You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Thu, May 9, 2013 : 2:59 p.m.

Ann Arbor Public Schools central administrators agree to 3 percent pay cut

By Danielle Arndt


Unaffiliated employees from the Balas Administration Office will be taking a 3 percent pay cut for the 2013-14 academic year. file photo

Editor's note: Additional information about the total number of employees who took the 3 percent cut has been added to this article.

Ann Arbor Public Schools central administrators have agreed to a 3 percent pay cut for the 2013-14 academic year, equating to a savings of $114,290.

The administrators who voluntarily decreased their pay include Superintendent Patricia Green's 10 cabinet members, executive secretaries and department directors.

These are unaffiliated employees who are not part of a collective bargaining unit. The only exception is cabinet member and Director of Community Education and Recreation Jenna Bacolor, who is part of the Ann Arbor Administrators Association for principals, assistant principals and some directors.

The salary reduction percentage for Bacolor is not confirmed yet, said district spokeswoman Liz Margolis, adding negotiations are ongoing with the Quad-A union.

Green praised her staff briefly during the superintendent's update at Wednesday's Board of Education meeting. She thanked them for stepping up to the plate to help the district's budget situation. She also apologized for not making their concession known publicly sooner, as the administrators actually agreed to the cut "some time ago," she said.

Figures provided by the district show the 3 percent reduction to Ann Arbor's two deputy superintendents and three assistant superintendents' salaries equate to a total savings of $41,966.

Reductions to the directors' salaries totaled $35,291, and concessions made by the Balas Administration executive secretaries totaled $37,033.

According to school officials, there are seven central administrators, 11 directors and the full-time equivalant of 16.8 executive secretaries and crew chiefs who are paid out of the general fund. So 34.8 central office employees in total took the 3 percent pay cut.

Teachers, paraeducators and office professionals with the Ann Arbor Education Association agreed to a 3 percent pay cut in March. The reduction from the nearly 1,200 union members equated to a savings of approximately $3.4 million for the district.

The Ann Arbor Public Schools needs to cut $8.67 million from its expenses to pass a balanced budget for 2013-14.

Officials targeted salary cuts early on to help balance the budget. Every 1 percent across-the-board pay reduction for district staff was estimated to save AAPS $1.3 million. So if the AAAA also takes a 3 percent pay cut, the district could reduce expenses by $3.9 million.

Other items on the chopping block this year are middle school pools, middle school sports, high school transportation and 80 employee positions, including 53 teachers.

The salary reductions for the Ann Arbor Public Schools staff will take effect for the first paycheck in July.

Danielle Arndt covers K-12 education for Follow her on Twitter @DanielleArndt or email her at



Fri, May 10, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.

AAPS is borrowing $10 million and administrators take a 3% cut totaling $114,000? Not nearly enough. I'll be eager to hear the total amount of salary reductions taken by the principals, who are probably fighting this big time. Their bloated salaries need serious reductions. Why are only 34% of central administrators paid out of the general fund (these represent the ones taking cuts)? Where are the other 66% paid from? Are they taking reductions?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:05 p.m.

Maybe I'll go to the movies... by myself.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:29 a.m.

Sub-title suggestion: "Community agrees it is not enough"

Charles Curtis

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 4:32 a.m.

Its great that there is some movement, but its a joke really. What is the % of teachers that are proposed to be cut? Im not sure how many total teachers the district has, but if the proposed cuts are 5% (just throwing a number out there) of teachers, then there ought to be a 5% reduction at a min of administrators, not just a cut in salary. It used to be that leadership would lead and set an example for others, lets see that happen before admin asks others to take cuts. I'd like to see a budget breakdown of what is spent and where it is spent. How much is spent on travel and conferences, bet that could be trimmed. The vacations are a mess, but just goes to show how government starts things, and they never go away. Winter break and spring break used to have one sync up with UM's break so the families that had commitments to both could go on vacations together, but the breaks have not matched up in years. But we still have them, and the 1/2 days and early releases are crazy. If the HS is having a 1/2 day, why is there a lunch that is 2x longer than the class periods? Cut down all the breaks, and reduce the school year, might save quite a bit of money there. Going later and later into June each year is just plain dumb.

Charles Curtis

Sat, May 11, 2013 : 1:13 p.m.

If there are many taking kids out of class now, then there is no reason not to get rid of the extra breaks AAPS has. If family's plan vacations when it suits them, nothing will change except the school year will end sooner and that ought to save money for the district. If attendance were truely important for advancement to next grade level and such, we would see more summer school for the kids taking family vacations that happen whenever. Lets not cater to those special people and let cater to district wide needs. I dont like the 1/2 days. Id rather see a monday or friday off instead of 2 - 1/2 days if the teacher truly need the planning time.


Sat, May 11, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.

Honestly, you really wouldn't believe how many vacations people take throughout the school year when we DO have school. I constantly have kids taken out of class for long weekends (Monday and Friday) or week long vacations. It's not uncommon at all.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 2:31 p.m.

ONE spring break should be enough. I've never heard of a district outside of Michigan taking TWO spring breaks. Totally ludicrous and disrupts the school year even more than it already is with all the constant 1/2 days for this and that, holidays, long winter break at Christmas (oops, can't say that). Schools around the country start after Labor Day but somehow manage to finish by the end of May. Funny how that seems to work everywhere else in the country just fine.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 11:41 a.m.

I understand your point local, but I honestly (anecdotally) don't know any parents who would pull their child out during february if they know there is a spring break coming. Almost every parent I talk to about this says at the very most, a long weekend in February is enough. I think some people go places just because there IS a week break and if it didn't exist, they just wouldn't go anywhere. But again, anecdotal on my part. I would suggest a parent poll by AAPS, but we all know how well those are handled and it would just be going through the motions anyway. And I agree on the HS days. They should consolidate and just have fewer whole days off. I don't think much is accomplished on those early release days.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:58 a.m.

As a teacher, many of these breaks are a mess and don't make sense. Some of the breaks are county wide, so AAPS is locked into some of them. But the real issue is that you could cut out multiple breaks, but AA parents are still going to take kids out of school regardless. Then the teacher is continually playing catch up with those who leave town for their needed vacation to the warm south. Is there going to be a penalty for families taking kds out during school days? We know that won't happen! I am guessing most teachers would do away with mid-winter break in February, yet classrooms would probably be down students because parents will pull them for their own family trip. Then the parents would complain because teachers would want to send the work kids will miss while gone and we can't have that. This issue is a no win situation because everyone values/looks at it differently.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 3:35 a.m.

Now that the district is essentially in a deficit, can't the BOE circumvent contracts due to financial constraints and impose a pay cut on the administrative union (or other unions for that matter.) Seems I have read aboutthis happening in other districts that we're having budget issues, and once they were in this situation could impose salary cuts for budgetary purposes without bargaining. Do the admins know this and took the 3% as a good faith so the BOE does not take these measures?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:49 a.m.

Many of these same folks got big raises early in the year, so 3% still means a raise for most of them. If they wanted to make some noise, go back to their pre-raise pay and then take 3%, then we can talk!!

kindred spirit

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:41 a.m.

This is about equity, right? Teachers will be expected to take on more students in their rooms as well as a pay cut. So, fewer administrators so each of them has more to do as well?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1 a.m.

Clearly the administrators at Balas are part of the problem, not the solution. Hopefully a whole bunch of them will be let go permanently.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:55 a.m.

Nice gesture but just shows that they can't identify the biggest number in the budget. I thought they taught that in kindergarten. Sorry if I offended any kindergarteners..............

Jack Baker

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:07 p.m.

Note: On March 27 (six plus weeks ago) Lincoln's Superintendent offered and accepted a 10% pay cut on a salary of $130,000. That is a meaningful cut, and more importantly done at a much more meaningful time. How would one expect Quad A, the Principals bargaining unit still in negotiations per the article, to accept more than the 3% cut in light of this lack of leadership. It seems disingenuous to claim this was agreed to some time ago, in light of all the past articles and discussions about the budget challenges. Leadership (or lack of it) starts at the top.

Jack Baker

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:49 a.m.

jpud, I don't give the BoE a blanket pass by any means. The challenges facing all MI districts, are driven by the removal of the local community to tax ourselves to maintain an excellent school system (Proposal A). The doubling of the retirement contributions mandated by the state over the past decade, multiplied against 90% of the districts budget (personnel), while holding revenue flat or declining, results in a structural problem that the local community can't resolve. Note the state "raided" the retirement fund to solve past budget woes, effectively kicking the can down the road. That said. the BoE has made some key errors which compounds this problem, particularly as it is viewed by the community. They took a risk in raising the potential comp package of the Superintendent, in order to attract a candidate that could be successful against these challenges. The errors: #1) This Superintendent was a poor fit for Ann Arbor (a key BoE responsibility). From a leadership standpoint her instincts are wrong for Ann Arbor (e.g. lack of community engagement, lack of visibility in the schools, too "Balas" centric, alienated teachers right off the bat). This is not to say she isn't an effective educator, just the wrong fit for A2, which can be an unnecessarily difficult community to get things done in. #2) BoE approval of the cabinet increases in a time of fiscal crisis. This never should have been proposed by the Superintendent. While the nominal effect is small (under $40K), the leadership error can't be overstated. This should have been vetted well before the board table. This error has alienated all AAPS staff, and many members of the community. Note: ever since the BoE did away with the Finance Committee (2006ish) it has overly relied on a subset of the trustees who sufficiently understand district finances. Errors have been made, but new, inexperienced trustees are not the answer.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:17 p.m.

Up until the point in your previous post where you said "don't blame the BOE" you were making a lot of sense. Who picks the superintendent? Who approves many of the administrators decisions? The BOE. So when you lament lack of leadership, that leadership needs to start with the BOE picking a great superintendent. Even when the superintendent quit, there was nothing but praise for her. In truth, poor hire, poor fit, and good ridance. Just like a great leader said, "A Micigan Man will lead Michigan" when a certain basketball coach quite, a great board of education would have appointed a great temporary leader when the Superintendent revealed her plan to leave. The leadership problems stem from the BOE. The BOE needs to work with the cards they are dealt, namely the budget realities from Lansing. Increasing funding for education is another noble goal, but you cannot sit on your hands and watch the school district fall apart in the meanwhile. If the BOE does not want to lead, then quit, get out of the way and let someone else do the job.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:05 p.m.

How about some coverage about what's taking place in Lansing? We need to get parents and the community invested at the state level. Everyone needs to better understand how the decisions over the last 20 years have impacted school funding across the state.

Jack Baker

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:29 p.m.

What the AAPS needs more than anything is leadership. When a "leader" asks a custodian making 20%-40% of what a senior administrator makes to take a 9% paycut, and then "accepts" a 3% paycut themselves it is insulting at best. Our teachers who took an additional 3% paycut this year have been beaten down by the constant drumbeat of blame the ___________ (teachers, unions, BoE, etc) rhetoric, when most of the teachers would give the shirts off their back to help a struggling student. The central administrators that received double digit pay raises this year should first return the raises voluntarily and THEN take at a minimum the same paycut they choose to impose on any AAPS staff. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. I am appalled at the lack of leadership by the Cabinet level staff in AAPS, especially with the Superintendent. Most of the regular commenters on this site have very little understanding about public school finance and how AAPS has been and is being defunded systemically over the past 25 years. in 2003-4 the state mandated retirement contribution per employee was 12%, it is now 25%. 90% of costs are personnel in most well managed districts, and revenues are nominally flat over the period. Do the math, it isn't complicated. Our community once valued education, and now the regular commenters love to point blame at the BoE. an unpaid hardworking group of public servants that care passionately about providing an excellent education for all children. It is easy to comment from the cheap seats, those that have all the answers should first post in their own names, and second run for the BoE. Anonymous, uninformed posters propagate gross misconceptions about what is needed, and all I can assume is they just love to see their comments in print.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:50 a.m.

THANK YOU! Finally someone showing facts instead of hot air. Much appreciated!

Danielle Arndt

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:28 p.m.

Additional information about the total number of employees who took the 3 percent pay cut has been added to this article: According to school officials, there are seven central administrators, 11 directors and the full-time equivalant of 16.8 executive secretaries and crew chiefs who are paid out of the general fund. So 34.8 central office employees in total took the 3 percent pay cut.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:36 a.m.

Looking at the Plymouth-Canton school district, they employ: 1 Superintendent 2 Assistant Superintendents 2 Executive Directors 5 Directors --- 10 central administrators Even if each central administrator in Plymouth-Canton had one executive secretary, that would be a total administrative staff of 20. Ann Arbor, a district of comparable size, has 7 central administrators and 11 directors, plus 17 executive secretaries. Reducing the administrative staff is a 2-for-1 move, since each administrator furloughed would produce a similar reduction in size of the secretarial staff. "Getting by" with only 10 central administrators would produce a net loss in the administrative staff of 16 FTEs. If every administrative position that was eliminated produced a savings of $150K in salary and benefits, and if the corresponding secretarial cuts produced $75K each in salary and benefits savings, that would result in a net annual savings of $1.8M in administrative costs. Just sayin...

Chester Drawers

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.

Here's what bothers me: 3% for a $25,000/year paraeducator can mean no new shoes for the kids this year. 3% for a $140,000 deputy superintendent can mean a 4- star (instead of a 5-star) resort for that Caribbean vacation.

Susie Q

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 11:16 a.m.

jpud, This BOE has made plenty of errors; but the real reason for the overall quality of the program (educational) suffering is lack of funds from the state. There have been plenty of article outlining the real loss of funding (and increasing costs: gasoline, insurance, etc) over the past 15-20 years. Until the method of financing public schools is changed; we will be subject to the political winds in Lansing. Right now, the Republicans are hell-bent on defunding public schools.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:19 p.m.

What bothers me is that as the product (education) that the district delivers degrades to maintain unnecessary positions, the district will fall into a downward spiral as revenue decreases when people flock to charter schools. If you think it won't happen, look round the state. The BOE needs to start bailing fast or the ship will go down, along with our property values and the education of a future generation of students. The primary mission of the school district is not to maintain administrator's jobs and salaries, 3% is a spit in the ocean.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.

There once was a dream that was Ann Arbor. It shall be realized, but only if the people elect a new BOE.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:05 p.m.

I would like to see job descriptions for 2 deputy assistants and 1 assistant superintendent as well as the superintendent. What exactly do we pay these people to do?

Blazingly Busy

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:47 p.m.

Big deal. 3% is not all that much. How about %?


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:05 p.m.

AAAA needs to step up. To be frank, some of those folks are exhibiting the largest gap between pay and performance. In a few choice cases I would suggest that 3% is just the start...


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:52 p.m.

Just for the sake of discussion, how much would the district save if it stopped busing kids in from all parts of the county and kept the kids in the schools that correspond to the neighborhood they are in? Also, the last redistricting needs to be undone, the two week long breaks (mid winter and spring) need to be combined into a one week spring break, and all these paid days off for "grading" need to be omitted. Why a kindergarten or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th grade teacher needs a private day to do grading is beyond me. Pay the teachers a good salary, but trim the days off and benefits.

Susie Q

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 11:09 a.m.

If the mid-winter break was eliminated, schools would be open during the cold winter weather for an additional week. Students would begin summer vacation a week early. The state of Michigan sets the number of required instructional hrs (1098) .......moving vacation days around will not save appreciable amounts of $. I guess the big decision it more expensive to run school in winter or summer.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:47 a.m.

You could cut out all these days and I can assure you that parents will still take their kids out for long weekends or week long trips down south. How do we deal with those issues? The same kids we are suppose to prep for test and show growth with! Are parents going to be penalized for taking kids out during those weeks we are in session. Generally the breaks aren't about teachers, and the 6 page report card takes time!!


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:56 a.m.

Teachers are paid according to the number of days worked. Eliminating the winter break would certainly be a positive step academically, but each additional day of school costs plenty in salaries for bus drivers, lunch aides, paraprofessionals and school office staff. No guarantee that the teacher's union would agree to working an additional five days without a corresponding pay increase.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:24 p.m.

The district report cards are six pages long and must be filled out for each child three times a year. In a class of thirty, that would be 540 pages of report cards. The current 1.5 days off the teachers currently have to work on these is nowhere near enough time to fill out every miniscule piece of data the districts asks teachers to report on.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:02 p.m.

"...the two week long breaks (mid winter and spring) need to be combined into a one week spring break" Absolutely! This is excessive in the extreme. With this kind of stuff, its no wonder they have fiscal problems.

Wake Up A2

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:30 p.m.

This is nothing more then a snow job. There are more people at balas then those listed. Remove some staff, save more in the long term. So when times are good get rid of balas staff....when times are bad keep more on the books.....yep...say hello to an EM for 2014-15...


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:03 p.m.

"Teachers, paraeducators and office professionals with the Ann Arbor Education Association agreed to a 3 percent pay cut in March. The reduction from the nearly 1,200 union members equated to a savings of approximately $3.4 million for the district." $3.4 million / .03 /1,200 = $94,444 "pay" per employee! That can't be right.. Maybe instead of "pay" it should have said total compensation, don't know, either way it seems like a high average.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:16 p.m.

The health care portion will not change, so this comes very close to the total average cost per teacher that the school district uses of $104,000 That total cost includes salary, benefits, and retirement.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9 p.m.

Ooops, math error. The salary should be multiplied by 0.76, not 0.86. So the average salary for AAEA members is $71,777, not $79,332. That is more consistent with the average total compensation of $104,000 that AAPS has been using to value the teacher / media specialist headcount reductions they're considering. .


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.

Andys, your math and your logic are correct but incomplete. Some of the $3.4 million in savings to the district are from mandatory state-wide pension plan contributions which are directly linked to salary. So if you multiply your $94,444 by by 0.84 (1 minus the AAPS pension contribution of 26%), you will get an average salary (plus overtime/points, if any) of $79,332 per AAEA member. That isn't what teachers typically get to take home, of course. There are pre-tax deductions from that amount for retirement (7% of pay minimum) and for health insurance plans that cost more than the standard Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. In addition, teachers pay state and Federal income tax, FICA and Medicare, like any other employee. AAPS teachers and the other AAEA represented staff are generally well paid. In addition, they receive good basic medical coverage for free or have the option to pay the difference for more generous coverage. and generous defined-benefit pensions. They are especially well paid when you consider that AAEA employees work for 36 - 40 weeks per year for their annual compensation, not 50 or more weeks as is common in industry.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:02 p.m.

How about we reduce the number of these "administrators" and also combine the assistants to one or tow (software has really helped here) and split the difference in savings with giving the teachers a bump in comp. Fewer people at the top, could make a substantial difference for the folks that actually have to teach and interface with our kids every day.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8 p.m.

"...if the AAAA also takes a 3 percent pay cut, the district could reduce expenses by $3.9 million." Three out of 4 bargaining units have taken pay cuts, so fingers crossed that the AAAA will do the same. $3.9 million would be a substantial step towards cutting $8.67 million.

Danielle Arndt

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.

KidsRtheFuture is correct. The $3.4 million from the teachers union was already taken out of the projected shortfall to get to the $8.67 million figure.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.

Unfortunately the 3.9 is total. The 8.67 figure was figured after the teachers already took a cut and saved 3.4, ( the previous amount to cut was over 12 million) so we are only talking about $500,000 going toward the 8.67 amount. Still another 8.17 to cut.

Retiree Newcomer

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:56 p.m.

What about cutting some administrator positions? Fifty three teacher positions are on the chopping block. I don't see anything about reductions in force for administrators or Balas personnel. How about cutting some of the communications staff for example. Are they essential?


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:42 p.m.

"Figures provided by the district show the 3 percent reduction to Ann Arbor's two deputy superintendents and three assistant superintendents' salaries equate to a total savings of $41,966." I must be doing my math wrong (I hope I'm doing my math wrong) because according to those numbers, those five people have an average salary of nearly $280,000. That can't be right. And if it's right, it's outrageous. (And yes, I know that *compensation* generally includes benefits, but that sentence specifically says *salaries*.)


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.

Andys - I think that the major difference is in the percentage of salary that goes to retirement for administrators and the cost of other benefits tied to salary, like life insurance and disability insurance. Teachers now get 26% contributions towards their pension fund from each school district. It would not surprise me at all for administrators to be getting 30 or even 40% of salary contributions. This is especially true if they were previously covered as teachers or in another state, but had too few years in those systems to be able to claim a pension.


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 10:43 a.m.

Maybe if more administrators knew their math, we would not be in this situation.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:21 p.m.

AMOC - your average salary does not agree with the figures that Danielle reported of $118k to $140k.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 9:17 p.m.

Danielle: The math above is fine (although KidsRtheFuture must be using "everyday math"), its just appears that the numbers reported in the article don't make sense. 3 Asst Supers at $118,000 each = $354,000 2 Deputy Supers at $140,000 each = $280,000 Total Pay = $634,000 Pay cut of 3% x $634,000 = $19,020 Even if you double it to allow for fringes it equals $38,040, which is still quite a bit less then the number in the article of $41,966, so what gives?


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:56 p.m.

Superior Mother and KidsRtheFuture - Correct as far as you went. There's also a mandatory contribution to a state-wide pension plan for school employees. So you need to multiply by 1 minus whatever percentage it is for the -administrators. The percentage for teachers and other AAEA -represented groups s 26%. If you use that, I get an average salary for the superintendent's cabinet of $206,625. Which is in fact a what they are, on average, being paid.

Danielle Arndt

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:45 p.m.

I have to say I am confused by how both of you are doing the math.... The $41,966 is the total of all five individuals' 3 percent pay cuts. This previous story shows the salaries of the three assistant superintendents and two deputy superintendents (there were three before Robert Allen left): The three assistant superintendents earned an average of about $118,000 in 2012. And the deputies earned an average of $138,700 during the 2012 calendar year. However, the base salary for deputy superintendents did increase under Superintendent Green. The new base salary for deputies is $140,000. Read more about that here: So, for Deputy Superintendent of Instruction Alesia Flye and Deputy Superintendent of Legal Services and Human Resources David Comas a 3 percent pay cut means they are now earning about $135,800.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:41 p.m.

@ Eep - Very good point.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:28 p.m.

A 3% reduction to an employees salary results in more than a 3% "total savings" for the district. Let's say the employee makes 100K per year, and then takes a 3% pay cut. Their new salary is 97K per year, and the district saves 3K. However, the district also doesn't have to make retirement account contributions in proportion to that 3K or pay the employer's share of federal payroll taxes on that 3K. So - it is correct to refer specifically to "salary" cuts for employees, while also counting total savings that deal with benefits.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.

Nope your math is correct. If 3% is 41,966, then 1% is a third of that or 13,988 and 100% is 100 times that or 1,398,866 for 5 people. Divide by 5 and you get $279,223 (or almost 280,000 average). I agree, it says salary. and a reduction and savings is usually in salary not total comp, so I'd say these 5 are way over paid!!


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:33 p.m.

Is this really a cut, or just a reduction to a planned increase?


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 5 p.m.

Susie Q District staff (classroom teachers) that has been employed for less than a decade are all on a step yearly increase. After a decade the steps change. So, in this case with cuts each year and other monetary changes, it is a huge benefit to be a newer employee because the step increase helps balance out the pay reduction. Regardless, every teacher in Ann Arbor has had an increased work load, higher health care premiums, and much larger class sizes continue to be the norm going into next year. I'm very glad to see administration finally coming forward with some information but I agree that it took quite a while considering how many public forums there have been.

Susie Q

Fri, May 10, 2013 : 12:25 a.m.

The unions have not had pay increases since 2007-08. True, the younger employees are sometimes eligible for "step increases"; but most are not. Most veteran employees have had at least two years of pay cuts and 3-4 years of pay freezes; increases in work load, class size and higher premiums for health insurance and higher co-pays. Most are not complaining, but would at least like the information in the media to be accurate.

Angry Moderate

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.

And is it scheduled to be "made up for" with an extra large increase a few years down the road (when the current trustees and administrators have moved on), as some of the unions like to do?


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:23 p.m.

In the last few weeks, there two public forums to discuss savings, and people at those forums suggested that adminstrators take a cut, and no one said a word about it until today, even though they agreed on it "some time ago". How odd.


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:16 p.m.

How do you spell Peanuts!


Fri, May 10, 2013 : 1:18 p.m.

I'd spell it "c-h-u-m-p-c-h-a-n-g-e"


Thu, May 9, 2013 : 11:11 p.m.



Thu, May 9, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.

It's spelled "teacher's concessions."