Vote NO on Proposal 5

A recent comment from Diane claims “You are incorrect about Proposal 5!”

I consider Proposal 5 to be as important this election as Proposal 2 because it will cause further harm to our state’s economy. Given the impact of 5 should it pass, I decided to reply to Diane’s comment as a separate post rather than hide it among the comments. The original post and comment are here.

In my response, her comments are in italics.

This is incorrect. School employee pensions are controlled by the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System, a state system. Employees pay a portion, local districts pay a portion and the state pays a portion. Pensions are being paid now and will be paid whether Prop 5 passes or fails. Pension and benefit levels will NOT be changed with passage of Prop 5. Pension and benefits will NOT be increased and NOT be decreased with the passage of Prop 5.

I did not claim that Proposal 5 would raise or lower pension and benefit levels. I said “Proposal 5 is simply a money-grab by the unions driven to maintain excessively high levels of retirement and health benefits.” However, I will speculate that passing Proposal 5 will reduce the efforts of local school boards to hold down costs. Here’s why:

Proposal 5 will limit the amount of funding that local school boards are required to contribute towards pensions. Given the current funding requirements, nearly all future retirement fund cost increases would pass from the budgets of school districts to the state. On top of that, those increases would NOT be considered part of the required funding increase needed to meet the rate of inflation.

Today, school boards are forced to hold the line against union demands because their local budgets are limited. Remove this limit and there is no reason for boards to stand against a union willing to break the law and conduct a strike.

Also I can point to a specific instance where Proposal 5 will increase the benefit level of teachers. In the recent agreement between the union and Detroit Public Schools which brought an illegal strike to an end, teacher compensation will immediately be increased if the proposal passes.

Michigan’s future depends on changing our culture from one of “good enough” to one of high expectations and demands for education attainment and results. We can invest in our public education systems now or pay much more later with a dwindling economy, low-paying jobs, declining state services and infrastructure, and a continuing downward spiral. K-16 public education is the key to Michigan’s future success. Money will be spent on the children.With all the accountability measures in place, with a more rigorous high school academic curriculum already mandated and colleges and universities restructuring to educate for 21st century opportunities, our education systems can plan and improve. One proven method of improving instruction is to reduce class size so teachers can spend additional time and individual attention to students. This approach cannot be used without additional, stable funding.

Proposal 5 has NO provisions for accountability. It does NOT mandate that the money be spent on classrooms. It does NOT mandate that more teachers be hired. Proposal 5 does nothing to compensate teachers who are effective in the classroom. Michigan ranks ninth in country in per-pupil spending and eighth for instructional staff compensation. Yet, Michigan ranks at the bottom in economic growth.

Proposal 5 continues to do what has been done in the past – throw money at the schools and let them spend without improving a child’s education. For the past 10 years, Michigan schools have received $1 billion above and beyond inflation yet the unions still want more.

And yes, it’s the unions that want more. Proposal 5 is being promoted by a misnamed entity called “Citizens for Education.” Over 95% of its funding comes from the National Education Association.

Another faulty claim is that we cannot afford Proposal 5 because it would cut into other services needed and taxes would be raised. Here is the truth of the matter.
The legislature CAN afford it and should fund it as promised. It is the responsibility of the Legislature to find the revenue to fund essential services and make education a priority. There are billions of dollars in special tax breaks, loopholes and other tax expenditures readily available to the Legislature to help them do their job and pay for priorities like education and other vital services provided by the state.

The public education system in this state has received generous funding. The unions claim we need to spend more. Some questions: How much more? How much money do we need to spend per student to guarantee a quality education? Would you be willing to put your jobs at risk if you don’t achieve it?

More money does not guarantee a better education. Look at Kansas City to see what happens when public schools are given a blank check. In 1985, a federal judge directed the Kansas City, Mo., school district to devise a "money-is-no-object" educational plan to improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation. Local and state taxpayers were ordered to pay for it. The result: Kansas City spent more money per pupil, on a cost-of-living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest school districts in the United States. The money bought 15 new schools, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animated studios, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a robotics lab, field trips to Mexico and Senegal, and higher teachers' salaries. The student-to-teacher ratio was the lowest of any major school district in the nation at 13 to 1. By the time the experiment ended in 1997, however, costs mounted to nearly $2 billion, test scores did not rise, and there was less student integration rather than more.

For details: Money and School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment

So, perhaps you should study the Proposal yourself, rather than watch so many faulty tv ads.

I have done my homework. I suggest you do yours. Find out the facts instead of parroting the official line of the education union.

Vote NO on Proposal 5.