|
Same-Sex Classrooms Debate
Coming
MIRS, May 26, 2006
For more articles like this
visit
https://www.bridges4kids.org.
After languishing for years in the
legislative hopper, a controversial plan to permit single-gender
schools is now up for a Senate hearing.
Sen. Wayne KUIPERS (R-Holland), chair of the Senate Education
Committee, said he would take testimony on the issue and listen
to all sides, but "based on what I've heard from the groups that
favor it, I think it's something I could support."
For years, Sen. Mickey SWITALSKI (D-Roseville) has argued
unsuccessfully that girls, in particular, do better in a
same-sex setting (See "Blue Collar Switalski," 5/6/05). Kuipers
said he has been told that, too, and thinks the elimination of
"peer pressure" is a good idea. However, he does anticipate
strong opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union.
The new law would allow local school districts to make their own
decision on segregating boys and girls in the classroom.
When Switalski was in the House, he tried to push through his
same-sex school concept and failed. Now some six years later he
jokes the "corpse has winked."
The Roseville Democrat said he expected opposition from the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which believes the
proposal discriminates against young women if you put them in
one school and boys in another.
"I think it helps them," Switalski counters, especially when it
comes to improving their math and science scores.
In agreeing to hold the hearing, Kuipers said he has not done a
committee head count on his Senate Education Committee. MIRS
attempted to do that and found Sen. Irma CLARK-COLEMAN
(D-Detroit) to be a likely yes vote.
The Detroit democrat reported she supported the idea when it was
tried at four schools in Detroit years ago. Three schools for
males and one for females were set up, but the ACLU was
successful in blocking them in the courts.
Sen. Gerry VAN WOERKOM (R-Norton Shores) contended he has an
"open mind," while conceding at first blush it "looks sexist."
He would not say which way he would vote.
Likewise with Sen. Nancy CASSIS (R-Novi), who wants more
information before she checks in one way or the other. She is
especially concerned about the impact this might have on male
students who, she said, are "falling behind young girls" on the
academic front.
"I have major questions," the Oakland County lawmaker said.
Kuipers is probably a "yes" vote depending on what testimony he
hears from the opponents.
Attempts to poll the last Democrat on the committee, Sen. Burton
LELAND (D-Detroit), were unsuccessful.
Regardless, Switalski is pleased to get the hearing and hopes to
keep the corpse alive on its journey through the Legislature.
The first hearing could come as early as next week in Kuipers'
education panel.
Merit Pay For Michigan Teachers Back On Radar?
MIRS, May 26, 2006
A new merit based pay system for teachers that's been
implemented in the Denver Public School District is drawing
national attention and interest from some associations in
Michigan.
The Denver system pays teachers based on how well they perform
in the classroom instead of how long they've been teaching. New
teachers have to participate in the new system but veteran
teachers have a choice.
Teachers are then given pay raises based on specific targets
that are outlined by the principal. School wide performance
objectives are set by the district and are factored into the
mix.
Now that the state has adopted tougher standards that will
require schools to hire more math and science teachers, which
are hard to come by, districts may have to look at giving those
teachers some kind of an incentive, said Justin KING, director
of the Michigan Association of School Boards.
King said he's ready to sit down and have a private conversation
with the Michigan Education Association (MEA) about the merit
based system.
"We don't have a specific approach in front of us but our
approach is that it's been and should be a decision between
employees and employers," said MEA Spokeswoman Karen SCHULZ
about the merit system.
Collective bargaining agreements are made at the local level
between districts and their employees and should continue to be
negotiated that way, Schulz said.
Though many of the school districts in the state use the
traditional salary schedule in which teachers are paid based on
experience and training, some schools have opted to go after
more performance-based systems, Shultz said.
King was very open to the idea of merit based pay but showed
concern over salary costs, which would likely rise if the
program were initiated.
Denver ran several pilots before changing the pay structure but
when the city decided to make the change it had to ask voters to
pass a $25 million referendum to pay for the increased salary
costs associated with the program. The referendum passed but not
without support from teachers.
Asking voters to increase taxes for the program could be a
problem because of Proposal A, King said. The only way the
question could even go to the voters is if the entire school
district agrees to put the proposal out there, which, as recent
failed bond proposals demonstrate, isn't the easiest thing to
do.
"It would be a tough campaign," King said.
The Michigan Legislature tried to get something moving in that
direction about three years ago but it was strongly opposed by
the unions, said Senate Education Committee Chair Wayne KUIPERS
(R-Holland).
"I would have to take a closer look at it but it's definitely
something I'd be interested in," Kuipers said about the Denver
proposal.
Though Kuipers liked King's idea to start the program with
high-demand teachers such as math and science teachers, he said
it would benefit all schools if the program applied to all
teachers.
"As a trial run maybe we could start with math and science,"
Kuipers said. "If it proves to be as popular as we think it
could be then we should just open it up across the board."
Kuipers said he will look at the issue, but probably not this
year.
"We've got enough things right now that we'd like to get done,"
Kuipers said. "Certainly after the first of the year it would be
something to take a look at again. I'm not sure we have enough
time this year."
Mental Health Parity Clears Michigan Senate Committee
Gongwer News Service, May 31, 2006
Bills requiring benefits for mental health services equal to
that offered for physical health care in insurance plans that
provide coverage for mental health problems won approval
Wednesday by the Senate Health Policy Committee on a divided
vote. Although business groups warned the bills will drive up
costs and perhaps lead to reduced health care benefits, the
committee action was met by applause from supporters of the bill
who say the current system is discriminatory and leaves families
fighting for their financial lives to get needed mental health
services.
If ultimately adopted, Michigan would join 39 other states which
already require what is known as mental health parity: setting
cost limits, deductibles, co-pays and use restrictions for those
afflictions as are provided for other health issues. The
requirement would apply to insurers, HMOs or Blue Cross/Blue
Shield of Michigan programs.
Sen. Beverly Hammerstrom (R-Temperance), who repeatedly
challenged assertions the provision would lead to increased
costs, said the substitute for SB 229 and substitute for SB 230
do not impose a mandate, "no matter what they try to say."
The parity proposal was a central element of recommendations in
2004 by Governor Jennifer Granholm's Mental Health Commission.
Patrick Babcock, who was chair of the commission, said committee
approval will mean that "for the first time in history, Michigan
will have an open debate (on parity)."
The bills as approved by the committee deleted parity provisions
for substance abuse problems, as Ms. Hammerstrom said she wanted
to avoid the potential of inadvertently jeopardizing those
benefits for those who already have them, and because she wants
to "take one step at a time."
Joining Ms. Hammerstrom in sending the bills to the full Senate
were Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton) and Sen. Gilda Jacobs
(D-Huntington Woods).
Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing) called the approach the
"right thing to do" but abstained from voting on the bills
because of some lingering reservations including the potential
to cause an increase in health care costs. But she added,
"Regardless of these bills, we have to do something about the
cost of health care."
Sen. Tom George (R-Kalamazoo) opposed the bills, saying he is
concerned about the rising number of uninsured persons.
Brian Broderick of the Economic Alliance for Michigan and
representing the Michigan Health Purchasers Coalition, said the
bills amount to a "costly interference" with the ability of
health care purchasers to design health benefit plans that suit
their needs.
And Kathleen Neal of Daimler Chrysler, whose opposition was
supported by General Motors and Ford Motor Company, said the
bills would mean an increase in health insurance costs, an
increase in the number of uninsured and underinsured, and fewer
job opportunities by making the state even less attractive as an
investment location.
"Consumers and group purchasers cannot afford another rising
cost," she said.
Wendy Block of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce said the
legislation would be like "pouring gas on a fire. However well
intended, setting parameters will further increase costs of
health insurance. These bills are a slippery slope." She pointed
to studies estimating that the provision would add 3.6 percent
in the cost of health care policies and that a Congressional
Budget Office estimate said every percent increase means 100,000
more persons will become uninsured.
But Ms. Hammerstrom said premiums dropped or held nearly steady
in neighboring states after they adopted parity legislation with
individuals opting for more mental health services rather than
"overusing the health side." And Ms. Jacobs said studies show
the parity provision leads to a marked decrease in employee
absenteeism, thus lowering costs for employers.
Judith Kovach, executive director of the Michigan Psychological
Association, said studies by the New England Journal of Medicine
found no correlation between increased costs of health care and
a mental health parity provision in other states, but attributed
it to inflation and other factors. And she said North Carolina
and Texas saw dramatic reductions in mental health costs after
they adopted parity.
"Not one state has ended its parity because of costs," she said
of states with such provisions. "Not one employer has opted out
(of providing mental health services) because of costs." She
said providing parity is a fraction of the cost businesses have
to bear as a result of untreated depression of employees.
Mark Reinstein of the Mental Health Alliance for Michigan said
lack of parity is "morally, economically and medically
inadvisable."
The Michigan Nurses Association - which like the Michigan State
Medical Society and Michigan Health and Hospital Association
supports parity - said it is a "vital strategy in supporting
(those with mental illness) to be productive, contributing
citizens of Michigan."
back to the top ~
back to Breaking News
~ back to
What's New
|
