Posted: Nov 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM [Nov 22, 2009]
An Open Letter to Mr. Albert Berriz and his campaign committee, the Citizens for a Responsible Washtenaw
Dear Mr. Berriz,
I read with interest the article you reprinted in a full page color advertisement in today's print edition of AnnArbor.com. The article was written by Ron Steiger, assistant chief budget officer for the Miami-Dade County school system in Miami, Florida, and it describes his district's experience in reevaluating central administration structure in an effort to protect classrooms from budget cuts.
(The article appeared in Education Week and can be found here, but unfortunately the full text is available only to subscribers: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/11/11/11steiger.h29.html)
The author of the article describes how the Miami-Dade schools grappled with painful budget problems by examining their administrative structure and removing duplicate functions and inefficient procedures. In the article, Mr. Steiger writes that the budget crunch was caused by an increase in property tax revenues from the housing "bubble" which masked declining student enrollment. When the bubble popped, it left districts like his in dire trouble.
You, like Mr. Steiger, call for our school district's budget to be examined by "respected chief financial officers and business leaders from around the state" in an effort to replicate Miami-Dade's presumed success.
I welcome greater public attention to our schools' budget, in the hope that it will engender a broader understanding of the functions performed by our district and the reasons behind them. As Mr. Steiger states in his article, the effort to improve efficiency is neither easy nor quick. As a community, we all need to understand what our schools do, and decide what our priorities are.
But I differ with you profoundly on what I believe is your underlying argument (as you have stated elsewhere in your "five point plan"). During the millage campaign, and still today, you have advocated the view that our school district's problems can be solved simply with an increase in transparency and an aggressive review of administrative spending. I, too, believe in transparency, and I also believe that our district's spending must pass muster with our community. However, unlike you, I do not believe that this will provide us with a simple and painless way of addressing our district's budget problems.
Let's inject a little reality here. The Miami-Dade County school district, which Mr. Steiger describes, is the fourth largest in the United States. In terms of student enrollment, at 340,000 students it is more than three times the size of Detroit Public Schools (Michigan's largest) and more than 20 times as large as AAPS. Even their reduced budget is nearly 5 times as large as Detroit's, and 25 times that of AAPS. Miami-Dade employs more than 50,000 people, compared to AAPS's 3,000 full and part-time employees.
It is a simple economic fact that administration becomes more complex as an organization grows in size, and the larger the organization and the faster the growth, the more chance that administrative functions are not as efficient as they might be. I can well imagine that Miami-Dade could find some efficiencies in their administration and other non-instructional areas. And with an annual budget that had exceeded $5 billion, I can also imagine that it took a large and sustained effort to review how money was spent and how it might be made leaner. In short, no one should be surprised that Miami-Dade was able to make themselves more efficient once they started looking, or that in an organization that large that the gains could be substantial.
But is it reasonable to count on the same thing happening here?
One answer to that lies in the article itself. The author attributes his district's problems to spending that was prompted by huge property tax revenue increases during the housing bubble, unaccompanied by a similar expansion of their student population.
I am sure that was the case in Florida. But to say that the same thing happened in Michigan is simply absurd. To begin with, the school funding system introduced by Proposal A in 1994 shifted the bulk of school funding away from property taxes to other revenue sources, primarily the increased sales tax. At the same time, increases in the taxable value of property were capped, which prevented property tax revenues from jumping during whatever "bubble" Michigan experienced. And as I am sure you know, Michigan's economy has been wobbly for the last decade - the current recession simply capping off a very difficult period for our state.
There has been no "bubble" of revenue available for schools. The money available for each district to spend on its students is controlled by the State Legislature, and determined by a formula which they pass each year. AAPS's share, the "foundation allowance," has declined by 9% from 1994 through last year, once inflation is taken into account. Many districts in our state have barely kept up with inflation since 1994, and nearly all have seen their allocations lose value since 2000. At the same time, key costs like health care have risen many times the rate of inflation; this has forced our schools to choose between fiscal stability and offering decent health care for their employees, much the same choice other businesses have been facing.
Districts around Michigan have been paring back their costs for years; this is especially true here in Ann Arbor, where the "hold harmless" portion of AAPS's allowed spending has not changed one penny since 1994. AAPS has cut $16 million from spending just in the last 4 years. They have left many staff and administrative positions unfilled, eliminated many positions that supported (but were not in) classrooms, pressed every employee group to take pay freezes one or more times over the last five years, and so on.
I have called publicly on my fellow members of the Ann Arbor community to get involved in the difficult choices that face our schools, and to educate ourselves about what our schools do and why. But I do not believe that we will find magical ways to reduce spending without significantly reducing the services offered by our schools. This is the very choice which the Washtenaw Schools Millage was designed to avoid. But now that we must come face to face with these hard choices, I call upon you, your company and your campaign committee to stop promoting wishful thinking and start facing up to the painful decisions which face our schools and our community.
Steven Norton
AAPS Parent
Small business owner, and Executive Director, Michigan Parents for Schools
Former volunteer campaign manager, Ann Arbor Citizens Millage Committee
Get the Ann Arbor RSS Feed
AnnArbor.com
rjwax
Posted Nov 22 2009
Steve, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful analysis of the full page ad in today's annarbor.com. As a recently retired employee of the AAPS, I can support all the points you have made. In the last 5-6 years many cuts have been made to the adminstrative level of our school system. While every effort has been made to avoid any impact on the classroom, many cuts have. For example there are no longer curriculum coordinators for each discipline in our curriculum. This puts increasing pressure on teachers to find out about new state requirements and how to properly adjust their curriculum to meet these new rules. While this may not sound like much, as class sizes rise in our high schools, as new graduation requirements and courses are required by the state, increasing pressure is put on teachers. This is all happening in a district where there is enormous pressure to have excellence in every aspect of our schools. While we all want the budget to be transparent, our district is making every effort to have this be so. In fact sometimes I feel at the risk of being accused of complaining, some of the cuts made and their impact are not "transparent." We all want to work hard to make do with less, but there are limit if we are to maintain excellence. It would be so very refreshing if Mr. Berriz and his group would look more carefully at what is really happening in Ann Arbor to maintain excellence. It would be wonderful to have him acknowledge the cuts and freezes which have been made in salaries and benefits (and to acknowledge that pension plans are established by the state and are not under the control of any local district). The five point plan regularly published by Mr. Berriz and in the supposedly "news" sections of annarbor.com have no specific details of what would be cut and how. Steve, as you mention we do have painful decisions to make, we need to face these as a community without assigning blame and without assuming that remedies used in totally different circumstances would ever work here. Thank you.
Janice Lieberman
Posted Nov 22 2009
I feel frustrated and worried. How are our schools going to make additional cuts, beyond the ones that have already been made, without having a negative impact on our students? I do not want my children's class sizes to increase, I do not want effective teachers to lose their jobs, I do not want arts education to be cut, and I do not want school faculties to feel so unsupported by our community that they lose their excitement for teaching. But I fear that some of the above possibilities may happen. For citizens who assume the cuts can all come from administrative positions, I urge them to consider carefully the information presented in this article about how Ann Arbor contrasts with Miami-Dade. I have been quite impressed with our current AAPS administration and the superintendent's leadership in challenging situations. I understand that numerous administrative cuts have already occurred, and I can't imagine how new cuts could occur without affecting our classrooms. I am concerned about the effect budget cuts will have on my own two children's school experiences, but I am also concerned about the long-term effects that budget cuts will have on our area. If Ann Arbor schools suffer and decline, our whole community could suffer and decline as prospective businesses and employees choose to go elsewhere. Strong schools are important for so many reasons, and I am hopeful that those who opposed the recent millage proposal will be willing to join the dialogue in finding effective, long-term solutions to our school funding issues.
DonBee
Posted Nov 23 2009
Steve and Albert -
Thank you both for taking different sides in this debate and opening things up for the community.
I know on many issues you do not agree. This is healthy to have an open public debate. After all this is a community funded institution.
Steve - I understand you don't think that the growth of the school budget from $161 to $191 (now cut to $188) million is rapid growth. Albert you disagree.
Albert - I understand that you think 40+% of the spending that is outside the classroom is too much. Steve you disagree.
I challenge both of you to help David Jesse get the information he requested from the AAPS more then 3 weeks ago. You both agree that transparency is important.
We all have a vested interest in the school system. I would suggest rather than bunkering in or trading editorials that we all sit down together with a detailed budget and expenses and start asking the hard questions, rather than letting the easy answer of cutting teachers become the default answer.
This will not be an easy task and it will make the school administration nervous. They have every right to be nervous. There are a lot of questions that the public deserves answers to:
1) Why was the promise of no more than 19 new hires for Skyline not kept?
2) why is Skyline only half full?
3) Why 2 alternative high schools for people who need more help (Clemente and Stone)?
4) Why is there not more use of the Michigan Virtual High School for advanced classes and topics/
5) Why does each grade school need a principal?
6) Why does each grade in the high schools need a principal?
7) Why are there "spare" administrators sitting on the sidelines?
8) Why is the bond office still staffed?
9) Why did the district commission a bussing study and then never do anything with it?
10) Why are most services not consolidated at the WISD level (e.g. purchasing, logistics, IT, etc?)
I would love to see Dr Roberts address each of these questions in detail. I would like to see the rational for the answers.
I would love to debate based on real facts, but the facts are hidden.
Please Steve - you have the ear of the school district administration. Please, get them engaged with the community.
Again I want to thank both of you for your participation and the elevation of this issue to a public debate. I think we all need to give on our positions, but an open debate is a healthy part of American Society. Thank you both for the civics lesson.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Posted Nov 23 2009
DonBee, you raise some interesting questions. But your premise shows that you have already made up your mind. I don't have answers to all your specific questions, but I'd like to start with your initial "summary."
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.
As to the "40%+ [of spending] outside the classroom," I think Board of Ed trustee and economist Glenn Nelson disposed of that argument here: http://www.a2cmc.org/node/39
In short, the 40% figure relies on misleading state reporting requirements that make it seem like that 40% is wasteful "administration." In fact, it counts every single expenditure that is not "in the classroom," including everything from libraries and librarians, counselors and social workers, custodians, busing, principals, and so on. Many of these expenses are directly related to students and affect them every day, yet they are technically not "in the classroom." This whole line of argument is a red herring.
I'm not sure what information David Jesse was unable to obtain from the district. I didn't hear him bring it up with anyone at the last school board meeting. Perhaps the data takes some time to compile?
On your other questions, let me take a sampling. Around the time Skyline was opened, the district implemented a buy-out of teachers near retirement, that resulted in the elimination of a fair number of positions overall. Hires at Skyline are not relevant if the total number of teachers decreased. Skyline is half full because the BoE and many community members did not want to disrupt current students' careers by forcing them to transfer in the middle of their high school years. Skyline is ramping up one grade each year with students entering high school.
If you don't know why each elementary school needs a principal, you must not have spent much time in one lately. I can't imagine how my kids' school would function if we had to share a principal with other schools - too many tasks would be forced down on the already over-loaded teaching faculty.
I'm not sure what "spare" administrators you have in mind - it's not like they have "bench warmers" sitting in Balas waiting to be deployed. And the bond office is still staffed (if, indeed, it is) because the bond construction projects are not yet completed. They just weeks ago put the finishing touches on construction at our local school, and there is still some mechanical work to be done. Remember, 60% of the 2004 bond went for construction spending at every single building in the district. Skyline was only 40% of the total amount.
I can't off the top of my head answer all these questions. But I know enough of the answers that I also know they are not that hard to find. Asking a long list of questions helps raise doubt in the mind of the reader; but asking lots of questions that already have public answers is simply disingenuous. That was my objection to Mr. Berriz's advertisement as well.
DonBee
Posted Nov 24 2009
Steve -
Your assumption is that I have made up my mind. I have not, and have offered to support the millage if people are more open with what is going on. This is the first school millage I voted against in more than 30 years.
The information that you give on Durant and the breakdown it the first time that detail has been readily available - not having to ferret the information out.
As to elementary principals, the one in the school my children attend is in the building less than 3 days a week. The principal is elsewhere the rest of the time. They seldom attend school functions (and when they do it is a passing thing). I have heard from others that principals in their elementary schools are missing a lot as well. This is a multi-year pattern with our principal that has been brought up at PTO meetings and informal discussions. The answer from the administration is that the principal has other duties that take them from the building.
As to spares there are at least 2 former principals who are not assigned to schools and not assigned to visible other duties. I think you know what I am talking about. I will not go any deeper in public.
The bond office still has somewhere between 7 and 9 people in it, including a couple who make 6 figures, but 90+ percent of the bond money has been spent.
As to Skyline, the decision was based on a small number of people who complained, mostly related to sports teams.
On the hires - the school board discussed the fact that the promise of 19 new positions had been breached more than a year ago. So I am not out on a limb on this one. I want to know why the then superintendent made a statement that now seems to be contradicted by reality.
As to the 40% number and what it contains, no one from the school system seems to want to make an easy to read, easy to analyze budget for AAPS available. Your link is new to me, and I have been following this story for months.
I am not asking questions to be disingenuous (your word), I am asking questions because I have a full time job and want the answers without spending hours doing research and I feel the community needs the answers if you want the millage to pass next time.
I dislike the fact that you seem to feel that anyone who asks questions is against the millage and is out to "get" the school. it seems to me that the way you want things to run is to shoot down anyone who disagrees with you. I have over and over in my posts stated (and I mean it) that I will change my vote if the schools are forthcoming with where the money is going. So far, the answer is "if you do some research you can find that answer" or "you don't know what you are talking about" or "you don't have the facts right".
I am asking politely, I did not call you a "shill" for the schools or a "paid mouthpiece" ( and I am not now). I asked politely for information and your support to get it. I am asking again. Please lets get real facts and numbers out on the table so that we can have an INFORMED debate. It is frustrating to not have the details so that I can (and I hope the community can) discuss the facts and not rumors and half-truths.
Again I ask that you and Mr Berriz sit down with the facts and have an open discussion. I would hope that it would be done in an open forum, where the community can come and watch. Even better record it for Cable and make it available for everyone to see.
I have 3 children in the schools, I did not pull them out to go to a different school. I do care about the schools. I have never called for cutting teacher salaries, never complained about the benefits they get (though I have questioned the use of MESSA). My focus has been on getting the details on how the non-classroom money is spent.
I have tried to be respectful of everyone. I am unhappy that after more than a month my original posts on issues I would like to understand is still unanswered. I tip my hat to Saline for their open process and the up front way the superintendent has dealt with his budget issues.
Please Steve, lets open the valve and put real information out to the public in a way that is easy to find and easy to use. Lets put enough detail behind it so that it is not 12 line budget, but rather something that will answer real questions in the community.
When I am satisfied that I know where the money is going and why, I will change my vote and campaign for others to do likewise.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Posted Nov 25 2009
DonBee:
I'm not sure a two-person conversation here is helpful, as I think our audience is very limited. Let me suggest that you forward your questions directly to the AAPS leadership.
One problem, however, is that we have cut back so far in admin that there are many fewer people doing the jobs there. Once you take the time to create the multiple layers of reporting required by state and federal governments, the time left over to make school finances understandable and accessible to the layman is pretty limited. I am frustrated by this as well - not because I think there is any funny business going on, but because it allows lots of fabricated "issues" to cloud the real conversation we need to be having about our schools.
I'm not dismissing anyone who asks questions; but I do object to the folks who campaigned so hard against the millage raising the same questions over and over despite the fact that their questions have been answered. District and campaign leaders met with both CRW's Albert Berriz and A2CRSS's Ted Annis and Kathy Griswold many weeks before the election, and attempted to provide them with data to answer their concerns. The link I provided in my last response is on the CMC campaign site, and was up well before the election.
What I reacted to was the fact that many of your questions were precisely those hammered on by the "no" campaign. However, to admit that their questions had been answered would not have served their purpose. They spent $100,000 in the last weeks of the campaign to publicize the fact that they had these concerns, and conveniently ignored any attempt by millage supporters to provide the data. We had about one fourth that amount, most of which was spent early. Is it any wonder that people believe that all these questions still remain unanswered?
I am glad you have not made up your mind. But your phrasing of the questions (about the GF budget, and the amount spent outside the classroom) included the planted assumptions that these were accurate and fair descriptions. These things were talked about in the campaign, even here on AA.com. I am sad that the real situation could not be described to more voters in our community.
What I did to gather the data for my response was to look at precisely the same documents that the authors of the A2CRSS and CRW campaign materials must have used to gather their data. These things are all on the web. The difference between us, however, is what we see when we look at the data. They then proceeded to trumpet "questions" which they could have answered by looking at those selfsame documents. But providing real answers to those questions would have undermined their campaign strategy.
I make these points to illustrate that not everything is as it seems. It takes more resources to answer questions than to ask them. Real questions, in search of real answers, are critical to creating sound public policy. But saturating public media (as the opposition campaign was able to do with their resources) with questions they have no interest in answering is indeed disingenuous. Questions left hanging leave voters with the impression that something suspicious is going on. Questions with real answers would, I contend, have undermined their whole campaign.
Thank you for not calling me a "shill" or "paid mouthpiece," though your generosity is alloyed by the fact that you managed to include these terms in your comment. I am in fact neither, and I am certainly not being paid for this! The millage's defeat might have hurt a tiny bit less if we had not all been volunteers.
As you must know, the district will be holding public forums in January, which I understand will include small breakout groups for citizens to examine different budget areas. I hope you will join that process.
But as to a "next time," I'm not sure that there is right now enough political will among the region's school boards to bring the millage back up for a vote. Sadly, we have made our bed, and we must now all lie in it.