Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 23, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

What a stupid bill! It would reward incompetent school systems and increase our costs but not the education of the students. I'd bet these same sponsors object to testing students and grading school systems according to the results. The NEA and MEA must love this group of sponsors-all Dems of course. It's really no surprise. If you look at other bills these same people have sponsored or co-sponsored, it would define incompetence.

The general direction in which this bill points is the right direction. Since we the folks decided a decade or more ago that local public school funding should come primarily from Lansing, it is legitimate to demand that Lansing provide adequate and stable funding. SB 246 does not “reward incompetence,” as one writer here has suggested. It protects my community -- which has a proud history of adequately funding its fine and very competent public schools -- from the outrageous whims of ideologue wackos in the Legislature, who have no connection to me or my neighbors and are bent on dismantling the public school system at large. This is not to say SB 246 is the right solution as it stands. It should form the starting point for a serious debate and equitable resolution of school funding messes created by Proposal A.

I think there is a fine line between under funded ("District doesn't have the capital to hire quality teachers, purchase text books, maintain buildings") and incompetent inappropriate spending ("District spends its fund balance every year rather than save for future expenditures or spends it on non-academic related items"). I think there does need to be some measure to rate the districts to continue getting increases. And those districts that are already funded above the average should get less than those below the average. I think that it is time for the legislators to step up to the plate and fund all district the same. Why should some children be worth $10,000 and some only worth $6700? Those are the kids that are truly being "left behind". This concept was part of the original planning for Prop A and has never been implemented.

It rewards incompetence because as students transfer to other districts it would maintain the budget at 90% of the "could have been had we been competent" enrollment. That way the incompetents can keep their jobs and the incompetent school systems can suck more of the money away from those systems that are preferred by the students and their parents. Note that the bill is all about potential enrollment-not the budget!

Your comments show you do not know what really goes on in schools. You generallize that schools are not doing what they are supposed to. I am a teacher that loves what I do and work hard to make students successful. I feel that a stab at education is a stab at me. The most frustrating part of teaching is the politics. Let teachers teach provide us with what we need and you will see improvements.

I agree with this respondent.

I include below my rep, Joe Hune's comments on his website. I couldn't agree more. Atta' Boy, Joe! April 21, 2005 Greetings District 47, Michigan’s immediate past state school superintendent Tom Watkins recently released a study that stated unless a fundamental change in local educational spending occurs, not one cent of a $250 per pupil increase this year will actually reach our students. If the tax increase before us on May 3rd were actually going to the students of Livingston County, like it should, then I may have a different opinion. I am voting no. A “no” vote is not a vote against the children attending our public schools. I have recently been accused of not caring about the children and even the educators of Livingston County. Nothing can be further from the truth. I was a product of Fowlerville Community Schools and I would not have changed my educational experience one bit. I graduated with exemplary skills and could not have imagined a better place to be educated. As many of you know, I have seven close, and many more extended, family members that work or have worked for one of Livingston County’s fine public schools. I sincerely care about and truly do have a vested interest in the success of our local educational system. I have also been accused of not understanding Michigan’s school financing structure simply because I am opposed to a tax increase on Livingston County taxpayers of between 60 and 70 million dollars over the next three years. I am writing today to explain my discontent with the May 3rd Enhancement Millage because I feel it is my duty to do so, and I have been asked numerous times by our residents and the local media as well. I have boldly stated my position on this tax increase and simply wanted to follow up with my rationale for doing so. It certainly would have been much easier politically to sit back and not make waves, but it truly is time for all stakeholders in government, and education in particular, to make bold decisions by researching and accepting the true facts. My first concern with the May 3rd election is the election itself. Few Livingston County residents are aware that this election will cost our local public schools approximately $100,000 to administer. This is money being ripped from the hands of our children, in areas such as program development, decreasing class sizes and the purchase of textbooks. The schools absolutely had the option to place this vote on last year’s general election ballot and would have paid nothing for the cost of the election. There was also an option of putting this vote on the next municipal election, which would have cost considerably less money. However, a decision was made to have a May 3rd election and use about $100,000 of our school operational dollars to do so. It will take the 3 mill tax increase from approximately 334 brand new $200,000 homes to make up for the expense of this election. Currently I am a member of a broad bipartisan caucus that has been exploring post-Proposal A issues and also school funding as a whole. We are continually hearing an attack on Proposal A from the educational community in that it has insufficiently funded our local school districts. Pinckney Community Schools alone has seen an approximate 52.2 percent increase in per pupil funding since its inception in 1994. There are indeed funding variances throughout the state, which I will address on a later date, but many residents are also not aware that all of Livingston County Schools receive at-risk funding above and beyond the foundation grant of approximately $650 per qualified student. In a community that grows as rapidly as Livingston County, schools such as Hartland are seeing larger overall school aid payments. To the credit of our local school districts, additional students require additional resources, but what significant additional resources are being utilized when school districts are increasing the student-to-teacher ratio? The Hartland School District has seen an increase of approximately $1.6 million in 2004 over 2003 and nearly the same in 2003 over 2002. The Howell School District saw an increase of nearly $1 million in 2003 over 2002 and about half that amount in 2004 over 2003. The Brighton School District has seen nearly a $640,000 increase since 2002. The overall increase to the five Livingston County traditional public school districts is nearly $7 million since 2002, with a combined total funding of $167,466,132.72 in 2004. The only Livingston County School District to see a decrease in overall funding since 2002 is Fowlerville Community Schools, who, ironically, did not even endorse the enhancement millage. I am sincerely disappointed by the continual blame game being played. We are all in this together. There are legitimate funding issues being addressed in Lansing but there are also legitimate spending issues that must be addressed at the local level. I am even more disappointed in the public threats that are being made to the residents of Livingston County. We are seeing threats to legitimate services and programs that our schools offer, such as busing and even some senior citizen programs, if this tax increase does not pass. One local superintendent has stated that this funding issue has been foreseen for years and the most appropriate response is why weren’t our local school districts more prepared? The Fowlerville Community Schools deserve praise for being bold and not supporting this major tax increase and also for not threatening to shut their doors without its passage. This tax increase could have a significant and devastating impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable residents -- our senior citizens, who already have tough enough times affording to live in this area. The question that needs to be asked on May 3rd is whether a tax increase of between $60 and $70 million is right for the people of Livingston County? My response is NO!

So let's see if I've got this right. The education finance cartel wants a bill that will: 1. Guarantee per pupil funding even if the district is so lousy the students leave; 2. Guarantee a 5 percent increase per year on the $13 billion the state is already spending regardless of other needs or the ability of citizens to pay it; and 3. Shift the cost of the bloated "defined benefits" retirement system from the district back to the state which would cause even greater annual increases in state spending. You've got to hand it to them, they really know how to keep their hands in our pockets.

Listen I agree with what you said. But what I don't like is that there is no real measure of accountability on a good portion of the funding to public schools. A real good example is the Detroit Public School system. Our State and local government do not need to throw more money at these schools. They need to create laws holding them accountable. Not bail them out everytime there is a funding crunch. I have to do watch what I spend when money is tight. So do you and everybody else. But poorly run schools just blame lack of funding for everything.

This is great! And while were at it lets increase minimum wage, offer everyone a first rate healthcare plan, retirement plan, stop immigrants entering in our state, make it illegal to trade across state borders, and have mandated three to four month vacation for every state citizen, and outlaw guns.

But lets not stop there. Lets make new laws that would restrict kids from having summer jobs and force them to read more. This should keep them out of mischief.

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: I rise in support of discharging the Appropriations Committee from further consideration of Senate Bill No.246. The reason for discharge is urgency. School districts across the state are in the process of finalizing their budget for the upcoming school year, and they cannot do so without knowing what funding will be available from the state. We cannot wait to have additional discussions about this bill. We must act now and so I support the discharge motion and urge my colleagues too. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" to postpone the discharge motion.

Senator Schauer's statement is as follows: I voted "no" on the vote to postpone for the day the discharge motion. We had an opportunity to talk about our priorities here. Senator Emerson introduced a bill that he wished to have before us here in this chamber, a bill dealing with what we all talk about is our most important priority--funding for education. Unfortunately, we were given very little opportunity to have that conversation here on the Senate floor. I voted against postponement of our opportunity to have that bill before us on the Senate floor. I think we will all have to go back to our districts and explain why we voted as we did. Clearly, my vote was to have that opportunity rather than shut down an opportunity for debate and conversation about funding for education, not just funding for our public schools, but funding for community colleges, funding for our university's and higher education. So if it's about priorities, my vote against postponing the discharge of Senate Bill No.246 was a vote to allow us to debate what we all consider, and at least give rhetoric about, as our most important priority, and that's our children, education. Unfortunately, the majority decided that today we would not be able to have that important debate here on the Senate floor.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I would just like to say to my colleagues that it is important for us to give all of the students opportunities to get an education. When I was in Baharan just recently last year, they had a 98 percent literacy rate because they believe in educating their students. We need to do the same. After all, we have to compete internationally now. So I would encourage my colleagues to support Senator Emerson's bill right now. I don't remember the number of it, but I did support that bill because I believe we do have to educate all our children from K-16.

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: It is most unfortunate that this august body missed a unique opportunity today to enter into an informal debate about how we place education as a priority in this state. Senate Bill No.246 would have allowed us to discuss the merits of education. I think that it is certainly unfortunate that with a lot of educators being up here today that it was just a great time to enter into a debate about where we place education as a priority in this state. School districts across this state are now preparing budgets, gearing up to be able to deal with the issue of educating your and my children and your and my grandchildren. I do congratulate the fair Senator from District 21, and I do understand that it is so important that we focus on educating our children because if we do not, if we miss the boat on this issue, then we are going to pay. If we don't educate on the front end, we will certainly pay on the back end when many of them drop out of school and end up in our correctional facilities. So I would just really hope that we would get serious, get real serious about how we educate our children and what kind of focus we put on our children. We have a very unique opportunity to do this, and today, with all of the educators up here, we certainly should have taken that opportunity to stand up and talk about it. If nothing else, just discuss it. But we took the easy way out, and we voted to pass it for today so that we can do it in the shadow of darkness. I would just really urge all of my colleagues here to really take a look. This does not relate to any certain districts. This issue is not an urban district or rural district or suburban district. It's a Michigan district issue, and it is the Michigan district that is suffering. And if we don't understand that, then we need to take a look at how many schools are being closed around this state, how many teachers are being laid off around this state, and how many educators are losing their jobs around this state. So parents are now organizing and they are speaking up and they are coming here to make sure that we are listening to what they are saying. And if we don't understand that these parents have the last say about how their children are educated and whether or not we come back up here for another term, then we have got another thing coming. We better step back and re-examine what we are doing up here because we have to go back into our districts and we have to explain to all of the citizens in all of our districts why we are not placing education as the No.1 priority of this state.

Senator Sikkema's statement is as follows: Mr.President and members, I rise to make some observations about Senate Bill No.246. Earlier today, a statement was made that I agree with, and the statement was that it is time to get serious. If you look at the history of school funding in Michigan, in the last several years, it is pretty clear that K-12 education has become the top priority of this state. If you look at every single dollar, whether it is taxes or fees, and that includes hunting and fishing license fees or car license fees or income taxes or sales taxes, every single dollar sent to Lansing, 42 percent of it is spent on K-12 education. It basically dwarfs almost every other single expenditure. Community Health is second in terms of $10 billion, followed by Human Services at $4.1 billion. We spend $12.5 billion currently on K-12 education. Now if you look at the history of funding for K-12, I think the best starting off point is Proposal A. If you look at the 10-11-year history of Proposal A, funding for K-12 education in this state has been a 41 percent increase compared to the rate of inflation at 27 percent increase--far and away above the rate of inflation. You know, it is easy for us to spend money, but it is a lot harder to raise it. Senate Fiscal has testified, they testified last week in a hearing in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee that Senate Bill No.246 will cost the first year, which is next year starting October 1st, $1.5 billion--$1.5 billion increase to state spending. Now there is really only two ways to get that kind of money. One way is to cut spending by $1.5 billion; the second way is to raise taxes. Last week, this body passed a budget bill. We passed all the budget bills for the state budget for next year. Not once in three days of debate did I see a single amendment offered to cut spending $1.5 billion and put that money into the K-12 budget to fund Senate Bill No.246--not once during the whole week. That's how you can fund Senate Bill No.246 if you were really serious about it. Now there is another way you can fund Senate Bill No.246, but once again, you can only do this if you are serious and if you are not just playing games. That is, you can raise taxes. Tomorrow morning at 10:00a.m. at this desk on the Senate floor, there will be a blueback to fund Senate Bill No.246. It will raise the state income tax to 22 percent, required, according to Senate Fiscal, to pay for this proposal. It will raise the state income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.75percent. Anybody in this chamber who is serious about finding this money is welcome to come to my desk and introduce this blueback. Then we will find out tomorrow morning at 10:00 whether people are playing games or whether you are serious about this proposal.

Senator Emerson's statement is as follows: I want to let the membership know how serious I am about taking up Senate Bill No.246. The good Majority Leader indicated that there are only two options. He knows better. In this place, there are always lots of options. One of the options when I spoke in front of the committee that held a hearing last week was that I wouldn't support Senate Bill No.246 in the form that it was drafted. The retroactivity, which costs the bulk of the money, is something that I don't support. I've come to learn that that part is what is most costly. When I asked the Senate Fiscal Agency what the bill would cost without the retroactivity, they talked about $50 million being the cost of that. I just want the body to know that this year alone, in 2005, we've passed 15 tax cuts to recognize special interests, and those 15 tax cuts that have been passed by the Senate equal $50 million. I'd like to have a serious discussion of this bill. I would like the majority to engage in that serious discussion about what we do about funding K-12 education. Not only have we passed tax cuts equaling $50 million this year alone here in the Senate, but we also--in passing a K-12 spending bill, which I voted against--took nearly $200 million of General Fund out of the school aid budget from last year. Now when we passed--some people like to talk about--Proposal A and when it passed and what we've done since Proposal A, and I would say the first seven years after Proposal A, we treated schools pretty well. We treated higher education pretty well, but the last three years, we've indicated that that is not our top priority anymore, and we've held them without any significant increase for the last three years. The first year after Proposal A passed, there was nearly $700 million of General Fund that supplemented the taxes that were earmarked for schools; today it is $20 million. I think that indicates to us that we're not serious about funding our schools the way they ought to be funded, but we're paying homage to tax cuts to special interests above and beyond what we ought to be paying homage to, and that is our children and ensuring that they have opportunities in the 21st century. We've all paid lip service to that, and I think it's time that we have a serious discussion. I'm serious about it. For the Majority Leader to indicate that the only solution is to raise taxes an exorbitant amount none of us support, but to talk about what ought to be done reasonably for our schools, that's a discussion that we ought to engage in. I'm sorry that the majority doesn't wish to engage in that discussion. My hope is that we'll begin that discussion and that was the purpose of introducing the bill. Today we'll have several thousand people here talking about children and how important it is to fund the education of our children. Some of us may wish to deflect the attention away from ourselves and point it in the direction of how costly it is to hire teachers, how costly it is to provide for their benefits, how costly it is to pay for their retirement, but frankly, this isn't about deflecting attention; it's about having a serious discussion. While I appreciate the fact that the chair of the subcommittee and the chair of the Education Committee had a hearing last week, I think they'll both tell you that I said in front of the committee that I wouldn't support the bill in the form that it was drafted, but I would support it if you took out the retroactivity. That cost is a reasonable cost and it is a statement that we ought to make that we support our children and they are our first priority. I would encourage us to take up Senate Bill No.246 as soon as possible.

Senator Brater's statement is as follows: Mr.President, I rise because I was very interested in the number that the Majority Leader just gave at the amount of money that we'd have to raise the income tax, the rate to fully fund Senate Bill No.246. I'm wondering if the researched showed that we'd need 4.7 percent income tax in order to fully fund education under Proposal A, and why that research wasn't heeded back in 1999 when the income tax was cut to 3.9 percent. I, along with a number of people on this floor and this side of the aisle, voted note in 1999 to cut that income tax. I don'tthink that could be said of anyone on the other side of the aisle. That cut right now is costing the state over $900 million a year, which is affecting not only public education, but many other vital services--mental health, public health, environmental protection, higher education--so we really do need to work together to find a real solution to this problem. I had an experience the other day. We had a joint meeting with the Washtenaw Community Health Organization, which includes a number of counties. It was Washtenaw, Livingston, Monroe, and Lenawee counties coming together to administer our mental health programs. Two of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle were there, and we started talking about what we need to do to fully fund these mental health services. One of my colleagues who was there stated, "Well, my constituents don't want to pay more taxes, so we will just have to get along with the money that we have," which means many people in dire need of mental health services are going without them. After that meeting, a gentleman came up to me and said, "I'm a liberal Republican and I think we should restore that money and I wish we could work together to do that." I said, "Well, would you please tell that to your State Senator?" I hope that we will keep an open mind and open ears to the ability of the people of this state to see the problems that we are now facing and that they might have the perception that we do need to fund these programs adequately if we only gave them the opportunity, gave them the facts, and listened to them instead of posturing and pointing fingers and threatening each other with political paybacks if we try to seek more revenues. So we all know that income tax restoration can only be done in a bipartisan manner. I, myself, have introduced several bills closing tax expenditure loopholes that Governor Granholm has recommended time after time. I would love to have some bipartisan support for those bills. So I do hope that we can work together to find revenue sources to fully fund public education and the other vital services of state government.

With this bill, we would be paying two school systems for the schools of choice transfer students-the one they are going to-and 90% to the one they left. If the school teacher who said that didn't reward incompetence doesn't see get it, then she herself is lacking. But again, tenure would probably keep her on the job as it would the teachers in the schools whose students are fleeing-so why should they attempt to improve? This bill isn't about students or budgets. It's about keeping incompetent school systems and their teachers funded.

>. . . what I don't like is that there is no real measure of accountability on a good portion of the funding to public schools. A real good example is the Detroit Public School system. . . .< My non-urban school district audits its accounts annually, and the audit report is public information. So the idea that there is no real accountability regarding public school finances is pure hogwash. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken there are more than 500 public school districts in the state of Michigan. The vast majority of them are not in Detroit, have nothing to do with Detroit and have very little or nothing in common with Detroit public schools. To constantly tar the rest of the state’s schools with the same brush used on Detroit public schools is dishonest, unfair and repugnant. It is time to quit punishing schools throughout Michigan for transgressions that are confined to the southeast corner of the state and a few other scattered metro areas.

>If the school teacher who said that didn't reward incompetence doesn't see get it, then she herself is lacking. But again, tenure would probably keep her on the job as it would the teachers in the schools whose students are fleeing-so why should they attempt to improve?< Do you really think this kind of personal attack is persuasive? If you have a real argument to make, make it. It will rise or fall on its merits. One unstated premise in the quoted remark is that students exercise choice and transfer from one school to another in search of superior educational opportunity. It may happen, sometimes. Most likely, though, the vast majority of such transfers have more to do with parental convenience, irrational desires to keep siblings together in the same building or complex, pursuit of athletic or other non-curricular program opportunity, or snits because a teacher demanded more academic effort or better behavior from somebody’s kid than kid and parents were willing to deliver. Personally, I don’t like the idea that a school from which the child transfers, for any reason, should continue to receive 90 percent of the annual per-student state grant the student represents. I also am not supportive of certain other provisions in the bill. On the other hand, I do like the idea that our legislature is seriously considering a mandated minimum annual increase in state funding to public schools. That would deliver on the “promise” of improved school funding implied by Proposal A. It is badly needed to stabilize the budget situation for schools around our state. You may not agree with my positions, but at least let’s keep the discussion civil and honest and refrain from slashing at the other guy's character, competency and motives as a substitute for real debate.

You voted for an income tax reduction and are now complaining that it was a mistake and that you need to raise taxes to fund schools? So which time were you right?

Continuing to do what you have always done and expecting different results is the essence of insanity. - Einstein You stated that school funding has increased 41% versuse inflation at 27% since Proposal A. Has that additional investment bought you better education? You propose a 22% increase in state income taxes, rather than a 1.5 million dollar budget cut. Increased taxes has never benefited Michigan citizens in the past. Why now? Are you serious about education? How about doing something different, instead of the same insanity year after year? Really open up charter schools and see what happens. Support home schooling Let teachers teach instead of loading them down with administrative paperwork. If you aren't serious about education, you can at least fund your shortfall easily by dropping these two unneeded and ineffective programs: Farmland Open Spaces Preservation 7.5 million MEDC 26.5 million

>Are you serious about education? How about doing something different, instead of the same insanity year after year?< Mike H, kindly expand on some things: >Really open up charter schools and see what happens.< What do you mean by this? What, exactly do you think would happen if the failed experiment with Michigan charter schools were greatly “opened up?” >Support home schooling< How would you do this differently? Doesn’t the state already support home schooling by permitting it? What positive (and negative, if any) results would you predict if home schooling were significantly expanded in Michigan? >Let teachers teach instead of loading them down with administrative paperwork.< Just what “administrative paperwork” would you dispense with, anyway? How do you expect teachers to be accountable for doing their jobs? Would you expand the standardized testing regimen further, and let it go at that? Would you be willing to accept a teacher’s evaluation of your kid without documentation of what the kid was taught and what his test and work results were? Should teachers not be engaged in developing the curricula for their schools? Etc.? Details will help you appear reasonable rather than reactionary. But more important, perhaps they will provide some points really worth considering.