K-12 Funding Announcement No Victory, Berkley School District Officials Say

A tentative deal struck by the governor and legislative leaders that would lessen planned cuts to schools and put aside money in the state's rainy day funds could mean fewer layoffs and less drastic cuts at the elementary level in the , but it does little to allay concerns about a perceived loss of local control over education.

Gov. Rick Snyder, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall) made the announcement Thursday in Lansing.

The terms of the deal include:

• A per-pupil cut that would be less than $100. The original cut proposed by Snyder was $470 per student.
• $310 million more than was originally proposed for K-12 funding. About $150 million of that would be distributed on a per-pupil basis to districts that meet "specified financial best practice measures as defined in the K-12 appropriations bill." The schools would also get a one-time $160 million to help defray retirement system costs.
• $30 million in additional funding for local units of government, half of which goes to cities, villages and townships as part of the Economic Vitality Incentive grants, and the other half going for county revenue sharing.
• $50 million for the Michigan Strategic Fund for economic development activities, including brownfield redevelopment and historic preservation incentives. 
• A $25 million cap on incentives for the film industry.
• Money for the the state's rainy day funds, including $255 million for the  Budget Stabilization Fund and $133 million to a School Aid Fund reserve account.

The governor had asked for a deal by May 31.

"We will have a timely, balanced budget in place so that our municipal and school partners can accurately plan for the coming year, avoiding the chaos that too often has been foisted upon them due to Lansing's inaction," Snyder said in a statement.

Because the Berkley School District is required by law to complete its budget by the end of June, it already had started the budgeting process under the assumption that Snyder's proposed $470-per-student cut would pass. With that in mind, the Board of Education approved the layoffs of 45 teachers, as well as laying off three administrators, reducing paraeducators and eliminating teacher assistants. The budget being considered also would shift lunch aides to a third party, tap $500,000 from the general fund balance and seek utility savings.

Administrators and school officials also are considering the following:

• Block schedule elimination: could switch from a block schedule to a six- or seven-period day.
• Split classes: Elementary students in multiple grades could be grouped in classes together with one teacher.
• Reduction of some special classes at the elementary level: Affected subjects would include music, physical education, art and media.
• Larger class sizes
• Separation incentive plan: Eligible teachers have until June 16 to decide whether they will take a buyout and leave the district.

"Berkley has 45 teachers currently on layoff, and a few of them will return because of this budget deal," Superintendent Michael Simeck wrote in an email Friday to Berkley Patch. "... As the budget particulars are released, we will determine how many teachers and where they will be able to return."

The district also may be able to avoid increasing class sizes at the elementary level in the wake of Thursday's announcement, said Shira Good, communications supervisor. She cited the years through third grade as being the most crucial to students' development of literacy skills, which will determine their future academic success and therefore are the most important to protect, she said.

However, Good said, the per-pupil cut in the Berkley School District, including increased retirement costs, will be closer to $250 than the $100 per-pupil figure suggested by Snyder. She also noted that the funds come with strings attached that undermine the power of the locally elected school board.

"The citizens who elected them should be concerned because the state is working to take over local control," Good said. "... This (funding deal) was by no means a victory."

Simeck echoed that sentiment Friday.

"The governor and Legislature have threatened to cut off our arm, severed our hand and now want the voters to be happy with them," he wrote. "Our parents and community members are not so easily fooled. The deal reached will cut schools less than the $470 per pupil put forward by the governor. However, the smaller cut will come with strings attached, such as implementing 'best practices.' which is the state's name for its micromanagement of locally elected school boards."

The superintendent also took issue with Snyder's plan to shift millions of dollars from the School Aid Fund, which has been used for K-12 education since the passage of Proposal A in 1994, to community colleges and higher education.

"The deal does not by an(y) stretch of the imagination provide a long-term strategy for funding public schools," he wrote. "In 1994, voters approved a pot of money called the School Aid Fund that was intended to fund public schools. For the past 15 years, that pot of money has been used to do so. Now, the governor and Legislature have agreed on a plan to violate the intended use of that money. Local property taxes will now support universities and colleges.

"That's a clear violation of voter intent," Simeck wrote.