right? They wouldn't run without that timely investment, right? Schools are no different and neither are states. If you don't invest in them, they fall apart. Your decision.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:48 a.m.

Seth, The district pays $916 for our health care regardless of whether we select a MESSA plan, a BCBS plan or another companies plan. We pay the difference in cost. You cannot compare the plants at another school district with those at AAPS; each school district purchases access to different plans. So that the co-pays, services available and doctors available are different. I personally choose to pay extra ever month for MESSA coverage because it covers medical services BCBS denied and that my eldest son desperately needs.

walker101

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.

Coming from the West Coast and reading about the issues you are currently experiencing it doesn't surprise me that the school systems are going through exactly what California went through about 10 years ago or so with privatization and subcontracting. Unfortunately it didn't work for them and I seriously doubt it will work here. The trend sounds all so familiar, the state of California is just about bankrupt, the economy is at a point where employment is just as bad as here, the political parties are as inept about using common sense that virtually no one has any faith in the system. Poor fiscal planning, inexperience, overpaid administrators seem to be one of the major causes of the down fall. If you think your taxes are high now wait till they see that by raising your taxes will be the save all solution to all the problems. It won't work.

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

Of course you don't like the word "INVEST". Causes one to think differently about the situation. INVEST in schools. INVEST in infrastructure. INVEST in public services. INVEST in our state's future. Tell me you're on food stamps and I'll understand your unwillingness to INVEST (but, in that case, you likely would not have to do so given current tax structure). But just as you're tired of my use of the word "INVEST", I'm tired of hearing how tapped out you are, of your teacher bashing, and of your union bashing. The unions in this state BUILT the middle class and the teachers EDUCATED it.

stunhsif

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 9:10 a.m.

@ TheGrinch, "so yes, I think the average Michigan taxpayer can afford to pay $13.00 per paycheck to INVEST in our state's future". One less trip to Mc'Donald's you say should cover the 13 bucks. You truly fail to understand the state of the average taxpayer in this state. We are tapped out and that 13 dollars you want to take from me per week means less gas money etc. We don't go to the movies, if we eat out it is at the diner and not Macaroni Grill. We drive 10 year old cars with 160,000 miles on them etc. And I will say it one more time, more money does not mean a better education. Quit it with the code words like "INVEST". I would like to be able to INVEST in my own future but don't have the money to do that.

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

If you want a good example of how well privatization of government functions works, look no further than the misadventures of KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of them provided services traditionlly performed by the United States military, all of them did so at much more expense than had the Army done it (taking a very handsone profit), and much that they did was disastrous (e.g., KBR's mis-wiring barracks resulting in the electrocution deaths of soldiers; numerous instances of Blackwater personnel murdering innocent civillians). Yeah, boy, privatization of government functions works--it works for the companies, that is--making huge profits off taxpayer money while providing terrible service!!

The Grinch

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 7:44 a.m.

@aataxpayer, Some basic facts seem to be in order: State population = 10,000,000 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html) Per capita Income = $33,000 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_inc_percap-economy-personal-income-per-capita) Using these numbers, a 1% increase in the state income tax would increase revenue by $330 million, enough to cover gaps in the school aid fund with money left over for roads and other items that are neglected in our state. The per capita tax increase would be $330, or about $13 per paycheck (actually, all of these numbers are too high--I have no tools for caculating deductions, etc... on that per capita income, so the $330/$13 is overstated--it will be less). So one less trip to Macdonalds every two weeks. So, yes, I think the average Michigan taxpayer can afford $13 per paycheck to INVEST in our state's future. Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, our nation is moving from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based service economy. If our state continues to cut funding to its schools, it will be insuring our long-term economic backwardness.

Jack Panitch

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 9:17 p.m.

aataxpayer -- you can't really compare the MBT with Ohio's CAT. The MBT is a hybrid with both a net income and a modified gross receipts base. The CAT is a true gross receipts tax. The bases and the rates are different. But let's step past that hurdle. I'm going to assume that you pay no net income tax (otherwise, there is no basis for comparison whatsoever). If a rate of.80 percent (Michigan) doubled your burden, what do you think a rate of.26 percent (Ohio) would do? When you complete that calculation, would you please clarify the point you were trying to make about Brit's Ohio CAT observations?

Renae

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.

Mr. Henry Ruger in regards to your posting about having observed the difference between commercially cleaned buildings and some aa schools... well let me inform you and the rest of the public that it was the managements bright idea to do every other day cleaning in the aa schools we union custodians tried to argue that idea but of course their decision was made and thats the way it would be end of story.

valenciah

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 4:25 p.m.

Did you know that our current superintendent makes more money than the previos one? That even if he gives 8% of his salary he will still make more money.

The Grinch

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 4:08 p.m.

glacialerratic: Great questions, but don't expect the teacher bashers on Ann Arbor.com to have facts to support their bashing. aataxpayer: for arguement's sake, let's assume you're correct. You want to equalize blue collar worker and teacher incomes as you THINK they were 45-50 years ago. So, are you saying that the pay of someone who likely has no more than a HS education should determine the pay of someone who, BY LAW, must have a Bachelors and a Master's degree (or, in the latter case, be working towards one), who must keep taking classes even AFTER achieving the MA, and who likely has paid for the vast majority of this education with no help either from the state or from the school district for which they work? Are you really saying that? If you are, and if this happens, congragtualtions on driving the best teachers and best recent ed school grads out of the state to find better paying jobs elsewhere, not to mention a more genial atmosphere in which to work.

glacialerratic

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 3:39 p.m.

Yes, but you said that teachers' wages were comparable to those of a UAW worker (including overtime) back in the good old days. Can you give me a reference for this claim? And why have you chosen the current starting wage of an auto worker as the index for what you feel should be equality in teacher's pay? Could you make the same argument by choosing another occupation, say, in the health care industry? Probably not. You've staked your argument on a loaded comparison.

glacialerratic

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.

aataxpayer--Can you provide a reference to your claim about equity in the "good ol' days" of teachers' pay and average wages of UAW workers, including overtime? Can you tell us when these earning levels were equivalent?

stunhsif

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.

@Michaywe, Your quote is right on: " To be fair, workers employed and paid through the labors of their neighbors shouldn't enjoy better benefits than those same neighbors". I have thought this for a very long time. I propose that public employees whether teachers or government workers get benefits equal to what the average private sector employee enjoys ( the old bell curve). If they wish to upgrade from that Chevy plan to a Cadillac plan then they could pay the extra weekly upgrade cos It really is that simple. We in the private sector are getting hammered with increased costs for our own medical coverage. We have taken pay cuts to help keep our companies in business and then,when we expect those whose salaries we pay (teachers--through our taxes) to help share the burden ( go from Cadillac benefits and healthcare to Chevy like the rest of us) they cry like babies and their gnashing of teeth can be heard from miles away. For me, their complaining is falling on deaf ears. The tax base is simply no longer able to sustain bloated government. Get ready to trade that Caddy for a Chevy, the taxpayers will demand it.

DonBee

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.

I spent the week in California, listening to NPR in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Be thankful you are in Michigan! In Berkley (yes the home of UC-Berkley) they are doing away with Science labs and all classes that include labs. They can no longer afford to deliver them. If you think we have an achievement gap here in Ann Arbor, it is larger in Berkley and the teachers are going to focus on bringing the bottom up, all the way through high school. All of this according to hour long shows that discussed each day I was there, the situation in the schools. In LA there is a huge push to get AP and other upper tier classes moved to on-line so that they will not be completely cut from the schools. In both areas many services are already privatized. The schools can not make ends meet no matter what they do. In Palo Alto and San Francisco children ride public transit up to an hour a day each way (the local equivalent of AATA) because the families with children no longer live close to the schools. California is now 48th in spending on Education (again according to the NPR programs) and falling. The state is very close to writing a single contract for all teachers in the state. That contract would give the state the ability to move teachers between districts as needed to balance student - teacher ratios and make one set of wages and benefits for all teachers in the state (again according to NPR). Be thankful you live in Michigan where we actually have money to educate students. Be thankful you live in Ann Arbor which has one of the highest amounts to spend on Education in Michigan.

DonBee

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 9:43 a.m.

@belboz - For almost all of special education - the reimbursement is between 80 and 140 percent of the costs. The school takes overhead out of services (see the posted budget - special education page) to the tune of about 20 percent. So for all intents and purposes special education pays for itself and cutting it cuts almost dollar for dollar the school budget. Cutting Special Education is the wrong place to look. While there are only 339 full time special education students, there are literally thousands on Individual Education Plans (IEP) that receive some level of services from the special education budget, so the budget divided by the full time students is a poor indicator of what is spent. Brit - Thank you for joining the conversation. I see the anchor in my children and others, but with the time I spend around the children helping out, I seldom see the Custodians as that anchor. I have a real problem with rotating bus drivers on the routes my children ride. Since mine are some of the first on, in many cases they are telling the driver where to stop and turn. If this is what I get from school employees, then I am ready for privatization. If the driver situation was stable, I might think differently. Based on the list we have kept this year on one route we have had at least 11 different drivers. I appreciate that the Teachers Union has agreed to pay some co-pay for some programs. But I note that the lowest cost programs actually pay the teachers each month to enroll and that lowest cost program is more in line with what most of the rest of the tax payers who are not on the government payroll get for a health care program. Almost everyone pays co-pays on the lower program. Even with the new agreement at the White House to raise the "Cadillac" level - I think (I admit I have not run the numbers) that the MESSA plan still qualifies. While I agree that good health care is very important for teachers. I have to wonder if maintaining this specific program is required.

The Grinch

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.

Do not taunt...., Does not make any difference what MESSA covers and does not cover. The question is whether or not AAPS pays the same amount of money to MESSA as it does to any other plan available to the teachers. My understanding is that it does, and that the teachers pick up the difference for the more expensive plans. If a teacher chooses to have the more comprehensive MESSA plan, they pay for it. If this is the case, MESSA costs the district not one penny more than any other plan. Cutting MESSA, then, would restrict teachers' choices and not save the district a dime. So, does your anger at teachers extend to the point that you want to reduce their health care benefits with no savings whatsoever for the school district? Wonder what the source of that anger is? If it's that you don't have the same, can I assume that you support the health care legislation now before Congress? Naaaah. Probably not.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 8:41 a.m.

Do MESA benefits cover EVERYTHING? I think yes. Copays - covered. percentage covered - 100% sick leave - 100% Sex change operations - covered. (insane) Botox -??? Breast enhancement - not yet - soon. Hair dye - not yet soon. The package MESA marks up is THE Standard in the state. Granholm herself has barely a better health plan. Can the taxpayer afford this? Can you, the reader, continue to pay these wages and benefits at this level? It is out of balance. The teachers need to scale back - FOR THE KIDS.

seth.bechtel

Sat, Jan 16, 2010 : 12:26 a.m.

Just suggesting that a school district that is trying to find a way to save 4 million dollars a year could really get a jump start by taking the 2 million dollar savings that could be immediately realized by simply dumping the MESSA markup. There is half of your goal... Some things are just too obvious.

michaywe

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 11:24 p.m.

aareader, "So for the service company to make a profit their employees are paid a LOWER wage and have little or no benefits." I like this better....for the school district to find the BEST VALUE they must solicit proposals from financialy sound service companies with exemplary past performance, a mgt./employee culture that doesn't lead either to want to waste dollars on union dues and finally, follow through with an award mandating performance metrics be met before the negotiated profit is paid! Be nice to see any contract negotiated so that the service company, if proposing a mgt./employee health benefit, is required to NOT furnish a Cadillac Plan the current union/district employees likely have. aareader closes with "What a win for everybody....except the people that provided the original service on a non profit basis. They generally are more invested and take pride in providing the service." Baloney! Folks providing the service, as employees of the district, a not-for-profit (yes, they can clean schools) or a private company never provide this "non-profit". Employees don't assume financial risks associated with an organization so normally don't share financial reward...profit! I say "don't normally" but notice employee profit sharing/incentive pay is now the norm among those successful in the performance contracting industry. They must also have a mgt./employee culture where everyone is aiming at performance to earn incentive or profit. District employees, while "not profit" could boost their take home by firing the union, pocket the dues and ask the district (not the union) to lose the Cadillac Health Insurance Plan for a Chevy. To be fair, workers employed and paid through the labors of their neighbors shouldn't enjoy better benefits and job security than those same neighbors!

Jim Bogle

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 11:09 p.m.

"The world is full of kings and queens who will blind your eyes and steal your dream, it's heaven or hell. Buyer Beware is the first thing I would suspect from that quote. A quote quoted from Ritchie Blackmore and Rainbow, I believe. And please forgive my spelling, or for that matter, my claims,or claims of authority. For I have none, none other than listening to the radio in the 70s and 80s. Just like the Mackinac Center. But hey, if they say it on the Internet, it must be true. You only have to look to Westland, not very far away, to see that privatization does not work. Or, how much was stolen.

chalkboardjoe

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:23 p.m.

@ Steve Norton-First, thank you for your very well articulated posts and efforts to provide facts. With that said, do you, or does any body else have any idea what the union due structure is (flat rate, variable rate, dependent on contract, dependent on position-teacher, custodian, etc., varies by district) and what the rate(s) are? And does anyone know what the financials look like for district unions, county unions, state unions, etc.? I know this is off-topic from the article, but I believe it is very relevant to the bigger story. If money is taken off the table, keep more in the pocket of all the employees who are represented by unions--and less in the pockets of the union organizations and infrastructure (those recent and repeated MEA ads have to cost something). The employees earned it. So, why should they suffer?

Renae

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:50 p.m.

I am a proud employee of the aaps and would like to state a few facts about out source sub custodians. 1. just last night at one of the elementary schools a sub custodian was scheduled to work she did not understand what the union employee was telling her because she did not know english so she left the building and the area undone 2.last summer another out source sub was scheduled to work at the balas(administration building)the doors were left unlocked after his shift and the building was broken into with several items stolen and much damage to the building 3. a couple years ago at huron high school another male out source sub custodian was working in the building and cornered a student in a dark classroom. this is very scary we do NOT want out source employees in OUR buildings. we will be more than happy to take a pay cut like every other employee has to save our jobs

The Grinch

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:48 p.m.

I am not a teacher in the AAPS but, as I understand it, all this hoooaaahhhh about MESSA is, well, hoooooaaaahhhhh. It is my understanding that the AAPS pays a fixed amount of money toward teachers' health care. It matters not whether the teacher takes the cheapest or the most expensive plan, the sum paid by AAPS is fixed. The teacher selects their plan and then makes up the difference between the plan's cost and the AAPS contribution. Lisa Starfield, can you confirm or deny? And, if it is correct, let's get off the MESSA kick. It's a red herring.

Lisa Starrfield

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 8:05 p.m.

Tenure is bankrupting the state? Wow. And here I thought it was the belief that Michigan pays too much in taxes when the reality is quite different. You have to invest in the state.

averagetaxpayer

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 6:37 p.m.

On the November 2010 general election ballot will be the question as to whether Michigan shall convene a constitutional convention. The Constitution of 1963 served us well but no more. Please vote YES to convene a convention! We will have the opportunity to fix school funding, the public employee retirement system, tenure, legislative term limits, and a whole laundry list of issues that are paralyzing and soon to bankrupt this state. This will be a big issue later in the year. Be very skeptical of those that speak against a convention. Question them. More certainly to come

Elizabeth Nelson

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.

@belboz re: Special Education, there is a reason federal law requires these services and it's because withOUT such mandates, folks like you happily crunch the numbers and just say, Nahhh, that doesn't look EFFICIENT... There's obviously a wealth of experience and true KNOWLEDGE backing up the statement "I can't imagine Ann Arbor can't find a way to reduce this number." Good grief... Well, if you can't IMAGINE, than it must be obvious!! These services are ALREADY highly rationed, there's no all-you-can-eat buffet of services out there, no matter what those numbers look like on paper. Families have to pretty much NEGOTIATE what their kids will receive on a case by case basis. Get a clue.

john brach

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 5:10 p.m.

Other school systems have tried the private firms and allegedly have saved money. But you know how numbers can be arranged to say whatever it is that you want them to say. IN REALITY IT DID NOT WORK OUT AS WELL IN TERMS OF QUALLITY AND OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING. Custodians area a very intergral part of the school in terms of things that can't be measured in terms of dollars and cents. They know the kids that should be in the building and not be there, they also mentor some kids, plus they take ownership in what they do, as it is THEIR building. It's too bad that they are the first ones to get shoved out the door in a cost savings. The school system will be sorry they did it but they will never admit it. Sad Sad!!!! The very best to the fine ladies and gentlemen who make up the custodians.

bill

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 4:38 p.m.

for all parents who are against privatizing custodial services. Are you ready cut teachers pay, have over crowded classrooms and do away with other important educational programs? Money paid to MEA's benefit,which is the tops for benefit's is alllocated 50% for non educational employees. By privatizing the workers will probably make the same money but will have benefit plans reflective of their pay schedule not that of people with Master's and Phd's

Andrew Thomas

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 4:05 p.m.

@Chai, You are correct, these targets for transportation and custodial services do not necessarily assume privatization, and can come from other cost-cutting measures, such as reduced bus routes, less frequent cleaning of classrooms, etc. The point being, these two services will be significantly restructured, and many people will be out of jobs any way you cut it. I'm not sure how you effect a reduction totaling $4 M from these two services without going to privatization, but if you have any ideas how to do it, let's hear them. Otherwise, if the cuts are not made here, the default solution is going to be reduction to teacher compensation in the amounts I cited. It's an unfortunate trade-off, but that's the situation we're in.

belboz

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 3:13 p.m.

Yes, I'm aware much of what is done is mandated and that, for the most part, the district gets money back. When I said holding down "School Systems", I meant not just Ann Arbor, but the larger school system, at both the State and National level. When we spend more than $80,000 per student on special ed, but less than $10k per every other student, that is absurd - regardless of what policy drives it. I can't imagine Ann Arbor cannot find ways to significantly reduce this number, no matter what directives are in place. For special education, it seems the policy sollution has been to add a program or a specialist for any special need student that arrives. At what point do people say that we are at the point of diminishing returns - that $20 million, $10 million, or whatever million is all we have available for the 399 students. I'd say we were there many millions ago with Special Ed. The reason I brought it up is I was shocked at the per pupil amount. It is part of the budget, so should be part of the discusion, regardless of what policies people think are in place. Perhaps the policies need to change...

David Jesse

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.

@Belboz: Much of what the district does in the area of special education is mandated by federal law, including staffing and the number of kids assigned to each teacher or aide.

josber

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 2:46 p.m.

Belboz doesn't realize the school gets reimbursed for special ed... I still say, an 8% cut across the board like Todd Roberts took and things will be at least stable. It is wrong to privatize bus drivers and custodians. It would be wrong to privatize teachers. The bus drivers and custodians are in very close contact with the kids. And look at it this way, just think of the saving you could get if you privatized teaching staff!! We could make AAPS one big charter school sytem, no special ed, no transportation, no real accountability but it would be cheap, really cheap..

belboz

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.

Great point on MESSA. Should be a no brainer. At all levels, the schools need a Staff Distribution Plan. Elementary staff ranges very from 15.3 students per instructional FTE to 22.2 students for FTE. I'd understand a 5% variation, but that is a 45% increase from one school to the next. If Mitchel is able to manage on 22.2, then either make other schools just as efficient, or close some schools. And, not to be politically incorrect, but Special Education is holding down the economics of school systems. Ann Arbor has 399 Special Ed students and spends $34 million on Special Education. That equates to an average of $86,000 per Special Ed student. I'm for providing equal opporunities, but the Speial Ed exenses are out of control. Between a more realistic Special Ed budget, and efficienly in staffing, we should not be talking about services cuts (i.e. Athletics...)_ for students. I expect my kids to have the same services we have had for the last 10 years. Teachers and the District need to adjust to the new reality.

belboz

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.

Great point on MESSA. Should be a no brainer. At all levels, the schools need a Staff Distribution Plan. Elementary staff ranges very from 15.3 students per instructional FTE to 22.2 students for FTE. I'd understand a 5% variation, but that is a 45% increase from one school to the next. If Mitchel is able to manage on 22.2, then either make other schools just as efficient, or close some schools. And, not to be politically incorrect, but Special Education is holding down the economics of school systems. Ann Arbor has 399 Special Ed students and spends $34 million on Special Education. That equates to an average of $86,000 per Special Ed student. I'm for providing equal opporunities, but the Speial Ed exenses are out of control. Between a more realistic Special Ed budget, and efficienly in staffing, we should not be talking about services cuts (i.e. Athletics...)_ for students. I expect my kids to have the same services we have had for the last 10 years. Teachers and the District need to adjust to the new reality.

DagnyJ

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.

I can understand why no one wants to privatize or cut...except for administrators. But we have to. Should we cut textbooks to save lunchroom workers? Should we eliminate art and music so we can avoid privatizing? We're going to have to cut because Lansing isn't sending us enough money to go on as we are. We can nibble around the edge with "reductions in discretionary accounts." But it would be a lot smarter to use this as an opportunity to make major structural changes in the way education is delivered in Ann Arbor so we won't be in this situation next year. We need to examine the capacity of school buildings, and the necessity of having so many buildings. We need to consider the expense for transportation that is perhaps unnecessary, like busing kids who live less than a mile from school, or the shuttles for CHS. We do need pay-to-play, and I'm glad that's part of the package (although I would have designed it differently). What I read coming out of the budget meetings is that no one wants to cut anything. Hey, I hear you. But it's unrealistic. Something will be cut. I like the suggestion of closing buildings, consolidating programs, eliminating redundancies. That makes sense. I don't like cutting book budgets. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

jns131

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 1:30 p.m.

After reading all of the comments here, I for one, as a bus driver, not sure if I am going on the unemployment line in June or not, need to let those who fence this whole issue know this. We are the eyes and ears of the community. We see things that probably no one else sees or really cares about. We see accidents, we see jumpers off of bridges, we see fires and so on. We are on the front lines and have access to calling these things in and reporting it. Bring in a privatized driver and they are not going to care about the children nor the community overall. They are there to drive and go home. Usually home is outside of Ann Arbor or Washtenaw county. If they make a mistake? So what, there are other people out to replace him or her. Privatized drivers are expendable people. Hired and fired at will and at the will of the employer. The employee has no rights under the state of Michigans guidelines of employer at will. You will not know who your childs driver is on a daily basis nor will they care as much as the drivers who are driving your child currently does. If the privatized driver is late? So what, they are there, if you are not? OOP's, guess you are walking to school. The current bus drivers will go back and pick up a child who is late to the bus, the privatized company will not. The company is only there to do a job and that is it. Think next time you think a private worker can do a better job then a union worker can. I really hope AAPS reconsiders throwing us under the bus. It will get worse before it gets better. Pinckney was privatized and they went back to the union way of doing things. Just a thought.

Brit Satchwell

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 1:18 p.m.

@aataxpayer, Hello, and thanks for the kind words. A few quickies: "... some easy fix exists in Lansing": No way do I think any easy fixes exist in Lansing. If so, we would have been there by now ala Ohio, NC, or Massachusetts (among a few others that have figured out how to transition their tax structures to some degree into the 21st century). For those who want to learn more or even take part in this effort: sosmichigan.org "Where is the money supposed to come from?": From where it is, not where it isn't (our current tax structure). At present Michigan gets nearly 50% of its revenue from its lowest quintile of wage earners (there are a lot of them, they shoulder a disproportionate share of the entire burden, and that's how they contribute 50% of the total... rounded approximate figures). We tax primarily where the money isn't... we are lucky we are not gold miners... our burros would be starving in the snow. More specifically, I am looking at the gross receipts tax Ohio phased in over five years in order to eliminate their small business tax. They call it the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), very thin and very wide (only 0.25%), small businesses are exempt. I'm trying to learn more from people who know a lot more about this than I do, wonder if Ohio has had success with it. This isn't about more taxes necessarily; it may just be about different taxes that follow where the state's underlying economic structure goes. Regarding your kind words on our attempts to keep health care costs down here in AAPS: We and every entity in the country, both public and private, hope for help in this regard from DC... another broken system, another system not easily fixed. "... it's about what society can afford to pay teachers.": I believe that your statement is a legitimate subset of a larger question that has to be answered first: What is society willing to pay for the schools it wants? Only after that is answered can anybody decide what quality of teachers they want in their schools. Again, thanks for the kind words and I appreciate the effort you make to post as well. If you and I can reach some degree of common ground, there is hope, no?

L'chaim

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.

@ Andrew Thomas: Your numbers, your assumption, is misleading. You said: "Expected saving from privatized transportation = $2.5 Million Expected saving from privatized custodial services = $1.5 Million" But, these aren't the expected savings from privatization. These are targets for cuts, period. The district has not released any quotes from private firms, if they've even gotten them back yet. We don't know how much the private firms will charge to do the jobs. When the food service privatized, they thought they could save $500,000 per year. They haven't, in fact. Transportation and custodial are bigger enterprises than food service, but the proportional costs are probably not in the millions. I don't know, we'll just have to wait and see what offers are made. But you're really jumping the gun, and confusing the terms of the debate. And, keep in mind that private vendors don't always get the numbers right. THey low-ball, or miscalculate. The Savings they promise aren't what you get. Sometimes, you get stuck with higher costs. I suggest we all take off our rose colored glasses and see privatization for what it is: a money grab from private sector owners.

L'chaim

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 1:06 p.m.

A. Private busing is not "common" at all. In fact of all three major support services it is far and away the least likely to be done by a private company. B. Mr Roberts 8% pay reduction has to be measured against the 15% increase in pay he got for just taking the job (when Fornero left they increased the salary by 15% to attract another candidate). C. Every pro-privatization comment here makes the assumption that it saves money. They are even putting dollars on it. but no quotes have even been given yet. And, privatization in fact does not save money (see reports by the California Tax Foundation, The Thayer Report, The Star Report, the Elliot Sclar Report, etc.) It's a proven cost increase in the medium to long term.

PhillyCheeseSteak

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.

2 other issues that are not being discussed: 1. The elementary and middle schools (except Ann Arbor Open which has a waiting list) are not at capacity. The district could save big $$$ by closing 1 or 2 elementary schools and 1 middle school, right after this school year. 2. Every segment of the AA school district budget is being cut, except Special Education. Fair's fair and the Special Ed budget should tighten their belt too. Finally, Ann Arborites should get creative and a bit radical. This community cares about education and should be able to fund it, if it wants to, with or without the state of Michigan. Ann Arbor should not "go down with the ship (Michigan)"! If Ann Arbor continues to provide its children with quality education, then this community will attract businesses, grants, and people will move here.

ChrisW

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 12:27 p.m.

I do not understand how privatization saves money. If the private company cuts benefits, then the school district could just do the same, saving both the benefit money AND the profit that the private company would make. It should be CHEAPER for the school district to hire someone than a private company since it doesn't pay taxes. Is it just that the administration doesn't have the stomach or ability to cut benefits?

uawisok

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.

Turbo capitalism may not be a good model for this "experiment" because the bottom line is some group of people are going to have important benefits reduced or eliminated. So it really comes down to "pay me now or pay me later" because all these nameless faceless folks will be old some day and the lack of health and retirement safety net will be cast upon all of us when theirs is gone.We are all in this together and that is how a functioning society remains functioning...these fissures we are seeing now will become larger if the lack of compassion for your neighbor continues..IMO

seth.bechtel

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.

I keep seeing the red herring "arguments" defending the AAPS health costs and how wonderful it is to buy coverage from Blue Cross Blue Shield from MESSA (after they tack on their markup) Currently AAPS pays $916/month for each teacher. (This calculation does not include support staff as they are on a separate plan) for a total cost of $10,871,088 per year. If we compare these costs to Chelsea who had sense enough to stop paying MESSA's markup on the same product... We find that: Chelsea pays: -$320/month for their single plan with 18% of staff enrolled. -$720/month for two person plan with 25% of staff enrolled. -$895/month for a family plan with 57% of staff enrolled. Presuming that the AAPS teaching staff is demographically similar, ie.: approx. the same percentage of those enrolled are on each plan: -The total cost per year to AAPS could be reduced by approx. $1,996,000 simply by purchasing their coverage directly from BCBS and not paying the markup of the MESSA reseller. If AAPS were actually serious about saving money they would have done this a long time ago. Don't forget the deadline to file candidacy for school board is Feb. 9th. Lets get some people there that will look out for the students and the taxpayers instead of being apologists for the MEA.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.

And NEXT year will be even worse. Commercial property values are dropping and they pay big dollars in taxes (Briarwood Mall pays millions in Taxes each year all by itself - in ten years they paid about $20,000,000 in tax - for what!) Just about all commercial properties are about to go down in "taxable value" by 30-50% over the next 2 years. Maybe alma smith could vote to raise taxes yet again!

aareader

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:55 a.m.

Privatizing a school service is akin to "For Profit" health insurance companies. Both provide a service while making taking extra money to make a profit. "For Profit" health Insurance companies can just raise their rates to cover the extra costs while a privatized service in a school district must work to a fixed cost. So for the service company to make a profit their employees are paid a LOWER wage and have little or no benefits. What a win for everybody.... except the people that provided the original service on a non profit basis. They generally are more invested and take pride in providing the service.

Andrew Thomas

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.

@aataxpayer: Here's the math for calculating the cut to teachers' salaries. Teacher compensation = $123 Million (approx.) Proposed pay cut = $ 5 Million = 4% Expected saving from privatized transportation = $2.5 Million Expected saving from privatized custodial services = $1.5 Million Total savings from privatization = $4.0 Million If we chose to keep status quo with transportation and custodial services, the $4 M in projected savings would have to come from somewhere else, presumably from teachers salaraies. Add $4 M to the $5 M already being cut = $9 M. $9 M divided by $123 M = 7.3%. These figures may be off slightly because I'm not sure exactly how the other proposed cuts would affect the base of teacher salary, and I don't know if the 4% cuts to administrative salaries have already been factored in, but my numbers are certainly within the ball park. Another way to look at it is this: If a 4% cut results in a $5 M saving, than in order to achieve a $9 M saving, multiply 4% times 9/5 you get 7.2%. Again, the numbers are off very slightly, but definitely in the same range.

David Bardallis

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

School districts privatizing services to save money has become pretty routine these days. And every time they do, some government union squawks loudly about "the children!" because they don't like their apple cart being upset. What a tired and transparent gambit. Instead of the typical hysterical, union-slanted story on this, one that examined what other school districts have done and how much they've saved doing it might have been more informative and useful to readers. To that end, I recommend checking Michigan Privatization Report (see, e.g., its survey of school districts here: http://www.mackinac.org/11574). Maybe an investigation of the average salaries/benefits of these folks compared with their private counterparts would also be illuminating. I agree with the commenters who asked why government unions exist in the first place and recommended "privatizing" everyone. There is no reason for these people to suck off the public tit if they are doing a good job. Do they think there suddenly won't be a need for food servers or bus drivers? The sky-is-falling hysteria is as comical as it is ludicrous. In an economic depression where people are losing their jobs and some even their homes, should anyone really feel sorry for pampered government unions?

voiceofreason

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

AAPS should consider adopting the Japanese model of school custodial services. In Japan, there is an hour set aside each week where students are required to preform cleaning duties. This lesson has proved invaluable in terms of teaching students to become accountable for themselves. Let's face it folks. We are likely facing an "Economic Lost Decade" similar to the one Japan experienced in the 1990's. We can take this as an opportunity to turn lemons into lemonade, or we can continue to steadfastly defend a failing status quo.

Susie Q

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:22 a.m.

Gloriagirl and others: Perhaps you did not see the article several days ago in which the Mackinaw Center (hardly a bleeding heart liberal organization) lauded the AAPS for controlling health care cost with its teaching staff. The amount that the AAPS contributed to teachers' health care was less than the average for Michigan workers and the amount many teachers paid toward their insurance was significantly higher than the $2522 cited as the average Michigan worker's contribution toward health care premiums. Last year many AAPS teachers paid between $3500 and $4200 toward their insurance costs. MESSA is not "breaking the bank" for AAPS.

Brit Satchwell

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10:04 a.m.

At some point in the pragmatic discussions about dollars and bottom lines, we must return to the topic of what, in the final analysis, are we trying to achieve as we cope with our state's broken system of funding social services, foremost among them: education. At some point, the daily lives of actual people have to figure into the mix. Otherwise, we reduce the purpose of our schools to nothing more than an exercise in accounting as we spiral downward on our structurally deficient glidepath. Privatization often works like this: A private company comes in and offers to hire the union employees in question and to pay them at or near their same wage... what looks like a "breakeven" deal for the employee and public. The district then removes them from their books... what looks like a cost savings for the district. The private company then offers less in terms of health care and often no retirement plan at all. So the employees who are making the "same" actually have less health coverage and their retirement is shot... not a "breakeven" deal at all. The district's cost "savings" will be foisted upon the public in a myriad indirect ways. Shifting costs that can be clearly seen as a budget line item to costs that cannot be readily seen as diffused social costs force the community to pick them up even though they assume that the costs went away. "Passing the buck" never makes the buck actually go away. I hope we will put the cost of these employees to best use, that we'll continue to reap valuable services to schools, rather than pick them up later as indirect social costs which offer no value at all. We will spend the buck either way, so why not get some bang for it and preserve the health of community in the process? As a teacher I can tell you without doubt many children come to school each day looking forward to the company of their "emotional anchor". It might be a friendly teacher with whom they have a special rapport, their principal, a lunchroom worker. Quite often, it is their bus driver or the custodian. I won't bore you with "research says", but that emotional anchor is crucial to academic achievement... the very human bridge that leads from home to school willingly, positively, enthusiastically. From the district's perspective, they have to hope that the private company will then offer undiminished value in terms of services that the employees who had a connection with the students, the building, their buses as a rolling classroom once provided. Instead, the new employees - completely unfamiliar with the students, the buildings, the kids on the bus - come in and just "do their job". Quite often quality suffers over time (remember... the focus was shifted from employees with a sense of ownership and personal pride in the district to "the bottom line"). Districts sometimes later recognize the error of initially focusing solely on dollars. The loss of value in the services is noticed quickly; the financial savings come into doubt later on when the private company increases its rates thinking it is secure in its new position. Some districts then go back to reinstate their union employee groups to regain what was lost in the name of "savings". Our bus drivers and custodians do not make large salaries. They provide more than just transportation and cleaning. Their well being within our community is our well being. Shame on us if we throw them "under the bus" because we can. There are places within the budget to cut that go beyond those items proposed thus far in our community budget forums. Let's pause, put ourselves in the other guy's shoes, and do what's right as we navigate the financial mess left to us by a dysfunctional state government. Privatization will not solve that larger problem or even help us cope here at home until Lansing does its job. Let's not spiral downward any further by privatizing... these employees are local homeowners, shoppers, and school parents, and our neighbors. Brit Satchwell

bradc

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 10 a.m.

Eyeheart A2 - interesting you bring up those other districts and their per pupil funding in many of those districts they pay their teachers more than AA. Scooter dog if you going to demand 20% pay cuts why not go after the UofM who gave raises to their people. Cut their 300 million State funding and move it to lower education. Lastly will the privitized janitorial service be able to conduct the background checks that everybody demands because there will be considerable turnover and theft in the buildings. Probably cheaper to keep what we have, although everybody screaming for these changes will be quiet than when it losses prove out. Time to consolidate buildings and programs.

tracyann

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.

Does anyone know why AA gets more per pupil than other district? What exactly is that based on?

stunhsif

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.

@EyeHeartA2, Wow, what a great post! As you say, "It shouldn't be a moon shot", but it is because we all know that there is a complete lack of common sense and a serious oversupply of "entitlement thinking" by those public sector workers we employ in the Ann Arbor School district.

voiceofreason

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

"You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out." - Warren Buffett

glimmertwin

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.

"I'm more important attitude" If you're saying that a janitor and a teacher should be considered equal - I have to disagree. The truth is that some employees ARE more important than others. I'm not saying they are not important, but please, if you want to compare, make it a more accurate comparison.

scooter dog

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.

Wow only a 4% pay cut,How about 20 + percent like most other business people have taken just to keep their job.4 % please,How absured

xmo

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

Welcome to the new world! The schools have smart people running them and should be able to get more bang for the buck, like most companies, doing more with less is the new motto. It would be nice to have the good ole days back but they are gone.

stunhsif

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.

@ Gloriagirl, You are "spot on" 1000%, could not agree more. @Dr. I Emsayin, Since the private sector is so very evil and employ's only substandard people who don't care about their jobs or children let's carry your thought process forward and abolish private companies and make them all public companies. Oops, that won't work, there would be no one paying taxes. Guess we should just socialize America based on your dialogue.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

Why are there Government/Public worker unions anyways?. Is the Government somehow 'abusing' it's workers so much that they need Unionization to protect them? Is having summers off and benefits worth 50% or more of salary really too tough for teachers to handle? $4 million divided by 180 school days is $22,222 every SCHOOL DAY that needs to be CUT out of the system currently in place. That will not be made up by 'participation fees' and recycling.

dswan

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:33 a.m.

AnnArbor.com, it would be of interest to your readers to elaborate on the transition during the privatization of food service workers. Perhaps interview employees who previously worked for AAPS and now work for the vendor. What's changed for them - salaries, benefits? Were all existing employees offered a position?

Tom Joad

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

In the Obama Depression everyone will have to learn to live with less. Many of these parents will be applying for these private custodial jobs once their pink slip arrives. Look at it as an opportunity.

dswan

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:29 a.m.

Privatizing custodial services and busing is one way to keep cuts away from the classroom. Would parents prefer larger class sizes or fewer electives? In our former school district, busing was outsourced to Laidlaw. Our 3 young sons spoke about their bus driver daily by first name. Private busing in public schools is common in many areas. At the next budget meeting, I'd like to hear the administration explain adminstrative positions at each site and what would be lost with cuts. One would think counselor positions would be more valuable to students than principals. Are all of our buildings filled near to capacity (with the exception of Skyline)? In the meantime, I would encourage everyone to visit the education revenue/expense, salary, and health care databases at dathttp://www.mackinac.org/10361. Compare Ann Arbor to similarly sized districts such as Plymouth-Canton. Ann Arbor's salaries and expenses per student are significantly higher. What can we learn from other districts, especially non-20J districts that didn't have the benefit of receiving the higher head count allocation from the state?

Henry Ruger

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.

Having observed the difference in cleanliness between commercially-cleaned buildings and some AA schools, I think that students would, if anything, be better off with outsourced custodial services. It's amazing what a potential loss of contract will do for the motivation of a crew.

Gloriagirl

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 9:11 a.m.

Administrators pay packages range from $100,000 to 160,000 annually. It would be appropriate for them to take at least a 4% pay cut across the board, cut out reimbursed expenses to seminars, MSBO, and other travel, perks. Although it will not close the gap, it signals a genuine effort to look for opportunities indirectly related to the classroom. Todd Roberts was right to take a pay cut and set the tone. School principals need to make the same commitment. It would be helpful if Dave Jesse republished the salaries report he posted several years ago for all WISD districts. As the AAPS continues to look at other options, the biggest savings clearly is with the MEA and teachers contracts. Cadillac health care for its members through MESSA at taxpayers expense has strong armed many school districts while many homeowners can barely afford basic health care for their children. Bottom line is that parents and the community will never know in detail all the internal opportunities to cut cost like administrators and staff. Recognizing education is the core business of this organization, line items like professional development, travel and reimbursable expenses are just the start of cost saving measures that should be considered before pay to play or privatization efforts are discussed.

Andrew Thomas

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 8:58 a.m.

Okay, so nobody wants to privitize transportation or custodial services. So where else are you going to come up with $4 million in cost cutting? And don't tell me administration, they're already taking a big hit, both in salaries and staffing. By default, that leaves teacher salaries and benefits. There's already a 4% cut in this area, so all of you who want to maintain the same transportation and custodial system we have now are essentially saying you want teachers to take a 7-8% cut. Sorry, but them's the facts.

voiceofreason

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.

Are there really parents who believe that having a "familiar trustworthy face" is worth paying a substantial amount extra for? This is very solid reasoning. "Son, we decided to go without books in your Algebra class." "How are we going to learn Algebra without books, dad?" "Well, we came to the realization that your education is just not complete unless old Willy is the guy mopping the floors and emptying the trash."

Dr. I. Emsayin

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.

Our school custodians and bus drivers serve our schools with great respect and have time invested in the system so they can afford to retire some day. To our children and employees, they are part of the fabric of the system, friendly faces, eager helpers, trusted co-workers who show up for athletic events, unlock doors for jackets left behind, etc. Some Ann Arbor schools tried using privatized services and those employees were different people every day who did not clean well, did not follow requests, nor did they care because of the rapid turnover based on making so little money and often not speaking English well enough to understand what "wash me" meant when written on a blackboard. The teacher would come in the next day and the students would hear the complaints and see the job not done by the privatized custodial company. Custodians need benefits just like other employees; private companies pay a few dollars and hour and they get results comensurate with the pay.

Carole

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 8:20 a.m.

Privatizing the custodial staff and another other staff will not solve the problem - there are so many other cuts that could be made first - i.e. why do you need four principals at a high school -- we did just fine with a principal, assistant principal, and three counselors and our class sizes were not that much smaller than they are now. Cuts - just turning off the computers completely off each night and definitely over the weekend would save a ton on the electrical costs. Using recycled paper would off set the high cost of paper. And, I wonder how much of the schools dollars went to produce the large booklet regarding the budget.

glimmertwin

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 7:46 a.m.

It's sad that things have come to this, but they have. School districts can't bury their heads in the sand and hope the problems go away. It appears that the district is attempting to make logical, but painful choices, to reduce their cost structures. Get used to it - this has been going on in the real world for a long, long time. Any "industry" that relies on public funding, like education, is eventually going to have to go through this. It's sad, but just a fact of reality.

Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

Like Union workers are the 'gold standard' - give me a break.

scooter dog

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 7:36 a.m.

While your at it why not privatize teachers and administrators also.Talk about a money pit.Wait till next years state budget gets approved.The cuts in state funding for schools this year will be small pittance to whats comming down the pipeline.So lets not wait for the bomb to drop and start by piivatizing EVERYONE.

josber

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 : 7:05 a.m.

It is sad that the school staff being privatized are the lower paid workers that are still very important to the kids, bus drivers and custodial staff. They are around the kids alot. I don't agree with that at all. My child at Tappan tells me that in order of importance of who manages the kids in the hallway is the principal, the vice principal and the janitor. Seriously. Teachers aren't responsible for hallways, so the kids in middle school are on their own for about 1/2 hour a day, unsupervised essentially. My child came home and told me about a school meeting where aggressive infractions will be harshly penalized, and they were encouraging the kids to tell on each other. Goodness, now you'll have non employees with the kids at a time when no one hired by the district is looking at them, where a child can suffer harm while not in the classroom. What about bus drivers, how will they manage unruly situations, will they be predisposed not to report trouble, as it may reflect badly on them, and they aren't part of the system? The cuts in the school need to be like what Todd Roberts is taking, we're all in this together, listen to that union folks and don't throw your fellow workers out on the curb.