|
 Administration
Seeks End To School Bond Credit Card
MIRS, March 22, 2005
For more articles like this
visit
https://www.bridges4kids.org.
The state's
School Bond Loan Fund (SBLF) is growing out of control and is
costing the state tens of millions each year as loan repayments
from school districts fall short of actual debt service. The
situation's got the administration seeking to curb the SBLF
credit card.
Deputy State Treasurer Cynthia FAULHABER briefed members of the
House Education Appropriations Subcommittee today on Gov.
Jennifer GRANHOLM's plan to turn the SBLF into a traditional
revolving loan program.
The Constitution and state law authorizes the state's School
Bond Loan program to essentially enhance the state's credit by
giving local school districts a mechanism to issue capital
improvement bonds.
Over time, the amount of debt service related to the SBLF has
exceeded the amount of loan repayments the state gets back from
school districts.
For example, last year, the state owed through the program more
than $625 million in outstanding debt with related debt service
of $31 million. The amount of loan repayments received by the
state from school districts that benefited from the debt
however, totaled only $10 million. The School Aid Fund picked up
the remaining $21 million.
Local district bonds that are deemed "qualified" by the
Department of Treasury get the state's credit rating and school
districts may borrow from the state the amount needed to pay
principal and interest requirements on outstanding qualified
bonds.
"Ten years ago there were 48 school districts participating in
the School Bond Loan Fund owing a balance of approximately $83
million," Faulhaber told the panel. "Borrowing has escalated
over the last 10 years and currently there are 146 school
districts participating and the balance owed is approximately
$791 million."
Faulhaber added that even if no new districts begin borrowing
from the fund, the balance of loans outstanding would reach $1
billion by 2009.
The problem with the program is that the borrowing of districts
against the program is unrestricted. Under current law,
Faulhaber explained, the millage rate that school districts must
levy before they can borrow from the program is between 7 and 13
mills. The millage rate is set when the school district seeks
qualification of its bonds from Treasury. The millage rate is
one that is to assure that the school district will repay all of
the SBLF loans within five years of the last bond maturity.
Because borrowing is unrestricted, school districts can go back
to the state and qualify for additional bonding. That new
"qualification" then sets back payment to the SBLF five years
after the payoff date of the new bonds.
"Some districts have been borrowing from the SBLF since the
1960s and will not repay until after 2020," Faulhaber said.
"This type of 'roll-over' borrowing has contributed to the
sizeable growth of the SBLF debt over the years."
The reforms being pushed by the administration would essentially
bring discipline to the SBLF credit card by requiring that
schools repay their loans on a predictable schedule, regardless
of whether they want more bonding money.
"By doing that, we'd be able to tie loan repayments to debt
service and convert this to a true revolving loan fund,"
Faulhaber added.
The reforms would also call for Treasury to strengthen the
program by updating both the application process and the
criteria used to evaluate those applying.
Under questioning by Subcommittee Chair Rep. John MOOLENAAR
(R-Midland), Faulhaber said the state would still be required to
cover the bonds if the original mills approved in the
qualification process aren't enough to pay back the bonds.
The Treasury official noted that school districts that
continually roll over their debt, essentially pushing back their
repayment date, could feel pinched by the reforms.
Udow Lays Out DHS Goals
MIRS, March 22, 2005
Along with its
new name, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has a new,
sharper vision going into 2005 — reduce poverty, get young
children on the right track and help the poor reach their
potential.
The goals were laid out today by DHS Director Marianne UDOW at
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Human Services today as
the director laid out the department's three-year plan, a
document one year in the making and a product crafted from the
input of more than 5,000 clients, community representatives and
employees.
In many ways, the document has the smell of something based on
the business-like concepts espoused in The Price of Government.
"People were asked what they thought the mission of the
department should be, why they would want to pay taxes to
support it, what they thought the results should be and what
kinds of measurable outcomes the department should be
achieving," she said.
According to the director, this is the first time since the 1996
welfare reform that this type of process has been undertaken.
“It was our opportunity to revisit welfare reform, to learn what
was successful from it, to learn from what is happening today in
our environment and the economy, and to determine where we
should map our future,” she said.
She said the department has developed a mission and vision in
its strategic plan. Its mission is to help people with issues
related to safety and family stability, as well as to help them
be self-supporting and self-sufficient.
Its vision is three-pronged. First and foremost is its vision to
reduce poverty. She said more than one-third of Michigan's
children are living in poverty and that must change.
Secondly, the department wants to help all children have a great
start in life. “If we can have an impact on children between 0
and 5 years of age, we can have a significant impact on the
health of our economy and the productivity of our citizens,” she
said. Finally, the department wants to help all of their clients
reach their full potential.
The director laid out six goals for the department for the next
four years. The department's first goal is to support its staff
and improve efficiency. Since 1997, staff has been reduced 27
percent while caseload increased 42 percent.
“That has created a significant challenge for staff. We need to
move to an integrated information technology system, and reduce
complexity to improve efficiency and effectiveness,” she said.
The department's second goal is to improve early child care and
education.
“We need to focus on how we can do a better job as a state in
providing quality early learning opportunities for our
children,” said Udow.
The agency's third goal is to reduce poverty by helping clients
to be self-sufficient and self-supporting. The department wants
to modify the state's Work First program to help clients become
better skilled for today's jobs. The director indicated that
specific recommendations would be coming.
Goal four is to strengthen the state's child welfare system.
Udow said that too many children are in the system and she wants
to reduce that number by 1 percent by expanding the state's
Family-to-Family program statewide.
“The program allows staff to work with families, communities and
foster families to keep children in their home, if they can be
kept in their home safely," she said. "If they cannot be kept in
their home, we at least want to give them some stability by
keeping them in their home communities and at their regular
school.”
The department's fifth goal is to make sure that adults in its
system - those in protective services or health care - can live
in community-based settings to the extent that they possibly
can. Its final goal is to strengthen the department's prevention
and early intervention programs, like Family Resource Centers.
“We know that, if we can intervene early in the course of a
problem, we can make a significant difference in the course of
that problem,” Udow said.
She added that, for nearly 70 percent of the children in the
state's child welfare system, their families had come to the
department for cash assistance, food assistance or some other
form of assistance. “If the department was able to intervene at
that time and help that family to become stable, we could reduce
the number of children that face abuse,” she said.
Critics Question Cassis Ed Package
MIRS, March 24, 2005
Republican senators continued their push today for a package in
the Senate Education Committee that would promote a new way to
help kids who have problems learning in kindergarten through
third grade.
Through the "S.A.V.E. the Children" bills, lead sponsor Nancy
CASSIS's (R-Novi) idea is to help identify specific problems a
kid is having and get them the appropriate help as opposed to
automatically shipping them to special education. The approach
helps the kids improve without being pinned with the stigma of
being a special ed kid. It also saves the state (and school
districts) special education money.
“One of the problems we can say is that there is no consistent
way in evaluating a student for special education,” Cassis said.
“But one thing we do know is that there are young people who are
not succeeding in schools. I know first hand that there are
students going through special education and have not been
successful and what it does to their self-esteem.”
Joining Cassis as sponsors of the SB 0324 through SB 0330 are
Sen. Wayne KUIPERS (R-Holland), chair of the Senate Education
Committee; Sen. Patty BIRKHOLZ (R-Saugatuck Twp.); Sen. Bill
HARDIMAN (R-Kentwood); and Sen. Ron JELINEK (R-Three Oaks),
chair of the Senate Appropriations K-12 subcommittee.
SB 0324 would change when a child would start kindergarten. It
would require a child to be five years old by Sept. 1 instead of
Dec. 1 starting the 2007-2008 school year. A school district
could adopt a policy of allowing a child who was four years old
by Sept. 1 to attend kindergarten. SB 0325 would amend the State
School Aid Act so it could comply with SB 0324.
Susan MATZ, the director of instructional program at Walled Lake
Consolidated Schools, felt the bill was geared more to dates
when the focus should be on students.
“I would urge you to think less on age and instead on what are
the qualities and length of time for a student at risk,” Matz
said. “We are also concerned on the financial impact on having a
dramatically reduced enrollment.”
Kuipers was concerned by the fact that Matz and officials from
other school districts depend on the financial aspect of each
child enrolled.
“It troubles me that schools will be counting on the revenue of
these students before they walk into the door,” he said. “ I
have been told that this package will save the state $200
million."
SB 0324 also received opposition from Sen. Irma CLARK-COLEMAN,
who said the bill should be based on what each individual child
is ready for.
“When we install laws like this, we are saying all children need
to make the same model, but all children don't make the same
model,” Clark-Coleman said. “My concern deals with holding a
child back when he is ready to go to school.”
SB 0326 would require a school district to devote at least one,
out of the required five, professional development days a year
to training about pupil learning, if the district had an
above-average percentage of pupils in special education.
Although all of the bills focus on improving the education of
young students, SB 0327 is geared toward changing higher
education requirements for college students planning a career in
teaching.
SB 0327 bumps up the number of credits a teaching student needs
in elementary-level reading from six to nine. Also, future
teachers would need to do field work at schools with
above-average numbers of special education students. Also, the
teaching students would need to be trained in how to spot a
child's trouble as opposed to shoving the kid into special
education.
The panel heard testimony on both sides of the issue as members
of the college education profession voiced their concerns.
A Michigan State University professor said the bill would have a
positive impact on future students since some college students
aren't able to detect a student's reading level right now.
Jerry ROBBINS, president of the Michigan Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, said although he agreed that reading is
most important for schools, state institutions already do
intensive instructions in their fields.
“In most institutions, this would have the effect of lengthening
programs,” said Robbins, who was also the dean of education at
Eastern Michigan University. “If you look at all teachers, you
have to look at when they were prepared. Teachers are better
prepared today than 20 years ago.”
SB 0328 through SB 0330 is the funding piece of the Early
Learning Success program. The program would monitor students as
early as possible to reduce the need for special education
placement.
Cassis added that despite the critics, she is determined that
this is a step toward improving Michigan's future as a former
state educator.
“You are speaking to the chief cheerleader on the bills,” she
said. “I am passionate and I will fight for this."
Higher Ed Panel Given Dose Of Reality/Options
MIRS, March
23, 2005
Along with the annual message from the Presidents of the Big
Three universities, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Higher Education was given a dose of reality and some options to
help cure what ails the state.
U.S. Rep. John "Joe" SCHWARZ (R-Battle Creek) and newspaper
publisher Phil POWERS were both unabashed in suggesting to the
panel that a new course of action is required to properly fund
universities and the economic development those institutions can
spur.
"It's crystal clear in recent years that state support for
higher education has evolved into a system of user fees," said
Powers. The owner of Hometown Newspapers suggested three
different options for the state to solve what he describes as a
perpetual $1 billion structural budget deficit.
First, Powers suggested that lawmakers consider lowering the
state's business tax burden and broaden and lower the state's
sales tax to five percent. That lower sales tax would be applied
to services.
Second, move higher education funding into a restricted fund,
something Schwarz mentioned, as well. Powers argued there is
actually precedence for such an approach. The original Real
Estate Transfer Tax was dedicated to funding the state's
universities.
Third, Power suggested that lawmakers and the governor begin to
make "some very tough" budget decisions to reflect the position
of a state in a dire situation.
"I doubt our current political system has the political will to
do any of those," Powers suggested. "We are, year after year,
deploying a policy of remorseful incrementalism."
Due to term limits and fierce partisanship, Powers said Michigan
is on course to become the "Mississippi of the North, no offense
to Mississippi."
"Other than political expediency the only other explanation is
that Michigan is in a cyclical situation and if we just wait,
things will get better," Powers said, adding that there are no
signs things will get better.
Former State Senator-turned-U.S. Representative Schwarz said
much of the same thing.
"The history of this state is the history of the development of
our universities," said Schwarz, a former chair of the Senate
Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee. "They're what got
us here … they're what's going to get us through the future."
When pressed about a possible source of funding for a higher
education restricted fund, Schwarz suggested the business tax, a
tax currently being debated for reform.
"Michigan would not be the first to do this," Schwarz said,
warning the panel that the continuous cuts to higher education
are resulting in the state "getting very close to pricing
Michigan families out of higher education for their sons and
daughters."
One suggestion that at least appeared to gain the interest of
Rep. Gretchen WHITMER (D-East Lansing), was one made by Powers
that lawmakers consider a ballot proposal that would combine tax
restructuring with a new higher education restricted fund.
"It could be the Proposal A of this decade," Powers suggested.
The three university presidents testifying today stressed the
need for investment, but strayed away from offering up possible
funding sources.
University of Michigan President Mary Sue COLEMAN kicked off the
morning of testimony by warning the panel that "we're in a
global race … and America is falling behind."
Coleman noted that there are five countries that spend more on
research as a percent of the gross domestic product than the
United States. She also noted that only about 22 percent of
Michigan adults have a higher education. "That's well below the
national average."
Coleman, like the other university presidents, noted the now
on-going reduction in state funding is having an impact. She
noted that if the governor's Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 university
funding proposal is enacted, the U of M campus would have
sustained a $50 million cut in funding.
Throughout the hearing, Subcommittee Chair Rep. John STEWART
(R-Plymouth) repeatedly encouraged the three university
presidents to schedule a 20-minute, face-to-face discussion with
Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM over the funding issue.
Loepp To Become Blues CEO
MIRS, March 23, 2005
The Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan Board of Directors has announced that it
has selected Daniel J. LOEPP, senior vice president and chief of
staff for the company, to succeed Blues president and CEO
Richard WHITMER when Whitmer retires in mid-2006.
As CEO designate, Loepp will continue to serve as chief of staff
until he assumes the president and CEO position after Whitmer's
retirement in mid-2006. Leopp has been among those MIRS
mentioned as possible successors to Whitmer. (see MIRS Feb. 22)
Loepp, 47, played a key role in moving the Blues-version of
legislation creating rate-bands through the Legislature in 2003.
He currently leads a broad range of areas at the company. In
addition to serving as chief of staff, Loepp's portfolio
includes the governmental affairs, corporate communications,
product development, the Blues' Center for Health Care Quality,
social mission and strategic planning areas.
Loepp joined the company in 2000 as vice president of
governmental affairs. He serves on the Health Policy and
Legislative Committee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association, a policy-shaping body for the association of
independent Blue Cross Blue Shield companies across the nation.
"The next 12 months may be a time of transition for the Blues,
but not for our participating physicians and hospitals, group
customers and individual members," said Blue Board Chairman
SUDDERTH. "The Blues remain committed to providing affordable,
accessible and quality health care coverage as a nonprofit
organization. A new CEO will not change that."
Granholm Pushing Flanagan for Superintendent
Gongwer News Service, March 23, 2005
Mike Flanagan, executive director of the Michigan Association of
School Administrators, was Governor Jennifer Granholm's
education adviser when she first took office. Since leaving that
post, Mr. Flanagan has indicated that is all the time he wants
as a state employee, but Ms. Granholm announced this week she
hopes he will throw his hat into the ring for superintendent of
public instruction.
Liz Boyd, press secretary for Ms. Granholm, said the governor is
hoping to talk to Mr. Flanagan, who is currently on vacation and
unreachable, and convince him to have his application in by the
April 8 deadline.
"She hopes that Mike Flanagan will reconsider and allow his name
to be considered for superintendent," Ms. Boyd said. "The
governor has not tapped Mike Flanagan, but the governor has
tremendous respect for Mike Flanagan."
John Austin (D-Ann Arbor), vice president of the board and one
of the members closest to Ms. Granholm, said part of the
agreement between the governor and top board members was to
invite people members of that group felt would be qualified for
the position.
"I certainly think as a board we would want to be looking hard
...if the governor thinks he's the best candidate," Mr. Austin
said of Mr. Flanagan. "I'm personally a big fan of Mike's."
But board President Kathleen Straus (D-Bloomfield Hills) was
more reserved about Mr. Flanagan's candidacy. "We will review
all the candidates who apply. If Mike applies, we will consider
him along with all of the other candidates," she said.
And she said Ms. Granholm's endorsement was one of many
considerations. "That's certainly one of the criteria that you
have to get along with the governor," she said. "But there are
others we have to weigh as well."
Mr. Austin said Mr. Flanagan may have some personal reasons for
not seeking the position, but said he also has the same goal as
board members: "I think that's what Mike is most interested in
is who could be most effective."
Ms. Boyd said the governor would be making a single
recommendation to the State Board of Education for consideration
as superintendent, and that recommendation is expected to carry
much weight after Ms. Granholm's vote of no confidence tipped
the scales against former Superintendent Tom Watkins.
If Mr. Flanagan does not apply for the post, Ms. Boyd said the
governor would pick one of those who did apply.
MEA Chief Fires Back on Teacher Insurance
MIRS, March
25, 2005
Michigan Education Association (MEA) President Lu Battaglieri on
Thursday blasted projections by the Citizens Research Council (CRC)
that a $225 increase in the K-12 per pupil grant would be soaked
up by the rising cost of teacher insurance benefits, calling
such calculations "Jethro-deciphering-to-Granny-on-the-Beverly-Hillbillies"
math.
CRC's Tom CLAY told the state Board of Education in December and
the Senate Education Committee a month later (See MIRS, Jan. 27,
2005) that even if the state gave four percent more to the
School Aid Fund (SAF) in the next budget cycle, almost all of it
would be eaten up by what may be viewed as generous benefits
packages schools use to lure quality employees.
Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM is proposing a $175-per-pupil increase to
the $6,700 per-pupil payment the state gives locals to teach
kids. For high schools, Granholm wants a $225-per-pupil
increase. Using the Clay study as a backdrop, House Speaker
Craig DeROCHE (R-Novi) confirmed this week that the House is
considering linking any education funding increases to teacher
health insurance benefit reform.
One of the proposals on the table is SB 0055 and SB 0056, which
would create a statewide insurance pool similar to the one the
state runs for its state employees. In response on Thursday,
Battaglieri said he finds it strange that small-government
Republicans now apparently believe a state bureaucracy would do
a better job holding down costs than a private entity.
The MEA sees this as an attack on the Michigan Education Special
Services Association (MESSA), a subsidiary of the MEA, which
offers health insurance benefits for public schools. For years,
Republicans, led by former Gov. John ENGLER tried to loosen what
was seen as a perceived stranglehold MESSA had on public school
administrators.
"If you hear some of the criticism, you would think that we've
put a gun to people's head," Battaglieri said. "There's no gun.
There's no smoking gun. There's not even any smoke."
Also, some have contended that MESSA funnels millions of dollars
to the MEA for its political action arm. Battaglieri said that,
too, is not the case.
"We were scrutinized by the former Insurance Commissioner at the
demand of a former governor and we came out squeaky clean," he
said. "I wish I knew where these millions of dollars were
because maybe I could use them to help public education."
The following are excerpts of the rest of the conversation MIRS
had with Battaglieri on Thursday.
Q. How do you address the concerns that if we give more money to
education it will go for the increasing cost of teacher
benefits?
A. Some of this goes back to last December when the former state
superintendent put out some study regarding that. In that, he
talked about how even if the Governor and the Legislature found
another $300 dollars per pupil that two-thirds of it would go to
cover health care costs and retirement.
At the time, I called the superintendent and the state board
president and told them that as a former math teacher, I
survived Chicago math and I survived new math and even voodoo
math, but this is more akin to Jethro-deciphering-to-Granny-on-the-Beverly-Hillbillies
math. Any fourth grader would tell you that two-thirds of $300
is not $250. Secondly, I began to point out how erroneous this
information they were putting out was.
The facts just do not bear that as being the case. If you go
back to the 1994-95 school year (the first year of Proposal A)
and you take a look at teachers' salaries and where they were as
a percent of total expenditures and compare that to now, that
has gone down 3.28 percent. If you take a look at insurance for
that same time period, it has gone up 1.81 percent, but the
percentage by which salaries has gone down, more than makes up
for the percentage by which insurance has gone up. That's the
math that I'm seeing.
There was a time in this state, 15-20 years ago, that insurance
was very cheap. It was cheaper to give teachers good insurance
coverage than it was salaries and school districts actually used
that to bring teachers into their districts. Teachers took lower
salaries to get that "Cadillac" insurance. Over the last 20
years of bargaining, I can give you names and places of where we
took less salary in order to maintain the insurance. We took
less salary to prevent the insurance from being cut.
Now, the state is in an economic problem and all of a sudden,
it's, "We have to cut." We are not in a spending problem in this
state. We are having a resource problem and a funding problem.
To make people who have already given up salaries give up their
insurance makes us the scapegoats and that is not good public
policy.
Q. The American School Board Journal report of 2004 says
Michigan teachers are the second-best paid in the country and
that Michigan is the fourth-highest spender when it comes to
school administrative costs. How do you combat those statistics?
A. Some of that is old information. If you were to run that
today, you would find that those percentages are down. We've
begun having a huge turnover in staff so the highest-paid staff
members with the greatest number of years of seniority are
retiring and they're being replaced by lower-earning, younger
teachers. The reason Michigan was where it was, in part, was
that Michigan does have good salaries, but the real reason was
that we had an aging workforce that was at the top of the pay
scale.
As far as the administrative salaries, there are some places in
the state where those administrative salaries are high and I'm
not the person to comment on those.
Q. Another argument is that MESSA has school districts by the
throat if they want to look for health care insurance
alternatives. How do you combat that one?
A. I'm hoping the reason they're saying those things is out of
ignorance, and I mean "ignorance" in the true sense of the word
- that they just don't know. I don't want to be insulting. If
it's not, then we're going to have a real problem. If it's
ignorance, we can correct that. We can tell them the facts.
For example, MESSA is in only about 55 percent of the school
market. They do not have a monopoly, as has been said.
Forty-five percent of school employees are being offered
insurance through someone else. So MESSA does not have this
stranglehold that some keep talking about.
MESSA was created in 1960 because small groups, particularly
custodial units and small teacher units, didn't have anywhere in
the market to go. MESSA was created to offer that service as a
non-profit entity. When we talk about MESSA as the "Cadillac"
insurance, MESSA is good coverage at an affordable price. We are
very competitive. We have a number of instances where it is
written in contracts that school districts have the ability to
find comparable insurance if premiums go beyond a certain
amount.
These are some of the facts. People are surprised that MESSA is
not a monopoly on the school market. These two Senate bills (SB
0055 and SB 0056) were, I think, written as anti-MESSA bills.
They're actually anti-collective bargaining bills. They would
gut collective bargaining rights for school employees through a
state takeover.
Q. The House is looking at linking an increase in education
funding to MESSA reforms. Would that be a no for you?
A. That's beyond a simple no. That is stupid. That is blackmail.
That is holding kids hostage. First of all, I don't see where
the good in public policy is on the anti-MESSA attacks. To tie
it to funding for kids makes no sense.
Q. Tom Clay's mentioned in his presentation that part of the
reason teacher health insurance is rising is because some units
don't ask employees to make co-pays and others offer health
insurance for life to new teachers and their spouses for as
little as five years of service. How do you defend this to a
general public that doesn't receive these types of benefits.
A. Again, that gets back to the ignorance piece. If it's malice,
that's a different issue, but if it's ignorance, we can help
them with the facts. The facts are that nearly 40 percent of our
members have some type of co-pay. Everybody has a co-pay when
they go to the drug store and the doctor's office, but 40
percent are paying co-pays on their premiums, out of pocket.
One hundred percent of our members have co-pays for drugs,
hospital visits and doctor visits. We have some members who have
co-pays on premiums that are as high as $400 a month. I can give
you name and verse of members who are literally working to keep
their insurance for their families.
Q. What do you think the chances are that Senate Minority Leader
Bob EMERSON's (D-Flint) bill that guarantees annual state
education funding increases at 5 percent or the rate of
inflation, whichever is lower, gets passed?
A. The interesting piece is that people who are supportive of
public education have come out in favor of it. Others are
finding reasons not to support it. I haven't done a head count
and I don't know what the numbers are. All of the talking heads
are saying this is dead in the water.
>From my perspective, it's had some benefits. The Governor and
the legislative leaders are trying to one up the other on who is
going to give us more money. There is this talk about the extra
$175 per pupil. Quite frankly, I hope the thing goes through,
but I never put all of our eggs in that basket. I do hope the
Legislature looks at it and gives it serious consideration. If
they do, I think it will pass.
Part of the purpose of the bill was to give the Legislature the
opportunity to do right by public schools. Should they fail to
do that, we're going to take our cause to the people. Inside
Michigan Politics' recent survey has this thing with 61 percent
support from the general public. I hope legislators look at this
bill. We wanted to give them an opportunity to do what they say
every election year, that they love public schools.
Q. Do you think voters believe that the more money you spend on
education, the better that education will be?
A. I don't think there's any taxpayer out there that wants to
throw money away. But I do believe that the voters should
believe that public education is underfunded, particularly with
the unfunded mandates that the federal government gives us under
No Child Left Behind. More and more money is going toward
paperwork, toward keeping up with all of the rules and
regulations. There is much too much money not going into the
classroom, not going to the kids. When I say that, I truly
believe the best investment is putting a prepared, experienced
and tested teacher in front of every child, and that costs
money.
Q. What do you make of the situation in the state of Washington,
where voters passed something like this, but the Legislature was
forced to overturn the voters' wishes during the next budget
cycle because they said they couldn't pay for it?
A. That's both a plus and a minus of this thing. It's not
written in stone. The legislators can change it if they have to
and that's part of the selling point. But once the people have
spoken, I think it carries their responsibilities to a higher
level of undoing what the voters have done.
Now, Washington is an interesting case because they also were
the ones to start this zero-based budgeting, this new way of
doing things where you start out with a clean slate. This was
the state that when they have finished their process, they
forget to fund the civil courts. So I don't know if I would put
too much stake in what's going on out there.
Q. How much of a role do you think the MEA played in getting
Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM to chase former state Superintendent Tom
WATKINS out of his post?
A. We didn't play any role in that at all. I had known for a
while that there were some personality clashes, difference of
opinion, perhaps policy differences, and we pretty much stayed
out of it. We only became involved when it became public. Quite
frankly, neither the state superintendent nor the State Board of
Education warranted the type of political capital it would have
cost us to do anything against either one of them.
There was nothing in it for us to gain. The biggest thing that
state Board of Education has done in the last couple of years
was change the MEAP (Michigan Education Assessment Program) from
being given in the fall instead of the spring because it makes
it easier for them to report out the scores so we can use them
that year.
But they never asked me, as a former math teacher, about what
that does to the sequence of teaching. You have to do fractions
before you do percents before you do decimals. They never asked
me as a social studies teacher about what that does as you teach
history, that you have to teach the Civil War before you teach
World War II — in terms of the questions that are asked on the
MEAP.
They never asked us if we ought to change when these questions
are asked because it wouldn't have been covered as a part of our
curriculum, yet. They did it because it was convenient for them.
Q. Should we disband the Board of Education?
A. That's one of those philosophical questions that I'm not sure
has a practical answer. Clearly, it's in our constitution and
they exist. They do their job well, given the perimeters they
have and given some of the power that they've had taken away
from them by a previous administration.
I think the state Board of Education has a role. I think the
bigger question is, should the superintendent be appointed by
the Governor or should it be kept the way that it is? My
personal opinion is that it ought to mirror what happens in
Washington. If this person is going to be a member of the
cabinet, then the Governor, who is responsible for public
education in the state, ought to have a much larger say-so in
who that cabinet person is.
I'd rather talk about making the Legislature part-time,
unicameral and non-partisan.
Q. It appears the Governor's preferred pick for superintendent
is Mike FLANAGAN, the executive director of the Michigan
Association of School Administrators. What do you think about
that choice?
A. Since it's the Governor's choice, I would support it whoever
that person was, given what I said about giving the governor a
strong say-so. On a personal note, I have known Mike for a long
time. He is a good guy. He is a straight-shooter. He is
trustworthy. I believe he truly believes in public education and
what he's doing. I had heard that he is a bit reluctant in
taking the post (see MIRS, Jan. 19, 2005) and so that would be
my only concern. I want somebody in there with the fire and
brimstone it's going to take to lead this state in education,
but I think he has all of the qualifications it takes to do the
job.
Q. Outside of Mr. Flanagan, are there any other names you'd like
to throw into the mix as being good candidates for the post?
A. Actually, there is someone. His name Doug HARRIS. I think
he's an up-and-comer. He has ties to the Lansing area. Right
now, he's at Florida State University, running education policy
— the laboratory there. He's done a lot of work on education
policy for the Legislature in Florida. He clearly lacks
experience in being a school superintendent, but I think he more
than makes up for it with some of the other things he's done in
his life.
back to the top ~
back to Breaking News
~ back to
What's New
|
