DonBee

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 10:27 a.m.

Steve Norton - You mix cost growth and revenue and in many cases confuse the casual reader. This is bad. The latest post is all about cost growth, not revenue decline. Your $26 million is all about cost growth. The real revenue decline in the last 2 years is about $4 million in the operating fund. I don't like to see a decline at all, and would like to see growth in that number. However, even with that decline the total revenue for AAPS has continued to grow. Total revenue exceeds inflation from 2002-2003 to 2009-2010. It will decline in 2010-2011 based on current home values. This is very bad. The cost of the school system is primarily wages and benefits - more than 80 percent wages and benefits. The administration negotiates contracts and the board approves. The fact that wages are still growing in 2009-2010 says that the leadership did not keep their eye on revenue. This is bad. Benefit costs are slightly controllable and retirement costs are set by the state based on wages. This is bad. Like it or not this is a year for hard contract talks. So far the brunt of the hard talks have fallen on the people who make the least. I appreciate that Dr Roberts gave back 8 percent. That is just a start at the administration costs, which are out of line by more than 2x per student compared to other local districts. This is bad. I will continue to focus on revenue vs costs and trying not to mix the two. I hope you and the school district will as well. I appreciate that the check register is finally on line. An open and honest discussion is the only way to get people to see what the district really needs.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Wed, May 19, 2010 : 1:37 a.m.

Oh, boy. We're getting a bit off track here, but I'd like to set some things straight. Regarding DonBee's response (above): I have never "discounted" the special ed millage as "not useful," and I insist that anyone who claims I did please find it in any of my writings. However, I do maintain that this millage did not simply free up an equivalent amount of general fund dollars. The 2004 special ed millage was intended to help offset the increased cost of special education services that were being required by state and Federal law. Without that millage, our budget situation would be much worse, it is true. But that is quite different from claiming that it released an equal amount in general fund dollars that were already being spent on these services. The spending requirements themselves changed during this time; the growth in AAPS's reimbursements for special ed spending correspond with an increase in the level of service provided and an increase in the number of children enrolled who qualified for these services. As to the bond fund relieving pressure on the general fund for repairs: my kids have not been in AAPS terribly long, but I still remember the roof leaks, potholes, and in general the copious signs of deferred maintenance. Had the 2004 bond failed, I'm sure that some of these would have been acted upon in any case. But I seriously doubt that all the renovation projects that came under the bond umbrella would have gone forward regardless. As to the budget cuts, the numbers I cite are the ones district officials have been using the entire time. DonBee's analysis seems to assume that the only factors involved are the losses of state funding (which are substantial). But the costs of providing the same program also continue to go up. There are many reasons for this, but a good example is the cost of health care: AAPS estimates that their health care costs will rise 8% next year, even though their liability for covering teacher health care is capped. Using figures from the Superintendent's budget reduction plan presented to the school board on 14 April (link available on the district home page), the total deficit for the current year is roughly $7.6 million, of which $2.6 million will be cut from current spending and the remaining $5 million will be covered from fund equity. For next year, absent any budget reductions, the district projected an increase in the "current services" cost of about $8 million and a worst-case loss of revenue of a further $5 million. This widened the $7 million gap from this year to a possible $20 million for FY11. The district plans to deal with this deficit with budget cuts for next year of $14.5 million and an assumed increase in revenue (from schools of choice, etc.) of $1.7 million. In the worst case scenario, that would leave a $4 million deficit. That is the portion they are hoping to get from changes in current employee compensation (beyond the changes to custodial and transportation). So the $26 million figure referred to the deficit that had to be covered. Some of that will be covered this year from fund equity, but the rest will come from program and pay cuts, and a smidgen of new revenue. Lastly, my figures for the real (inflation adjusted) value of AAPS's foundation allowance come from my own calculation based on the foundation allowance history and the Detroit metro area CPI as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the fiscal years 1994-2009, the real value declined by 8.8%. Adding this year and the cuts so far, the real value of our allowance has fallen by 12% from fiscal 1994 through fiscal 2010. But the real point is this: some people prefer to believe that our schools really have more than enough money, but they downplay or hide it. The reality is rather different. AAPS and most other districts have been cutting costs one way or another for around a decade. There is no free lunch and no miracle cure. In this context, a retirement bill which pushes the cost of pension transition solely onto current teachers and contains no measures which will reduce the financial pressure on districts until several years out, is not a real answer. We also need to find a way to make sure our schools receive the funding they need to educate our children for today's world.

DonBee

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 1:22 p.m.

@Steve Norton - I am pleased you think Special ed and the other local millages are important, in the past you have discounted them as not useful. It was not $7 million (2002-3) but $10 million that shifted with the sinking fund (2003-2004 numbers from the AAPS financial statement). Additionally the bond fund moved millions out of the sinking fund and operating budget for needed repairs that would have sooner or later had to come from the operating budget or the schools would have been uninhabitable. Both of these moves freed millions for the operating budget. I still cannot find your $26 million - I have spent the morning reviewing AAPS documentation. I can't find the number you quote. -In 2008-9 the budget revenue was 185 million and the student count was 16,417 for operations (I will exclude all the pieces you don't like) -In 2009-10 the budget revenue was 191 million and the student count was 16,489 for operations -For 2010-11 the projected revenue is 181 million and the student count is 16,440 This projection is the lower of the two in the budget presentation with a $300 per student cut in state funding. The revised 2009-2010 budget is $186 million. So I can not find the $26 million in here over the 2 years. At worst the operating fund (general fund) will drop by $5 million from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011, and if you look over the 2 years it is $4 million. I also can't find your 9 percent reduction in your newest post. Can you please post your references where you get these numbers and how you arrive at them? I can not find them. I have and will continue to post my work and sources.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.

In a case of "deja vu all over again," here is a selection from a response I wrote to a comment by DonBee on the same subject, last November: You echo the millage opponents' cry that the AAPS general fund has increased disproportionately. Yet, income from the state foundation allowance has fallen when adjusted for inflation. What gives? Well, two things: the numbers you quote do not take into account inflation, and they also do not take into account increases in county, state and federal funds that pay for earmarked services but are not available for general education. I don't mean to pick on special education, but that is one large component. Both funds coming in after the Durant settlement, and the WISD special ed millage (which voters increased in 2004), are mainly allocated to services the schools are legally required to provide anyway. From FY2002-3 to FY2009-10, the general fund revenue legally earmarked for special education rose from $12.1 million to $30.6 million. These moneys pass through the General Fund, but are not available for general ed spending. When you take out these figures, but leave in other earmarked funding like Federal Title I and IDEA money that passes through the General Fund, GF revenues rose from $150 million in 2002-3 to a projected $161 million in 2009-10. Much less dramatic. Adjust for inflation over the period, and you get real 09-10 revenue, besides special ed, of roughly $143 million (in 2002 dollars), a net decline from $150 million. Special education spending has increased along with our commitment to provide a sound education for all students, and both state and federal requirements that enforce that commitment. These are important programs, but an increase in this funding should not be confused with some kind of "irrational exuberance" in general school spending.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.

DonBee, I certainly don't want these restricted funds to go away, and to say that they are endangered simply because they do not make up part of the general education operating budget is simply a scare story. I'm also not saying that the voters have not been generous - what I am saying is that the generosity we are allowed to show does not help the operating budget one bit. Yes, the sinking fund has grown, essentially replacing the $7 million per year that the school board used to be able to earmark out of operating funds for "capital needs." But there are much tighter restrictions on what a sinking fund can be used for, and it may not legally be used for any kind of operations. The bond fund increased: no surprise, since we approved new millages in 2004 for massive construction projects. That money has already been spent, and the millage proceeds are committed to paying off the bonds. Without that, we would be in default on our debt. Special education increased: yes, both because of increased requirements form the state and Feds, and in increase in special ed enrollment, AAPS's special ed expenditures have gone up dramatically. The county special ed millage reimburses the district for some 80% of those costs. No services provided, no reimbursement. But the underlying argument you make (without saying so) is that with some of these costs shifted off the operating budget - and only a few of them really qualify as doing that - we should have plenty of money for operations. Not so much. The per pupil allowance AAPS gets shrank 9% after inflation, even before this year's state cuts. Most of AAPS's costs are in people; the cost of health care in the economy has risen many times the rate of inflation. AAPS must also pay contributions to the state retirement fund, which it does not control but which have also risen much faster than inflation. So, every year, it costs more to provide the same level of services. We don't have more, so we have been cutting back, for years. This year and next are simply the largest in a series (and yes - $6.5 million this year, as much as $20 million next). Even if some of it comes out of "fund equity," that has its own consequences. This retirement legislation may create long-term savings, but will do little to solve the district's budget squeeze because the market losses mean MIPSERS still needs higher contributions. They just might not be quite as high as feared. In the meantime, current teachers are paying for the increased cost of the retirement program. Whether or not you personally participated in the anti-millage campaign, you are repeating their mantra that there is plenty of money available. But their numbers are cooked, and their conclusions false. We are today reaping the consequences of their misinformation.

DonBee

Tue, May 18, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.

Steve - $26 Million? (NOTE: All numbers below are from the AAPS Website and rounded to even millions) The real answer is that AAPS in 2002-2003 had a total operating budget of $161 million and in 2009-2010 $191 million. In the ability to move items to restricted funds and out of the operating budget: - Sinking fund has increased from 8 million to $15 million - Bond fund has increased from $12 million to $16 million. - Special Education from $8 million to $18 million. All of these increases are local funds, voted by local voters. The total budget for 2009-2010 was $243 million up from $190 million in 2002-2003. Yes, Steve many of these funds are "restricted" reserved for a specific purpose. But, without them, the operating budget would have to cover these costs -OR- the school would have to do without. Local voters have been good to AAPS. The special education millage comes up for a vote in a year, if people keep saying it does not count in the school budget, don't be surprised if people decide it is not needed. Think carefully about the message YOU keep spreading about restricted funds. I don't want to see any of the restricted funds disappear, they are important to running the school and balancing the budget. I was not and am not part of any organized group that was trying to vote down the millage. I was and continue to work to understand where the money is going. I am not repeating what others have said, I have done my own research and will continue to do so. I make mistakes and unlike many others here, I admit it when I do.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 8:24 p.m.

And yes, I think $26 million over two years from an operating budget that had been around $190 million qualifies as "massive cuts," especially since there was so little slack in the system and future cuts are almost a given.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 8:21 p.m.

DonBee, You said: "The TOTAL school budget for AAPS has exceeded inflation every year until this year. The local taxpayers have been exceedingly good about making up for what the state and federal government did not provide. There has only been 1 no vote on a millage request in more than a decade...." You repeat the same misinformation that was put out during the millage campaign. The "total school budget" to which you refer includes tax revenues legally earmarked to pay back construction bonds. Our community did approve a millage in 2004 to back bonds the district issued to pay for construction projects around the district (including Skyline). Therefore, the tax revenue increased after that, but it is all legally committed to paying back the bonds (over the next 20 years or so). Virtually none of these projects, including especially Skyline, would or could have been completed out of operating funds. There would never have been enough money available at one time to fund the construction projects. That's the point of bonds in the first place - it's like a construction loan. If you take out money dedicated to paying off the bonds, AAPS's budget has barely outpaced inflation. And much of the reason for that is the expansion of Special Education spending that was required by changes in Michigan and Federal law and (fortunately) largely compensated by the county-wide special education millage. Actual AAPS spending on general education operations has fallen behind inflation over the last decade or more. Since 1997, it has been illegal for a local district to introduce a new tax for operations. Since Proposal A (1994) the only millages we have passed for operations have been renewals of the 18 mills on commercial property and the "hold harmless" millage, both of which are required for us to get our state allowance. These come up every ten years, and were last renewed in 2008. But then, we have had this conversation before, in another thread on this very web site. If you have doubts about this analysis, please present them.

DonBee

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 4:16 p.m.

Steve Norton - Please define "Massive Cuts"? The TOTAL school budget for AAPS has exceeded inflation every year until this year. The local taxpayers have been exceedingly good about making up for what the state and federal government did not provide. There has only been 1 no vote on a millage request in more than a decade. That was this year, and most households had seen a big drop in home values, stock and 401K values, direct income and other forms of wealth. In fact the State School Board points to the fact that Michigan has fallen to 38th in individual income, while maintaining the 4th best ranking for a place for teachers to work in the US. Don't blame the local folks here - don't blame the tax payers in Michigan at all. If you don't like the way the state is going, run for office or run someone's campaign.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 10:22 a.m.

@Basic Bob: You said: "How ironic that teachers buy Japanese cars, Korean electronics, and Chinese crap from Walmart. Keep it up, and things will get worse." So, all by themselves, teachers are keeping Japanese auto makers, Korean electronic makers and Chinese manufacturers in the money. That's ridiculous. In fact, most teachers I know, especially those who feel strongest about their union, make a point of driving American cars (to the extent you can tell what's "American," these days). But more importantly - you and others are determined to have teachers' pay cut, so that they feel the pain like the rest of us in the private sector who have to deal with market forces. But then you want teachers, and the rest of us, to ignore market forces and Buy American to support our economy. OK, but why not also protect teachers from massive cuts in order to protect our local economy? Is what they do less important?

somebody7

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 8:04 a.m.

@justcary Substitute teachers have to get INTO your classroom first, in order to be noticed. The PESG online system for obtaining substitute positions makes even getting into the classroom difficult, unless a person has time to sit online all day and hit the "refresh" button. For those of us with preschool children (who require child care on the days that we do substitute), this is not a very good option. I've only substituted a few days this year because the cost of quality child care is roughly equivalent to what I'd earn each day. Thank goodness for my other jobs, which include coaching, and my husband's job, too. I only commented on this story to say that the bill had given me hope for my own situation. I was surprised by the personal judgments that followed. People are awfully bold to make assumptions and pass judgment when they're typing from behind their personal computers...

belboz

Mon, May 17, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.

Recently, a Detroit area school district laid off all teachers - 87. They then opened the hiring process and received 700 applications. Eventually, the original 87 came to an agreement to regain their old jobs. That pretty much sums up the situation. For every teacher working there are about 8 people waiting to take the job if they don't like it. I'd imagine many people would take it with half of the benefits and at 80% of the pay. That is the harsh reality that people need to come to terms with.

Basic Bob

Sun, May 16, 2010 : 1:08 p.m.

@Wonderin, "Teachers pay taxes on salaries that come from the taxes that they pay. Is that not ironic?" How ironic that teachers buy Japanese cars, Korean electronics, and Chinese crap from Walmart. Keep it up, and things will get worse.

Wonderin'

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.

It sure would be nice if Michigan tried to keep young people in Michigan by helping them to afford to attend college and to find jobs in Michigan. The states (and countries) that attract the most young people will be the economic winners in the long run. Michigan is working hard to take itself out of the running. This new bill is another step in the wrong direction.

scooter dog

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

If you make 75k per year and havent saved any money for retirement,thats your fault. If you can't live on ss and your retirement then you better cut back on your over your head life style If your near retirement and still have a house payment/mortgage,again you should have paid it off eons ago. I never made anywhere near what teachers make and I am debt free and retired and with my pension and s/s,which I might ad are tax free in michigan,I live quite well/very well

Wonderin'

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 2:32 p.m.

Teachers pay taxes on salaries that come from the taxes that they pay. Is that not ironic? Do people in private business offering goods and services realize that teachers will have to cut those goods and services from their already tight family budgets?

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.

For those who would like to see impartial analyses of the bill, including estimated costs and savings, I recommend the House and Senate Fiscal Agencies' analysis of the conference committee report: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/House/pdf/2009-HLA-1227-8.pdf http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2009-SFA-1227-R.pdf To answer "SonnyDog09"'s question, the vote in the House was very narrow because it was difficult to find enough Democratic votes to ensure passage. The final vote count does not reflect the behind the scenes arm-twisting what was necessary to get enough Dem's to support the bill. Democrats are feeling vulnerable right now, and it is understandable that not too many would want to stick their necks out and tick off a key supporting constituency. Even worse, they would not want to vote yes and have the bill fail anyway. So they need to line up enough votes from less vulnerable Dems so that no one is left hanging. There is nothing unusual in this, and it works both ways. As to Granholm's support for this: yes, a version of this bill was part of her executive budget package. However, it was accompanied by other changes, including expansion of the sales tax to most services, which would have softened the overall blow to schools. It may be that there is a background deal to move on a sales tax change (which Republicans would not like) now that the teacher retirement reforms have been passed (which hurt Democrats to push through). Those who think teacher pay and benefits have been inflated need to check their facts and compare teacher compensation to private sector compensation of degree-holding white collar professionals over the last ten to fifteen years. Saying that private sector workers have taken 15%-30% pay cuts in the last year or two is only meaningful depending on how they did over the preceding ten years. Moreover, we can expect that private sector pay will recover when the economy does. However, without changes to tax policy, these cuts to our schools will not be made back for years, if ever. How would you feel about taking a 15% cut when there was just as much work for you to do (same number of kids in AAPS) and the chance that you would get that pay cut back was practically nil?

ironyinthesky2

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 12:34 p.m.

Somebody7 - If you have subbed for 10 years and never gotten a teaching job, it's time to move to another field or accept that you will always be a sub (no shame in that). The real problem here, I believe, is that no one has taken you aside and been honest with you. Good teachers do work very hard, but is anyone else tired of the defensiveness by teachers and the bashing of teachers by some? This bill is an economic necessity and we all have to live with it. Time to get a grip or move on.

Wonderin'

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 11:56 a.m.

Retirement incentives? How will a teacher ever afford to retire?

scooter dog

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 10:27 a.m.

Thats why high school graduations are at a all time LOW in this area,because all you over worked and under paid teachers did such a fine teaching job,and you wonder why they want you to take a pay cut. Your lucky I don't control the purse strings,you'd take a 8-15 % cut like most everyone else has taken in upper management just to stay working. Over worked and under paid! What a farce

sh1

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

@EduKate: Can I see your proof that the AAEA asked teachers not to stay late or go beyond their jobs? Where do you get your information? An example of the falseness of your claim is that just last week the union invited teachers to give extra time to look into a new mode of evaluation, without compensation, but only for the sake of improving the current system. Teachers are always encouraged to go beyond and extend their skills.

DPL

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 9:01 a.m.

@katie - Bless you and your simple observations. I recommend you consider taking a single course in Economics so that you better understand how wealth is built. A successful business, by definition, is one that breaks even as you suggest. However, further growth of a business requires the ability to spend money beyond its normal operating costs. A business needs profits to grow, to invest in research and development, to build a new production line, to raise a new building, to hire more people, and so on. Ultimately, a business provides livelihood to many people.

eduKate

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

Over thirty years in education and I've never known one single person who went into it for the money. New teachers are thrilled to be able to do a job and be in a profession that gives them so much joy. They are full of enthusiasm and gratitude. Then the union starts to work on them. Don't stay late. Don't take on extra jobs. Don't do anything except what's in the contract. Hey--look what we did--we negotiated time off to make up for parent/teacher conferences! We got you extra personal days this year! etc. etc. Before you know it, you have a teacher who feels entitled, who has the "we/they" mentality, and who starts thinking he/she has it pretty rough. Teaching is a noble profession -- the key word being profession. I invite teachers to look back on how their attitudes have changed over the years. And to ask themselves why. I fervently hope that the teachers who have turned angry and bitter DO retire. And that they will be replaced by new teachers who are thrilled to get to do a job they love. They're out there. Waiting.

justcary

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.

@sombeody7: Every quality substitute teacher I've relied on as a guest in my classroom has been on the substitute rolls for two years maximum. They get noticed and they get hired. Several substitutes that I will not allow in front of my kids have been at it for several years. I have even had to step in and prevent one person, unfit to be a colleague, from being hired by virtue of her time spent subbing in our district. Some have been on the rolls for years and years and cannot read the writing on the wall.

cleanup

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.

The math of the 'incentive' package does not add up for most teachers. Targeted teachers have been given a very short period of time to make a decision that will affect the rest of their lives. While many non-teachers in these comments rail against the legislation as a 'gift', it really only helps those who were going to retire this year (or maybe next year). For the rest of us who fall within the guidelines, the modifier bump doesn't help if we are too young to tap into our 403bs and are not old enough for Social Security. Could those of you who are complaining so loudly take a 60%-plus pay cut within the next 3 months and still pay your mortgage and car payment and fund your own kids' retirement? Maybe many teachers would be willing to take this incentive if there was a realistic expectation of getting another job until their other retirement sources could kick in, but this state's unemployment rate hovers around 20%, by some estimates. So, please, before you attack 'greedy' teachers, sit down with your own financial footprint and see if you could do what you are asking of the teachers.

Basic Bob

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 8:22 a.m.

Teachers, if you don't like it you can quit. Not counting the most menial jobs, many of us in the real world put in extra hours that are unpaid. Unless you want to eat at your work station, a 30-minute lunch is never 30 minutes of sitting down to eat. Most of you will agree that the more difficult work days are the days you are in front of the class, while the others are far less stressful. That amounts to 180 days or 36 weeks. Regular joes work about 48 weeks after holidays and vacation, and there aren't too many play days.

Rose

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.

jns131 Teachers are taking a hit as class size is increasing and work demands. Just because you are not seeing the large percent in a pay cut doesn't mean they are not being hit. They just took a 3% pay cut as well as a loss of health benefits when they retire. The teachers that will take this retirement incentive will not necessarily be replaced. That means a bigger work load. Make sure you are comparing apples to apples. Comparing apples to oranges doesn't cut it.

sh1

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:34 a.m.

For those of you saying teachers should not be complaining about the bill, can you tell me why any teacher under retirement age should be happy about a tax increase and loss of health insurance?

Rose

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:33 a.m.

For those of you that think September to June is 9 months, then calculate it again. There is no way to do this job if you walk in with the kids in September. Much prep work is needed much before the children arrive. Most teachers begin their work in early August. Now that leaves the month of July off. In my calculation that is four weeks of vacation. If the teaching profession is so palatable, then enroll in school and join the profession.

sh1

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:32 a.m.

Regarding how many months a year teachers work: June 18 is the last STUDENT day. Teachers typically work beyond that on their end-of-year duties, doing paperwork and cleaning/organizing the classroom. (In elementary schools, teachers must pack away all books/materials in boxes and cover all materials that cannot be moved.) Then, even assuming teachers do nothing at all curriculum-related all summer (not realistic), most teachers come back to their rooms two weeks before Labor Day. After all, everything that was packed up must be unpacked. New curriculum must be learned. Classrooms have to be readied. The week before Labor Day is required professional development. So, I don't see three months there.

jns131

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:17 a.m.

Ann Arbor is cutting everything it can to save what it has to keep teachers and others from loosing their nice fat paychecks. You all say there has to be another way to keep teachers from loosing 10% or more from the salaries. Well, there is. Custodians took an 8% hit off of concessions to save their jobs and from being privatized. Now they are after transportation. They are telling transportation to take a 10% hit and if not? Then either be consolidated or privatized. I am all for teachers taking a hit just to save money. This new retirement package is no different. If teachers in Texas are willing to take a hit to save another of their own from privatization or consolidation? Then why not Michigan? Because teachers here in Michigan have it too good.

katie

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.

I'm amazed at the way this is being spun. The headline should have read "Teachers taxed 3% more than other citizens while losing all retirement healthcare benefits." A bunch of people will be paying that 3% into a pension system that is frozen at retirement with no cost of living increase. It's not just vision and dental affected by this, it's all healthcare in retirement. Get ready to decide between your prescription and your food in retirement, teachers. You won't be able to afford both. So all the politicians (Republican or Democrat) claim it was a victory for teachers? That's what they always do. What nonsense! They belong to the corporations, to the richest citizens, not to us all. The richest among us pay no taxes since they can hire accountants and lawyers to figure out the loopholes. The state is going down the tubes, along with the rest of the world. The only ones who benefit are the rich. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Oh wait, they own the bank, too. Let's make all banks and businesses nonprofit with the same salary ratios/amounts between top administrators and regular workers that are present in the school systems. That would solve a lot of the problems we are seeing. I don't mean socialism, they would not be government run. They could do business as they see fit. They would just be nonprofits. There would be much less incentive for corruption, pollution, or anything. Nonprofits for all. That's the way to go. Oh, and we all have the same retirement benefits and healthcare benefits. Everyone, including the politicians. Then we'd get some decent laws instead of this disgusting mess.

DonBee

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:43 a.m.

@Lisa - If Michigan hates teachers so much, then why do the teacher portals rank Michigan as the 4th best state to work in as a teacher? Does that mean that 46 states hate teachers more? As a state according to the state board of education we are not 38th in income by population, down from 11th. Yet, we are 4th in compensation for teachers when you take the whole deal into account, according to two teacher portals (one run by a teacher's union). I have not argued that teacher pay should be cut in any thread, I have and will continue to argue that there are cheaper ways to deliver benefits than we use today. No cut in the actual benefit, just in the overhead of delivery. There are lots of examples of how to do this. I did not and do not favor the retirement bill, since the state does not have a fund set aside for retirements and that means that tax on teacher salaries that the school districts (not the individual teachers) pays will go up for the 2010-2011 school year. I have not seen anyone run any real numbers on the actual savings for school districts when the tax goes up and then they have to replace teachers in the classroom that retire.

Lisa Starrfield

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 6:06 a.m.

Why are teachers mad? Because despite the incentives for those nearing retirement to do so this year, this bill seriously hurts teachers. No one is really talking about the 3% paycut that supposedly is going to the pensions... only it isn't going into an account with my name on it, it is going to the general fund. No one my age believes this will be there for us. It's a paycut that we will never recoup. This bill also no longer makes health insurance an obligation for retired teachers. Again, this is a huge problem. This state hates its teachers and will continue to balance its budget on our backs. In a year or two, they will be demanding no health insurance for retired teachers and they still are working on shredding health insurance for working teachers. Please understand this. I could afford to teach when there was health insurance and a pension. If my retirement will not be secure if I stay in teaching, then I will have to consider other options. I am not alone.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sat, May 15, 2010 : 5:30 a.m.

The teacher bashers are out in force. Nothing will make them happy short of the firing of all teachers and the destruction of the state's public school system. Good Night and Good Luck

stunhsif

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:51 p.m.

Teachers work 9 months a year, period!!!!! Administrators and Principals put in around 10 months, period!!!! Almost all degreed professionals in the private sector work 50 hour weeks or more, period!!!!!! Hence, teachers earn on average the same incomes with much better benefits but put in 75% of the time on the job. So they make the same money, work fewer hours and have way better beneifts, period!!!

ABCXYZ

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 9:43 p.m.

This is a start. It will help to get out SOME of the "tired out" teachers. At the same time it will take out alot of wonderful teachers. Tenure needs to be gone. But, performance based is not the way either. We need someone who does not look at test scores to know if a teacher is good but someone who actually watches the teacher teach. This way the teachers that should not be teaching would be gone and the teachers who put in their heart and sole can do their job with out being drawn down by people that can't keep up. Basically the principals/administration need to do their job and do whats best for everyone.

MichU

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 6:11 p.m.

Teachers work at least 10 months in a given position while many take additional courses over the summer or plan for the next year. It's a calling, as well as a profession. We need to support our schools and respect teachers for the professionals that they are.

Lokalisierung

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.

"If a logical and fair counter argument is made I will concede." I don't know enough of the day in/out of teaching schedules but a sugeesiton I have is to look at the total number of hours worked each day and work that out to hours per year. Again, I'm not 'routing' for either side here, just an idea that popped into my head.

libertyordeath

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 5:30 p.m.

I apologize for incorrectly assuming an hour for lunch. My point still stands even if lunch is only 30 minutes. It doesn't change the total hours worked significantly to negate my arguments. It is true that most teachers work only 9 months out of the year. Why should they be compensated for working 12 if they work 9? It is a fair point that teach10 didn't refute. If a logical and fair counter argument is made I will concede. (sh1 I appreciate your input and realize that my estimate isn't a representation of all teachers, just a macro view of the average teacher, there will be outliers on both sides, some that walk in at 8 and leave at 3 and others will go above and beyond in their communication with parents etc. The extra effort is appreciated by me and hopefully others as well.) I don't contend that teaching is easy. I have dabbled in it some myself and realize it is hard work (I plan to teach high school in about 10 years after my time in private industry) but the evidence so far presented hasn't suggested that teachers work so much harder than other people in their respective fields with equivalent degrees to justify being compensated more. Teaching is noble and I commend all teachers who have taught and influenced children in a positive way. Nearly all of us owe some of our success to teachers but that doesn't mean other professions' work is no less important or any less noble. Are new medical technologies that help you and I live longer and in less pain less important? Is a scientist's quest for new knowledge (later on taught by teachers) less noble? Ultimately, teaching and these examples are all services to others. Some choose to teach, others choose to find other ways to help. If teaching is more noble, please present an argument. Again if the argument is logical and sound I will concede. If it is more noble and/or important I could see why greater compensation may be warranted.

JackieL

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 5:26 p.m.

My daughter has had help at lunch numerous times. That means that the teacher is giving up a lunch hour to help students. This seems very common in high school. Personally, I think teaching is a difficult job and I would like it to be appealing so that very good people go into the field. I really don't have a problem with good compensation. That said, I definitely would like to see evaluations. It wouldn't need to be complicated, but something to students and something to parents. Then randomly select a few? They do it in college all of the time.

teach10

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.

An hour for lunch? That's funny. Most teachers are scheduled 30 minutes for lunch. However most of the time we're lucky to get 15 minutes to actually sit down and eat. I'm so sick of the teachers only work 9 months out of the year comments. I have a sign up sheet for anyone who wants to come spend a day in the job of a teacher. Let's see if you can handle it. I agree that education and teachers are not valued in this country. Something is wrong with our priorities. Oh and by the way if you can read this...thank a teacher!

sh1

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

Libertyordeath: I appreciate you keeping the discourse civil here, and so let me civilly disagree with your description of a typical teacher school day as well. I think 7:00 to 5:00 is a pretty good estimate of a typical day, but assuming an hour for lunch is not accurate since most teachers get between 25-45 minutes and often spend that working in their rooms. Professional development outside the regular school day is required by the state as well. Additionally, teachers might leave their jobs at 5:00, but will spend hours planning, assessing, recording data, and worrying about their kids. This doesn't count parent phone calls and emails that occur daily. Compensation for parent meetings and other evenings at school have been cut in recent contracts. We all know teachers who don't fit the above bill, and that's a shame. Those who don't have a love for the job of teaching should leave it. I believe the great majority of teachers, especially those with younger students, consider themselves lifelong teachers, and carry their work 24/7.

libertyordeath

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 4:09 p.m.

Aims, You claim that through lesson planning and a list of other activities teachers make up the 2080 hours a year in 75% of the time. Your comparison of the average private sector worker to that of a teacher is not comparing apples to oranges. You need to compare jobs that require similar degrees, as their are many private sector jobs that require only a high school diploma or some technical training and only require 40 hours a week. While I don't deny that lesson planning and grading do take time, the school instruction day is only 7 hours long, that is only 35 hours a week. Let's just say the average teacher arrives at 7 a.m. and goes home at 5 p.m. on a typical day. That is 10 hours per day, subtract 1 hour for lunch and we have a 9 hour work day per week. Throw in another 5 hours of grading and lesson plans outside of the grading and planning done at school and we have 50 hours per week (35 instruction, and 15 grading and planning give or take). Some weeks do involve parent teacher conferences and other functions but those are usually offset by half days or full days off following such an event. These off days are usually mandated by the union. Either way a 50 hour week is commonplace in most jobs i.e. engineering, accounting, marketing, nursing etc all that typically require the same degree (Bachelor's and/or Master's). Hence your assertion that teachers work the same amount as private sector employees in 75% of the time falls flat. I am not saying some teachers don't put in long 60+ hours weeks, but it is not the norm. If it is please back it up with data. The teacher's I know are very dedicated and good at their job but they aren't putting in 60 hour work weeks on a consistent basis. You claim that not paying teachers a decent wage will result in no teachers or bad ones. This is partially true. However, when you add in the pensions/retirement plans and the strong health benefits that are typically far superior to those typically offered to private sector employees the total compensation is more than it appears at first glance. I, as others have, advocate for compensating teachers on their performance rather than on tenure. I don't claim to have a perfect system for evaluating teachers so that is a topic for another discussion, but it is something that should be discussed here in Michigan and nationwide. Teachers do have to continue their education and attend workshops and take more classes. Not many private sector jobs require additional college courses, but most private sector jobs require attendance at staff development seminars, conferences, and other events. Your assertion that the average bump in salary for a Master's would be substantially enhanced by data, as the numbers I have seen usually are in the 2-4K range. Not to mention the advanced degree greatly benefits the retirement/pension. Teachers who have a Master's have substantially better retirement benefits than those with a Master's thus, while the investment does take time to payoff, it clearly pays off in the long run. Secondly, some school districts pay for seminars/conferences that can be used for college credit, lowering the total cost of an advanced degree. What is your point about your friend that has a degree worth more than her salary? How many careers have yearly salaries that are more than the cost of the degree? Most 4 year degrees cost 60 to 150K. Most 4 year degrees earn 30 to 60K the first year and don't start earning close to 75 to 100K per year for at least 10-20 years. It is rather normal that you don't recoup the cost of your education in the first year or even in one salary year later on down the road. The same goes for further advanced degrees. It is an investment that will be paid for over time. If you told me today that if I paid you 80K now, that you would give me a check one year later for my entire lifetime of earnings, I sure would go for it. But it just doesn't work that way and neither do most salaries. The country does value education. But not to the extent that we continue to pump money at education and get no concrete improvements in student performance. I am not saying the teachers are to blame, but more money isn't necessarily the answer. More parent involvement in the home and at school is just one thing that needs major improvement. Additionally, not teaching to a test would probably help. What value does a standardized test have in the real world? Zero. There are fundamental flaws with the system, total teacher compensation being minor, the major flaw being how we currently pay based on service years rather than on performance. Ultimately, one solution isn't going to solve the problem. Finding ways as the legislature did to reduce the financial burden of pensions on taxpayers is only one small step in the right direction.

Aims

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 3:05 p.m.

Liberty - You are wrong. Normally, I try to be a little more elegant than that, but you are flat out wrong when you say that teachers work about 75% of the time that people in the private sector do. I can only assume that you mean because of their winter/Easter/summer breaks? Let me set you straight. The average private sector worker works approximately 40 hours per week for 52 weeks a year - not including paid vacations or paid sick time or paid holidays. That works out to be 2,080 hours of work in a 52 week year. Your average teacher works that 2,080 hours in 75% of the time that it takes average workers. The hours come where you typically don't see them: In lesson planning, before and after school meetings with parents, staff, and students, grading papers at home, field trips, student advising, chaperoning school activities. People need to get it through their heads that while teachers don't do it for the money, not paying them a decent wage for the services they do is going to result in either no teachers or bad ones. Teachers not only have to do their Bachelors, but they have to complete continuing education that is out of pocket. How many other private sector jobs out there do you know of that REQUIRE that in order to keep your job you have to pay to keep your certification? Tens of thousands of dollars - I'm not talking about a credit here or there - were talking the equivalent of a Master's degree. Some opt to get a Master's degree. Know what the average bump for a Master's degree is? $1500 a year. Know what the average Master's degree costs? About $45,000. It would take THIRTY YEARS of that $1500 bump to pay for the Master's degree. I have a friend that is at the top of her pay scale, meaning she can't make any more money where she is. She has a Master's degree. She has tenure. She has been teaching for over 10 years. She makes $75k. Her degrees and certifications cost more than that. What job in the private sector caps you out of a salary but requires you to get even more education? Furthermore, the average daycare provider makes almost twice what the average teacher makes. TWICE. And they don't have to have anything other than a State issued license, a fire escape, and some insurance. It's ridiculous how this country claims to value education and yet thinks that it's OK to screw the teachers at any given chance. You want out of the recession and the joblessness? It's gonna be education that does it and you don't get education without teachers. Period. Full stop. I've seen it my whole life and I'm tired of it. We as a country don't value education. If we did, we would make sure that teachers get paid what they're worth.

belboz

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.

Why do they not stick with the layoff plan? Financially, the state is now on the hook for these pensions. It seems like the answer to any state budget issue is to put the people on early retirement. If this keeps up, the pension system will be (if it isn't already) a financial anchor. This is not solving the problem. Staffing levels need to be cut.

gocuddy

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 1:54 p.m.

The NEA & MEA need to go! They have stollen our kids' future and finances from within. They backed this "hope & change" so it's time for them to take cut's like the rest of us are doing. How's the hope & change working for everyone? It's coming, and everyone knows it. Get prepared!

bballcoachfballfan

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

Whether or not this is a step in the right direction--I have no idea. What I am sure of is this: until we come up with a way to implement fair merit pay for teachers, we will never solve our problems with education. As a high school coach who is not a teacher, I have seen the good and the bad over the past 20 years. I recognize how difficult it is to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher. Certainly test scores alone are not the way--these probably evaluate parents more than teachers. But can't we develop a system that combines administrator classroom evaluation with parent evaluation, student evaluation and test scores to come up with a grid? I am no anti-union person but to me, the teacher's unions are doing themselves a disservice by fighting this. Bad teachers should be fired--regardless of their time on the job. Middle of the road teachers should be paid a middle of the road wage--regardless of time on the job. Great teachers should be paid a great wage--regardless of time on the job. Right now, we have too many poor educators collecting sizable paychecks. We have to many "C-teachers" earning "A-paychecks. And, we have far too many excellent teachers earning "C/D-paychecks". Pay the great teachers a lot more than the top earners make now, pay the average teacher less and get rid of the bad teachers. Forget about tenure. You are only as good as the job you are doing right now for our young people.

dk

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.

So the state offers teachers additional compensation to encourage those close to retirement to actually retire. As a response, teachers are outraged over being offered this nice opportunity. If they are going to complain about that, then they'll complain about absolutely anything.

LGChelsea

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.

This was passed with bipartisan support. What happened to Republicans who don't want the government telling people what to do? In the original plan, teachers who did NOT retire would lose vision and dental benefits. Is this still the case? If this is the plan, this will be unprecedented, with the government forcing employees to retire or face the consequence of major cuts in benefits. Unbelievable!

InsideTheHall

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.

Well, a step in the right direction but much much more needs to be done. The day of the MEA is over...finished. The older teachers are best advised to take this because more changes are coming next year and the year after and the year after until the public education system has been right sized and accountability measures are firmly in place and enforced. If a salesman doesn't sell they get fired and the same should apply to teachers who cannot teach and improve student performance. No more excuses!

libertyordeath

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.

Are teachers really all that short changed here? My mother, sister and numerous friends are teachers so I know many of the horror stories and of the major time commitment and hard work that comes with the job. That said, teachers work ~75% of the time compared to those in most private sector jobs. So shouldn't the compensation be roughly 75% of someone working year round? A rookie engineer with a Bachelor's degree makes 45 to 60K per year in their first year. A first year teacher makes 30 to 45K first year. So isn't this pretty fair compensation(I am assuming the benefits are equal, though we know this not to be true)? A job's pay is usually based on amount of skill and training required and time on the job. For the most part a teacher's compensation fits the job. That doesn't mean there isn't mental anguish with horrible parents, misbehaved kids, poor administrative support etc., but every job has a few things that aren't to our liking. Ultimately, this retirement incentive is a good thing for all involved. The students will not see spending cuts that would have shown up in the class room in one form or another. The students also get an influx of energetic new teachers. These new teachers, though inexperienced, are usually open to new teaching methods. Veteran teachers are sometimes reluctant to try new things. The taxpayers (you and I) benefit too. They save a bundle, hopefully meaning no higher taxes. New graduates and those seeking teaching positions will be able to find employment. They will begin to start contributing to the state's tax rolls rather than drawing unemployment. After many years of inflated pensions and benefits to teachers and other state employees, the legislature made a difficult but responsible and fair belt tightening decision that is good for the health and welfare of the state and its citizens. Now if only they would slash their own pay and benefits to reflect the lack of productive output that is all too commonplace from our representatives.

SonnyDog09

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 12:03 p.m.

I'm curious....how does a bill that passes the house by a 56-45 vote "narrowly pass"? 56 out of 100 votes doesn't seem "narrow" to me.

Theresa

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:46 a.m.

If Andy Dillon thinks that hundreds of new teachers will be hired now because of this..........he obviously has no idea what state school districts are in. AND he wants to be our new governor? This retirement "incentive" may get some of the top level teachers to retire, but it will only keep the districts from having to lay off some of the teachers that they already plan to lay off. The teachers left are going to be looking outside of Michigan for employment in other fields, because many have taken pay cuts to help their districts and will now lose another 3%. Teachers can't afford to stay in their positions. How about if the state legislator votes to take a pay cut, pay more toward their retirement, pay part of their "premium" health care benefits, etc. before they start asking teachers and state employees to do this? Maybe we need to start a petition drive that says that state legislators can not make more than the state average wage and have to pay the average that workers in the state pay for their health insurance etc. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to make others take such cuts then.

somebody7

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.

As someone who's been certified to teach for over 10 years and has been unable to do anything but substitute teach since then (because of the 100s and sometimes 1000s of applicants for every teaching job, especially in my field of study, which is social studies), this measure gives me hope. Thank you.

gettin old

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:31 a.m.

@huronbob did you not read the article? This initiative was lead by the Democrat Governor and called this "an important milestone"... Its time to clean house!

baitm

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:27 a.m.

it beats the robbery that happened to the working teachers. they pay 3% and get nothing at all..no healthcare when they retire, because the state cannot do it's job. new teachers pay almost 11%. if they are not lining up to teach here its becasue they are running to another state that values education. people are so hot to kill this profession they cannot even wait til next year to inact it. our gov't needs to be cleaned out and start over. new parties -why not? part time legislators heck yeah! that could save us a bundle right away. they only work parttime anyway: unless thay stay up all night to rob someone!

bs

Fri, May 14, 2010 : 11:14 a.m.

Nice... we just hit all of the teachers in the state with a 3% pay cut... let's balance this budget on the backs of our teachers while you all tell us how worthless they are and complain about any tiny little tax that YOU might have to pay... Let the laughing begin..... I wait patiently for the day that the right has driven the infrastructure of this country into the ground so far that they can no longer reap a profit off of others as they have for so long...