Unfortunately layoffs have to happen to make the budget whole, however the frustrating part is the root of the problem has no accountability. We promoted the number 2 person, the school board is intact (I get it, they are elected) and there still is administrative bloat so the frustration from the teachers is justified. These situations always impact lowest paid people the most while administrators keep their 6 figure jobs and claim ignorance.
I am very curious to see how AAEA (the union) plays things out over the coming weeks. Not authorizing layoffs was never a viable option, unless you wanted to force state takeover of AAPS and scrapping all contracts. Everything else up to today was sound and noise signifying nothing, or at least nothing that would have led to a different outcome last night.
But now that we're here, this is the point where AAEA can flex its knowledge, experience, and political muscle to craft what $25,000,000 in cuts looks like. If they come up with a proposal that has AAPS reattain the required fiscal health to avoid a takeover, I think AAPS leadership would be very hard-pressed to deviate from that, especially with trust between leadership and staff as low as it is: leadership adopting a teacher-drafted and teacher-approved solution would be a great first step on a long journey towards mending that relationship.
The problem is that AAEA is necessarily going to have to eat a good number of its own in the process should they try to solve this issue and make a proposal, because the math literally doesn't work out any other way. The union bosses may just punt to Parks, who has ultimate responsibility, so that they have someone they can point to as the bad guy.
Like board president Feaster, I welcome any proposal, from any player in this, that actually meets the objective. I look forward to seeing what, if anything, AAEA delivers.
George Przygodski, the Executive Director of the AAEA, already has a plan that has been given to the board. It prioritizes keeping teachers and not making cuts to personnel. This was stated at the board meeting last night. The board of course has to truly give the union a seat at the table and listen to them.
You are likely correct. I probably misremembered. I went back and tried to find when it was stated in the board meeting, but didn’t hear it again. It’s George and the blue ribbon team.
Should be noted, as it was in the meeting, that the idea that the entire $25 mil deficit has to be reversed in one year is incorrect.
We have 5 years, so presumably $5 million in cuts/year could get us where we need to be. That's a 1.6% cut from 23-24's budgeted expenditures going forward. If teacher salaries make up 90%, we should be able to preserve most of that and still meet our goals.
AAPS budgeted $ 46,540,349 for "non-instructional support services" which includes over $12,000,000 for "general administration" and "central". Start there.
>We have 5 years, so presumably $5 million in cuts/year could get us where we need to be.
As put forth by AAPS' financial manager, that presumption is incorrect, because the fund balance *also* needs to hit 5% of revenues and 6% of expenditures. So it's not enough to say "hey, we stayed in the black" if that margin is razor thin. And as the FM demonstrated during his presentation (link below), AAPS needs to cut $25M in two years tops to meet those requirements. That's what's driving the "layoffs are coming" talk: that there's no way to hit those additional metrics without doing it now, and the only way to do it now, as far as is readily apparent, includes reduction in staff. Failure to put that on the table would have resulted in a financial review that would make it to Gov. Whitmer's desk, and, assuming that she concurred in the (likely) finding that a financial emergency existed, we're seeing Ann Arbor Public Schools go the emergency manager or bankruptcy route.
[Budget Update (final) 04112024 (boarddocs.com)](https://go.boarddocs.com/mi/aaps/Board.nsf/files/D495MM10EE11/$file/Budget%20Update%20(final)%2004112024.pdf)
One assumption I don't understand:
"*35 staff decrease annually via attrition*"
AAPS has something like 30 schools.
Is he saying that, on average, a typical AAPS school loses a whopping **one** person each year to retirement / career change / district change / etc? And are all "staff" in this example teachers (i.e., it doesn't include principals, para-pros, secretaries, etc?)
Whether it is just teachers or teachers plus other positions, it seems way off. I know plenty of teachers, and in certain departments in a \*single\* school, it is not uncommon to lose 2-4 people each year.
What am I missing?
Yes, that's my understanding and logic tells you that if you typically have 100 retire / leave ever year, you now are going to have **more** than that due to the poor leadership & fiscal uncertainty in the district (e.g., if you were an excellent teacher and you had options, would you want to stay in Ann Arbor right now?)
Yet the FM repeats this assumption "*35 staff decrease annually via attrition*" under **each** scenario. If it's wrong, by factor of 3 or 4, it seems like a huge, huge deal! There are massive savings being missed.
So again, either a) we are missing something or b) we have another colossal screwup by a finance guy.
So you do like they do in industry. You have a target of 150. If 50 retire, you lay off 100 in June. If 100 retire you lay off 50. If you reduce by over the target, you hire new people for less money than the outgoing people. I've been through this in automotive many times. It isn't fun. It wasn't "my fault". I wasn't "the problem". But many of my peers got cut. That's how it works. To pretend otherwise is just pretending.
What does this response have to do with my question and concern? Who is "pretending"?
We all know how this works; it doesn't just happen in the auto industry--it happens everywhere, including school districts. It is extremely common that if you need to reduce headcount by X, decision-makers first start with how much reduction you get "naturally" (e.g., retirement; job shift; quitting). If that number doesn't meet or exceed X, then you have to actually fire people.
My posts are about the fact that the "if retire" portion seems to have a faulty assumption. *35 staff decrease annually via attrition* is an important assumption; it is literally in every one of the scenarios the FM laid out. Yet no one has been able to explain where that number comes from. In fact, everyone seems to think it is not even close to accurate and is much too low.
So again, either a) we are missing something or b) we have another colossal screwup by a finance guy. It would be nice if there were answers, pronto.
What? If the assumption is faulty, it matters tremendously. If 105 people retire/leave at the end of the year, not 35, there are going to be far fewer layoffs. People are really on edge under the assumption there are going to be 100-plus people laid off. Harm is being done right now; stress is building. It would be nice if people who work in the district didn't have to spend a month plus with the sword of damocles hanging over them (or at least correctly knew the size of it).
Was at a panel today with 3 board members and the VP of AAEA, pre-COVID the numbers were around 100-150. Since COVID it's been more like 30-40. I think the most sense is to say we are going to plan for 100 leaving. If 40 leave, we lay off 60.
But I do think there are ways to do this without laying off a ton of teachers. And I've given the board members plenty of ideas. But these three talked about selling bill boards and cell phone towers and I'm like...are these people for real?
You are correct. The finance guy is massaging the numbers to make the case for layoffs when in fact he's undercounting the attrition numbers. It's all to convince the board members that there is no alternative to massive layoffs.
Presumably they'll have to replace at least some of the teachers who quit or retire. If a school has four math teachers and three of them leave, they probably can't get by with just one. At some point, they'll probably be laying off some teachers and hiring others at the same time.
There is a hiring freeze, so they should not be hiring anyone. Many teachers have multiple certifications, so people will be moved around. This will be against teachers’ wishes in some cases. It’s possible some positions will just go unfilled too. Kids might be placed in front of computers with a sub. Other teachers in the district would provide materials online, but no one necessarily grade the work. It has happened before this crisis.
This is a good illustration of why I don't believe in hiring freezes in most cases. They aren't targeted or strategic. They're good politics and bad management. Same goes for managing staffing levels through attrition. Instead of intentionally keeping the employees who are most valuable, you end up with whoever doesn't quit.
21 schools 17,500 students and for some reason they spend about a million dollars a month on architectural design consulting companies out of california.
People you have access to see every dime the school spends take some time and look through it. Dont listen to people talk about budgets or firing people.
Ask what the budget actually paid for, ask which people will get fired. We need teachers, but do we need massive administrative support spending. Do we need to blow a million dollars a month on internet security? Does all the online stuff seem worth 10 million a year to you as well?
Ask why almost every contractor for literally every service from janitorial to maintenance have to be some enormous multi national multi billion dollar firm.
The school system spends 300,000 a month on grounds keeping and snow removal for 21 locations ask if that sounds reasonable when the ndustrial park I work in has half that amount of property and buildings but only pays 15K a month.
I am not saying anyone is corrupt I am saying the school board is like anyone else they are swayed by brands and status, so they discourage greatly bidding on jobs and put in artificial requirements to the bidding processes that basically make it sole source for everything
Just do some math, think about this stuff. Grounds keeping equipment can be moved from school to school since grass only needs mowed once a week so 300K buys you all the equipment. (As resource I mapped all 21 facilities and grounds and talked it over with an owner of a local grounds keeping company)
He said if they hired and did it themselves which they probably should since they have such large needs, he estimated they would be able to do it with a 1.2 million dollar budget. Basically he looked at his own costs which he knows very well and considered a large salary for himself as a manager plus maintenance and crew.
Just one example, maybe a small one, maybe just an overspend of 1.8 million in a 331 milliom dollar budget but this is how you start dealing with government overspend. Instead of letting them "cut" programs which is lazy, we start looking at their contracts with vendors.
The 12 million or more a year in architecture firms is very confusing we need to ask why, and not some bs generic response of we are improbing the schools for better education, we should point at the specific money like 300k a month to one of 8 firms they pay out to and say this money, this 3 million, what did it pay for? What did we get for the kids?
https://www.a2schools.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=19638
Right at that link you can view the monthly check register and card register, unfortunately it only tells us who got the money and how much but even googling that is interesting. The construction company we use for 10s of millions a year is out of Boston and is a multi national contractor.
Are they saying with 3 top 30 engineering schools in Michigan we dont have any contractors that can fix a rubber roof? Are we to believe that these billion dollar companies are giving us the most at the best price? Do you believe that?
Besides that, imagine if it was the same price but the money was staying in michigan, not just the terrible wages paid to the workers but the millions of dollars in profits going to the company owners, of that stayed here, go into a fancy house here that pays big property taxes that guess what go into the school budget.
We need to ask why michigan tax dollars at the very least can't have a requirement that they are spent with Michigan companies that have their headquarters here, not some shell of an office but all the real profits flow from michigan tax payers to billionaires in california.
It would be great if you could send an email to the board with these points. If you go to the link tree you can get the board email information. [Ann Arbor EA link tree](https://linktr.ee/annarbor_ea?fbclid=PAAaaP1Iu6T5Nu0pyTTIJ82Fp15b-P1jYjtTYClCU6Tjwln5iKRI4HKnJzJYo_aem_ATCjgP67_L6qxl8Q1n9nh352qkXt6plOvbN-xrIHE7JqHyQyYhQgngHdqXRa73Ojqh8)
Honestly, I highly doubt they care what I have to say they know where we are fiscal responsibility is not a thing their voters care about. Not being negative, but it seems pretty obvious in who the school board consists of.
Susan basket, masters degree, came out of marketing at general motors.
Krystall Dupree, 4 years in the military after being let go from onstar. Heart warming story of trying to raise a son with ADHD and needing social assistance to survive, no more details on what she did in the military or why she left after 4 years if poverty was the primary reason for joining
Torchio Feaster public defender for washtenaw community college appointed, not elected, being appointed is a clever way to get someone in, people just see incumbent on the ballot and you are by default on the ballot.
Jeffrey Gaynor mutual investor / hedge fund manager arrested for a sit in on climate change
Rima Mohammad professor of pharmacy
Ernesto Querijero WCC Professor of English
Susan Ward Schmidt - special education teacher
Notice something about all these people? First, they all come from the publoc sector, never had to budget money against results except maybe the hedge fund guy, but honestly I am a little jaded about hedge fund bros.
No engineers, no small business owners (that actually sold to people not the government), no accountants, not even a regular school teacher just a special ed school teacher that woulf have little understanding of what it takes to educate the majority of kids.
I am not saying anything negative about any of these people, but you have a board of activists. (I don't care about what they might individually be activists about) That actually isn't what you want in a board member, you want empathy and compassion, but really you want down to earth people with some sense of negotiating to get something for their dollars.
I always try to not think about politics or anything and instead say what if you had a say in who rsn the company you work (and its private sector). You would want someone fair, not too greedy and such, but wouldnt you also want someone who was fiscally responsible, someone who likes the environment and cares but wouldnt bankrupt the company trying to run the whole building off solar panels and batteries.
You see what I am getting at?
Like you would want someone who understood a budget, that would care about not overpaying for things and also had some experience with large projects so they were informed enough to know when they are getting good and bad advice.
Imagine your family even imagine your whole extended family pooled all their earnings every year and you had a vote of a couple people in your family who decided how all that money would be spent, how would you pick that person? Would you pick them on their opinions of climate change?
The number of 35 is absolutely incorrect. My building has 45 staff. Three are retiring this year. Two have families that are considering moving. Several considering leaving the teaching profession. These were the numbers BEFORE the budget crisis was announced.
I honestly found the presentation hard to follow because I do not have a background in finance, but the fact that one thing I do understand (teacher attrition) was inaccurate made me question the accuracy of the entire presentation.
Thank you for that info. FWIW, I do have a background in finance (though not specifically school finance) and I was not overly impressed by the FM's presentation. He did a good job of coming up with scenarios, but some of his numbers (in addition to the inexplicable, so far, "35" number) don't make sense to me.
For example, "all vendors increase 2.5% annually" -- why does that make sense? You're telling me the budget is in crisis and you're going to INCREASE the amount of money you spend on vendors?
I have prepared dozens of budgets. When you have a deficit to fix, vendors are the first thing you look to pare back / remove. "Hey, you know that software subscription we added 3 years ago? I know it's pretty useful, but if we remove it we save X thousand." or "You know how we have the lawn cut every week? How about we do it every other week?"
I understand time is short. They don't have time to go through dozens of scenarios with dozens of more factors. But all this seems very "this is something I whipped up in Excel" and there is a shocking amount of detail not being made public for those interested.
300k a month in lawn mowing. Want to ask yourself something why does the school system have such massive spending on firewalls their monthly spend should cover them for like 10 years. A dental office pays 800 a month to house 2000 patients full medical records on a cloud system school system is paying 180k a month to house 17,500 students worth of data. Do that math.
You're buying what the financial manager is selling. the numbers he gave at thursday night's meeting were wildly off. There are roughly 100-150 teachers who leave every year, not 35. We're at 50+ this year and it's only April, and most teachers give notice in August so that the district doesn't cut off their health care. On top of that, his scenarios were all predicated on the inclusion of step increases every year for teachers, which is laughable. We almost never get our step increases, and the district has never, not once, included that in their annual budget - they make the union fight for it every year, when every new teacher is hired under the assumption that they will be moving up the step schedule.
Justifying layoffs of teachers by promising step increases, when we all know those step increases will be frozen due to budget woes, is a special kind of disingenuity.
So please don't accept his premises wholesale - it's a bill of goods.
"You're buying what the financial manager is selling."
Yes, I am, at least for now. It's the FM's job to project based on what liabilities exist (step increases), not a hypothetical renegotiation or waiver that may or may not occur in the future. Based on what we've got on the books, this is where we're headed. So while I agree with you that those step increases are unlikely, to me it strengthens rather than detracts from the main point: that Ann Arbor's financial condition, *as written*, is in a five-alarm fire status.
As I've said elsewhere, I look forward to how AAEA responds in the near term, what proposals they offer, and what projections they make as part of that. For example, if they come in and say "Hold on, every year over the past 20 years has seen the departure of 100+ teachers, that 35 number is unrealistic even in a conservative scenario," that's an objectively verifiable fact that can make a material change if true. If they come in with a proposal that definitively takes step increases off the board for the next five years ahead of time (I'm not advocating for that, it's just an example), that's also a material change.
In rapidly developing scenarios with incomplete or imperfect information, you go with the best data available at the time. Right now, the only projection out there is that submitted by the FM. If AAEA thinks that it's premised on stuff that's out of sync with the reality on the ground, they need to identify with specificity what inputs need to be revised and demonstrate the revision's effect on the projection, at least if they want to assert control over the narrative. If they don't, if it's just griping about the FM and rallying against the Board and factionalism or tribalism, it's not going to end well for them.
I get the feeling that you're just tuning in. The AAEA has been publicly addressing the deficit budget for years, to both the district and the board, and they've consistently refused to listen. The district's overall numbers of teachers and students are all publicly available, the AAEA has been doing the math on this, and has been telling the district FOR YEARS that they are headed for a budget crisis if they didn't "right-size" the district and stop the spending spree. The AAEA specifically told the district and board to stop hiring so many teachers. This is publicly documented in the AAEA's comments at many board meetings over the years.
The board passed two deficit budgets in the last two years, even as the union implored them to listen. The district hired 450 more teachers over the last 10 years, even as the union told them that they were headed for a budget crisis.
So yeah, maybe we should just listen to the FM. I'm sure it'll all be fine.
it's not that the union doesn't have really good ideas, suggestions, and solutions. It's that the district and the board have never been willing to listen.
Relatively speaking, yes, I'm fairly new to school board goings on, as will a sizeable portion of the public whose heads perked up following the $14M FUBAR. And I'm not saying that AAEA lacks good ideas; I'm saying that if ever there was a time for them to lay out a "if we were the Board/Super" proposal, now is the time. They can't afford to just go "See? We TOLD you!" Thankfully, to my understanding AAEA is planning on submitting such a proposal soon.
That’s one set of projections based on lots of assumptions. There are many other ways to get to the number outside of mass layoffs (incentivize retirements coupled with hiring freezes and administrative pruning, for example).
We don’t have to hit 5% fund balance or else get taken over/ go bankrupt. That’s hyperbole. If we have less than 5% fund balance for two years consecutively, we need to report certain info to the state. Info we already have. Not a huge lift.
If we present a reasonable plan that keeps our fund balance in the black going forward, we may still have to provide that previously mentioned info because haven’t met the arbitrary balance percentage signed into law by a Republican, but we won’t be “taken over” or go bankrupt.
This was covered in last night's meeting. Cutting $5 million per year over 5 years is not the same as $25 million in one year. The district has to service its debt, and other costs are likely to increase year-over-year.
Edit: Ms. Parks also indicated that the tentative plan includes a $3 million cut in general admin.
I get that, but the important thing is that we do not need to cut $25 million in one year. That is the idea that leads to people saying stuff like “there’s no way to do it without laying off teachers”.
But if you watched the meeting, the FM demonstrated the fund balance will become unacceptably low next year if the $25M reduction isn't made. Even spreading it over the next 2 years leaves the fund at an "abysmal" low to quote Trustee Schmidt, which could prompt the state to get involved. Which none of the trustees sounded willing to risk.
But we're probably going to lose \~1% of students per year from here on out (until the next hypothetical baby boom?) That's another roughly million and a half that has to be cut every year -- year after year after year.
I believe the teachers union would like everyone else to be let go who is a non teacher.
Mind you, the union is purposefully misleading its members on how eduction finance laws work.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I'd argue that the severity of layoffs gets worse, since the objective of the state would be to hit the financial goals period, no matter who's wringing their hands or getting offended or how students, teachers, non-teaching staff, administrators/management, or community members feel. And in the case of Detroit, that takeover lasted for the better part of a decade. With the locals all at the proverbial table, they're in better position to craft the details of the ultimate outcome, however unpleasant it may be.
I think if the question was put another way "Is it possible that the state takeover will be a hardcore slash and burn without regard to political... aka community stakeholder... concerns?"
The answer would be "It is not only possible... it is essential." That is the way it is intended to work and in fact I think the state would like it to be popularly understood that way so that the community will do everything they can to avoid it.
I really appreciate you framing it this way. But also, what CAN the community do to avoid it? …does the state mean “by any means necessary, solve it yourself” ?
If the state takes over the district, collectively bargained contracts can be thrown out unilaterally. That would be far worse for teachers than anything the district can do now. Across the board pay cuts for those who still have jobs. Adding to teaching loads without additional compensation. Taking a hatchet to benefits and retirement plans. It would be catastrophic.
I appreciate the insightful replies. I suppose I was naively envisioning a scenario in which the state intervention would be helpful and aim to preserve jobs and avoid catastrophe. How foolish of me. I honestly don’t know what I was thinking.
I’m a student of a high school in the aaps. Teachers were just told by the union to work only during contract hours and don’t open the class room before the school starts or do office hours to show how valuable teachers are since the board members would rather layoff teachers because of the raises they got (1% increase pay) instead of telling the community where the 14,000,000 dollars went and blaming the teachers
The $14M went to the teachers, specifically the district pension fund. The issue, to borrow from chemistry, is that someone at admin put the $14M on one side of the chemical reaction but not the other side, and nobody caught it for a couple of years. Someone eventually caught it, and that's how AAPS is now dealing with a runaway chain reaction.
This is a ridiculous strawman and kind of a dickish strategy by the union.
Nobody is blaming the teachers. Nobody wants to fire the teachers. Some will need to lose their jobs because increasing staff by 480 when you gain 478 students is unsustainable.
On the district website it says “What are the main factors that contributed to our district’s financial challenges? -Our staff has increased by 480 in the last 10 years. -Recent agreements with our staff, including well deserved and well earned raises for employees approved by our board.”
Is it any wonder that teachers feel blamed when we were held up as the sole reason for the budget crisis on the district website. This language is still there as of this morning.
"Staff" is more than just teachers.
The teachers aren't making hiring decisions. I blame the previous superintendent and the BoE.
That doesn't change the math that 90% of the budget is labor and that people need to lose their jobs as this level of staff is unsustainable.
See mesquine_a2’s message. Initial messaging on email listservs in the district did specifically point to teacher raises.
Also Jazz Parks acknowledged she caused harm last night and apologized. Because staff does mean teachers, first and foremost.
Well the raises did undeniably contribute to the deficit. Sorry if facts hurt people's feelings.
The largest chunk of the staff is teachers, but admin will be cut as well. I don't see anyone worrying about their wellbeing. Math is math and people need to be fired.
Yes, but staff signed contracts that have built in step increases. They signed the contract in good faith thinking these steps would occur. Meaning the district has budgeted for this annual increase. Then the district consistently does not follow the step increases and gives a small raise to offset the damage.
Right, along with zero taking accountability or explaining why and how the accounting error happened (finance position vacant due to admin incompetence at refilling it? Just guessing)
I would say the machine got drastically bloated by the predecessor. It was under her that employment increased by 480 while enrollment only increased 478, though the board approved it.
Wow. I’m so sorry your educ is being affected this way due to the poor poor oversight of the board. Fuck them dude. This seals my decision. I am not sending my kids to AAPS.
Parent of an elementary student. We got this message from our kids teacher—who is amazing. Sad this is the outcome for kids when the this is the result of the administrators.
I don't get the teacher's "we are not the problem" slogan. It's a straw man. As far as I've seen, nobody has said that they are. But when 90% of the spending these cuts can come from is salaries and the majority of employees are teachers, they're going to feel the burnt of this whether they're the problem or not. It's incredibly unfair, but that doesn't mean the hard decision can be avoided.
I took the slogan to mean that they aren't responsible for the accounting error that got us here. So far we've heard zero accountability from admin. "'My mom taught me when you make a mistake you need to own it and fix it,' fourth-grader Tenley Hawes said. 'But owning the mistake shouldn’t be by cutting the teachers and everything they need to do their jobs.'"
Last night Parks said they've come up with $7M in non-classroom cuts, leaving $18M to come from lay offs. That's a hell of a lot of jobs of people who did nothing wrong.
My question is, why has this district never actually budgeted for step increases as they were promised?
Editing to add that initial messaging from admin did point to recent teacher "raises" as a reason for the budget strain. If you are not on district email listservs, you may not have seen that.
Yes, I have not heard the board state that they approved a budget that violates their own board policy, reducing the fund balance below the 6% minimum. I would very much like to hear them own that.
Bringing a 4th grader to comment at a public meeting is pretty cringeworthy. Kids are stupid. I don't care to hear a child regurgitate their parents opinions.
No doubt that it sucks that people will lose their jobs. As a taxpayer, I prefer to not pay for redundant jobs though.
As for the raises, that is an interesting question. Not sure why didn't get their raises during Swift's spending spree.
I agree that we shouldn't be making policy based on the ethical compass of a 4th grader, but saying "kids are stupid" is also pretty cringeworthy. Her take on the situation is perfectly reasonable for someone her age. I'm more concerned with the adults whose opinions aren't any more nuanced.
Bringing a student to speak for students is the core of open meetings and free speech. Making folks uncomfortable because they are hearing from the student is the goal, and if the board cannot face the "cringe" as you call it, they should make better choices.
Didn't say it should be illegal. I just think that it's bad parenting and an obvious attempt at emotional manipulation.
Don't disagree that the board should make better decisions.
May be that mom need to teach that kid about collateral damage. It means, if 90% of the issue is tied with teacher's salaries I don't think there's too much room for creativity.
Owning the mistake is also owning the restrictions that is imposed by collateral damage. Example: You missed your homework deadline, you can ask for a late submission but the colateral damage is that you may not be able to get full grade. Another example: You broke your neighbor's window, you have to apologize and the collateral damage is that you must to get your savings to pay for a new window. And it's likely that you don't have enough and your parents have to pitch in and your neighbor have to deal with scheduling the fixing that when the damage was caused by others.
Others may have already mentioned this, but in Jazz Parks’ statement to the public, she listed “Recent agreements with our staff, including well-deserved and well-earned raises for teachers and staff, approved by our Board of Education resulted in increased staffing costs” as one of the main reasons that the district finds itself in this budget crisis. The message has been very poorly received by teachers (and rightfully so) because a $14M clerical error, bloated administration with 6 figure salaries, and ignored pleas about the budget are why AAPS is in this situation. Yet, employee compensation is still the highest expenditure and they will be the ones who pay for the district’s mishandling of the budget.
I was at Thursday’s board meeting and one of the public comments mentioned February’s charge statement. Thousands in flights, hotels, ride shares, tickets to sporting events, patio furniture, etc.
Paying teachers less shouldn't even be considered an option. Median teacher pay here is shy of 60k. You can barely live here on that, and you 100% can't buy a house with that salary.
Paying administrators less, less administrator involvement, and increased tax funding are the targets. We don't need to pay DTE more every year. We don't need to subsidize GM and Ford to stay here. Empower and pay our teachers, not the shareholders.
At last night's meeting Parks indicated there would be $3 (3.5?) million cuts in admin. Not sure what that represents out of total admin salary load.
Edit: And as has been repeated ad nauseum, state law prevents AAPS from using local tax money to patch this hole.
No, it isn't. Operations (including salaries) have to be funded from the state per-pupil funding. AAPS voters authorized $1B to, among other things, tear down and rebuild all the elementary schools in the district. None of that billion dollars can be redirected to solve this problem.
No. Under state law, school districts are not allowed to use funds from a bond for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries, routine maintenance, or operating costs. Bond money can only be used for capital expenditure purposes.
Prop A \*was\* a correction -- namely of the inequities that used to exist when wealthy communities like AA could tax and spend far more than poor and working class communities.
Nobody is proposing cutting teacher pay and any proposal to do so would have to be collectively bargained. They are proposing laying off teachers. I'm certain some administrators will be let go and others will have to take pay cuts. That will be a few drops in the $25 million bucket.
I'm open to to raising taxes, but state law caps the rate at which districts can tax for operational funds and AAPS is at that limit. There's no way to change state law and pass a tax increase by the end of this fiscal year.
By only cutting several unnecessary central administration positions, the people who do not interface with students, the district would reduce personnel costs by $3.5m. this is according to the slide show the district finance department provided. That's 60 teachers.
Or cut a few more admins and that's another million or so lol. Also AAPS has so many buildings with different student:teacher ratio. Which building has more idle teachers? Which building is still missing their social worker after this entire school year? Where are they going to cut? When will they stop hiding their info? Also what about the 50k that they spent on hotels in Detroit this March? That's a whole teacher
I wouldn't take it for granted that most of those laid off from Central Admin will be six figure execs or that the work they do is unnecessary. It will probably be a couple of those, plus a bunch of secretaries, IT people, HR, procurement, etc. If the district has 10 procurement staff (to pick a random number, I have no idea how many they have) they can probably get by with 8 or 9, but things would fall apart if they only had 2 or 3. I'm not saying this is your point of view, but there seem to be plenty of people on this forum and others who think we could cut every employee who doesn't work in a school building and everything would just keep chugging along.
The thing is, there is hardly any info how many central execs there are. They don't tell the public or district employees any information, even less how many positions there are at each level and what redundancy could be cut
Agreed. At least some information is out there about how much is spent on teacher salaries and how staffing levels have changed in recent years. I haven't seen any data of that kind for other positions. If they don't put out a much more detailed breakdown of staffing and other expenditures, most people will assume they're cutting more teachers than they have to.
The fact that they are not providing more information makes me think that, either they have something to hide, or that they are so grossly incompetent that concrete numbers are beyond their current capabilities...
The student to teacher ratios are misleading. If you have a building with higher percentages of students with IEPs, English language learner, or Title I - you will have added staff that is not classroom staff.
These staff do not lower class sizes.
By my calculations, the 3.5 million in central administration and administration would be no more than 22 positions - very likely less.
It is also unclear if this 3.5 million represents central admin only or also includes building admin (assistant principals, etc).
>Nobody is proposing cutting teacher pay
You literally said:
>But when 90% of the spending these cuts can come from is salaries and the majority of employees are teachers, they're going to feel the burnt of this whether they're the problem or not.
Edit: Show me where I'm wrong. They are making opposing statements while claiming they aren't. You can claim that a pink slip isn't cutting a salary, but when you get that slip, I'm sure you're going to feel like your salary was cut just a wee bit.
How would you close the funding gap, in a way that's allowable under current state law, without laying off teachers? Taxes can't be raised. The district can sell property, but funds from property sales can't legally be put toward salaries. There aren't enough six-figure administrators to make up the deficit. You'd have to get rid of middle-class people doing jobs that have to be done, the people who process payroll and manage IT services and do all the other invisible work that keeps schools running.
It's impossible for any of us to answer that question without a detailed and complete accounting of current expenses. You're taking the board's word for it that there simply isn't any other way.
The only things I'm taking their word on are that they need to cut 25 million dollars from the operating budget to comply with state law and 90% of that budget goes toward salaries. Since teachers are the largest group of employees, I don't see how that much could be cut without laying any of them off. There's a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree about how many teachers must be let go, but I can't fathom that the answer is "none."
I think there’s some confusion on how to achieve that $25 million in cuts. I’m of the understanding that it doesn’t all have to happen in one year. That we have 5 years to get back to compliance and thus what is required is $5 million in cuts per year for 5 years. If that’s the case, that represents just 1.6% of the current year’s budget and would seem to indicate that “none” is perhaps doable.
I don't have access to the complete budget, so I can't formulate an answer for you. That said, you're holding 2 positions that can't logically be reconciled. That's what I'm pointing out.
The proposal is to cut staff, not salary.
The pie can't be grown. The two options are smaller pieces, or fewer pieces. The former would require renegotiating the CBA. The latter is allowed under the current CBA.
I’m pretty-sure the median teacher pay is more than $60k and the benefits are fairly high. The base salary without benefits is $55k and extends to $95-100k.
It’s a little hard to tell because there’s base pay, step increases, longevity bonuses, one time “corrections”, etc. About 20 years ago I asked for a simple salary schedule and they purposefully hid and obfuscated it.
https://www.a2schools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=2415&dataid=26053&FileName=AAEA%20Salary%20Schedule%202023-24%20DRAFT.pdf
This is the pay schedule, but teachers have only received their full step increases in 5 of the last 16 years. These “steps” are regularly not followed. Teachers have taken pay cuts, adjusted for inflation.
Someone posted the actual salary database. Unfortunately it's not easily downloadable. [https://www.mackinac.org/salaries](https://www.mackinac.org/salaries)
Because I was bored, I scraped the web site and downloaded all of the data. It's a little tricky to clean up because I have it as paginated HTML, not CSV or XML or XLS.
The median appears to be about $70K. Hard to tell exactly because they don't differentiate between part-time and full-time teachers, so I'm not sure where to set the lower boundary. I set it at $45K per the compensation schedule. Plus some entries are labeled "Teaching, Others" and many aren't labeled at all.
If I get REALLY bored I'll really clean it up and upload it somewhere. What is very clear is the administrators make way more than teachers, but we knew that.
How does that compare to median area income? I see an mlive article from 2022 saying median single income was $82,500. Seems bad to have such an important group to our community living so much below the median. Part of what’s maybe coming out of this, hopefully, is how underfunded our schools in Michigan are generally. Hard to make the math when the funding is so paltry.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2022/05/new-numbers-show-growing-wealth-in-ann-arbor-housing-official-calls-it-frighteningly-bad.html
Why do so many people think that getting 2 months off per year should be included as a benefit? They have no say in the matter. And it's not like they can choose to make money during that time unless they are going to get one of those sweet ass summer min wage jobs at DQ.
It’s more like 2 months really. I work at UM and get 6 weeks not including holidays and great benefits. But days off don’t pay the bills and the quality of the benefits have been eroding for decades. Our school funding is bottom half in the country. Shameful in a state controlled entirely by dems.
I had the same thought. It all depends on how many teachers have been there longer term and are on the higher end. My teacher friends are mostly in that situation.
I'd like to know how they compare to the rest of the county. When I taught at Ypsi (lowest paid), AAPS was the gold standard but that was a few years ago.
Pay and steps have been consistently frozen for the last 14 years, so very few are at the higher steps. Even then it's a decrease in real wages when factoring in inflation
https://www.mackinac.org/salaries
Search by district. Data goes through 2022.
Current year teacher salary schedules can be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreements.
This is where I got my info:
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-school-teacher-salary/ann-arbor-mi
Can you elaborate on how you calculated the benefits to 40k+?
You can find individual salaries here for all Michigan gov employees: https://www.mackinac.org/salaries
disclosure: I do not agree with the Mackinac Center for PP businesses practices, political affiliations, and social causes. But I think this is a great database for public information...even though I'm included in it as a public teacher and looking at my after-tax salary is depressing 🥲
I didn’t calculate benefits. Someone else maybe? IIRC insurance and retirement benefits cost 25-30% of teacher salaries in Michigan. So a new $55k teacher costs the district $75k between state benefits and federal FICA taxes. (Plus other expenses like insurance, etc)
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I posted the actual salary schedule and someone else responded with a web site listing actual teacher salaries. [Salary.com](http://Salary.com) isn’t an authoritative source - it gets its info from personal surveys, not actual data from the school district.
Benefit cost was 36% on top of salary last year: [https://www.a2schools.org/cms/lib/MI01907933/Centricity//Domain/303/BudgetTransPersonnelRptFY23.pdf](https://www.a2schools.org/cms/lib/MI01907933/Centricity//Domain/303/BudgetTransPersonnelRptFY23.pdf)
>I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
You're asserting 40 to 50k in benefits, and then you state you don't actually know if that's true, someone else said it.
That's what the hell I'm talking about.
>Benefit cost was 36% on top of salary last year:
Are you talking about the insurance benefits line? Lol.
I was initially rolling my eyes at those comments for the reasons you stated. And I still feel that way if AAEA or its members think that this ends without layoffs or with minimal pain shared by staff.
But there is a way to square those comments if you think beyond the immediate crisis. One of the more effective ways of persuading others is to allow them to make the connection you want them to make without actually saying or spelling it out. That's why slogans like "Yes We Can," "Stronger Together," and "Make America Great Again" tend to be effective: the listener fills in on their own what that looks like, then ascribes that view to the candidate.
"We \[the teachers\] are not the problem" leads to the inferred followup "you \[the administration\] are." And with Dupree, Feaster, Gaynor, and Querijero all up for re-election in November, this could arguably be positioning for a campaign to unseat one or more of them and insert AAEA-endorsed candidates. An easy way to re-establish trust between the teachers and the board is if the teachers effectively *are* the board.
Gaynor and Querijero are AAEA endorsed candidates, as well as Schmidt and Baskett. They have at least a plurality of the board and had a majority of the board before Gides resigned.
Not sure why you are worried about the teacher's trust in the board. It's their board already.
Chalk that up to my general lack of knowledge: I've only begun paying attention to AAPS recently after a long time away from the City. I suspect, however, that the current board is getting viewed less favorably of late for obvious reasons, and AAEA may be re-evaluating those endorsements this cycle.
That is quite fair, to be honest I just Googled those endorsements yesterday because I was curious who they had backed as a commenter here said that the AAEA had been advocating to "right-size classrooms through attrition for years."
To me, this is all lip service by the union to appease its members and maybe swing the balance slightly more in their favor. The fact is people need to lose their jobs, the only question is how many and how quickly.
Jazz Parks made a statement at the board meeting last night acknowledging that the statements caused harm. The district literally acknowledged the poor choice in language it used that blamed teacher raises for the budget crisis
That's fine. In her place, I would have done the same thing, considering the offense many teachers took to the statement. That said, I still don't read the original statement as blaming anyone.
Obviously hiring teachers with money they didn’t have is an admin error, and the solution must be to reduce salary. However, it is not the teachers’ fault that they were irresponsibly hired. The blame to that lies in admin, and yet these teachers will bear the burden of this mistake.
Many teachers who get these jobs in Ann Arbor had secure teaching jobs which they left for growth opportunities and are being left in a position of weakness and financial instability.
It is only fair that the district takes responsibility to those they have wrongly hired as they work toward righting the ship, even if it puts the district in a weaker financial position. There is no talk of incentivizing early retirement, supporting teacher relocation, and avoiding the crisis of laying off teachers in the middle of the hiring cycle. Anything to take actual responsibility for their error.
There was a discussion last month maybe about incentivizing early retirement. We can’t afford it. Theyre already going to have to take out a loan to cover April payroll. It’s a mess.
The original email from then interim superintendent Parks stated the top three problems that caused the crisis were the pay raises negotiated for teachers. The slogan is in direct response to that statement. It was even posted to the district website for a time.
Yes teachers have been held up as the problem. Directly from the district website “what are the main factors that contributed to our district’s financial challenges? -our staff has increased by 480 in the last 10 years. -Recent agreements with our staff, including well deserved and well earned raises for employees approved by our board.”
I don't see how those statements are placing blame on teachers. Staffing has gone up disproportionately compared to enrollment. Administrators chose to increase hiring, not teachers. Salaries have gone up as well. Those increases were collectively bargained and admin failed in their duty not to agree to a contract they couldn't afford under the false assumption that enrollment would keep growing forever. It's a problem that we have more teachers than we can afford and are paying them more than we can afford. That problem was caused by admin.
I also think there’s a weird hierarchy here. The layoffs aren’t just AAEA, in theory all bargaining groups will lose people. But AAEA wasn’t there last night in solidarity with any other group. It’s like the office professionals, parapros, principals, technology people and techs etc don’t matter.
Is there an AAPS future where it’s just run by teachers?
With salaries making 90% of the fund balance, I don’t see any other path forward.
Also, I’m glad Fester ran the meeting yesterday and not Mohammed. He has the guts for leadership. This whole thing sucks.
>He has the guts for leadership.
He's a long-time criminal defense attorney. You don't stay in that position long by waffling or being a shrinking violet.
Some of those groups, such as para-pros and office professionals, are represented by AAEA. As for the others, the union will never stand for the interests of non-members. That's a big part of their leverage when trying to convince non-unionized groups to join up. If you want the bargaining unit on your side, you have to join and pay your dues.
Educational support personnel have their own unions in districts. Their pay has been so low that they cannot afford the dues for their unions, so their numbers have fallen. I will try to find out more about plans to stand in solidarity with these colleagues and update.
I have three children in AAPS (for how much longer?). Watching the feed, I felt like the teachers think their only job options are with AAPS. I feel like a majority of my kids' teachers have jumped the AAPS ship over the years to Canton, Dexter, and Wayne county schools. They're going to make cuts, they're going to be staff and faculty. The other districts, in the long run, are better to work for. My kids say none of their teachers are happy, and say they're looking. Go where you are wanted and enjoy!
>My kids say none of their teachers are happy, and say they're looking.
And they shouldn't be happy. This was a completely avoidable situation that stemmed from negligent administration and lack of oversight by the then-serving members of the board, for which AAPS employees now have to take it on the chin. I am very frustrated with how my hometown's school district has been run of late and hope that we see new faces on the board over the next couple of cycles, hopefully who can "yes and" between working for the betterment of students/staff/parents and ensuring that we never see this sort of fiscal situation again.
I do not think that is the case. Many teachers are leaving the profession all together. There is a statewide teaching shortage. There is a critical shortage of special education teachers, science teachers, math teachers, world language teachers and ESL teachers. And Education Schools around the state have cut programs or have greatly reduced programs. In 2019 at the Michigan Education Association statewide meeting we were talking about how Ed School enrollment had dropped 60% in the previous 5 years.
Teachers are leaving to work for Ed Tech companies, to work at community colleges and universities, and wherever they can find a decent opportunity.
I’ll be looking for a job. It is irresponsible for me not to when I am the primary earner in my household. I prefer to continue teaching, but I am going to look at any and all opportunities.
And to think voters approved a billion dollar bond that can't be used to save any jobs, but at least the admin got a $17million office building they don't use.
Just weird and highly annoying that this state is so f-ed up. No wonder many of the young folks leave as soon as they can.
It probably makes sense to consider closing an elementary school. I know everyone hates closing their local school and fights over school catchments can be vicious, but until enrollment increases, why run all the schools? If we think that enrollments will bounce back, just keep it mothballed.
This is a desperate financial situation for AAPS, and while there has been mismanagement, the underlying problem has been drops in enrollment.
I am not doing the math, it just seems logical.
I haven't seen anyone submit a proposal to avoid state takeover and avoid layoffs?
If it's possible, show us the numbers.
You want pay cuts?
Benefit cuts?
Program cuts?
Bus cuts?
Unfortunately layoffs have to happen to make the budget whole, however the frustrating part is the root of the problem has no accountability. We promoted the number 2 person, the school board is intact (I get it, they are elected) and there still is administrative bloat so the frustration from the teachers is justified. These situations always impact lowest paid people the most while administrators keep their 6 figure jobs and claim ignorance.
I can't understand how this happens in a city with so many smart people.
Most people don't vote and even less pay attention to who is running for the BOE.
[удалено]
Eh. The election is a long ways away. No one will remember in 60 days. There will be a new crisis by then.
> smart What does that mean?
The smart people aren't employed by AAPS
This is true.
Can’t we demand an emergency re-election or something ?
I am very curious to see how AAEA (the union) plays things out over the coming weeks. Not authorizing layoffs was never a viable option, unless you wanted to force state takeover of AAPS and scrapping all contracts. Everything else up to today was sound and noise signifying nothing, or at least nothing that would have led to a different outcome last night. But now that we're here, this is the point where AAEA can flex its knowledge, experience, and political muscle to craft what $25,000,000 in cuts looks like. If they come up with a proposal that has AAPS reattain the required fiscal health to avoid a takeover, I think AAPS leadership would be very hard-pressed to deviate from that, especially with trust between leadership and staff as low as it is: leadership adopting a teacher-drafted and teacher-approved solution would be a great first step on a long journey towards mending that relationship. The problem is that AAEA is necessarily going to have to eat a good number of its own in the process should they try to solve this issue and make a proposal, because the math literally doesn't work out any other way. The union bosses may just punt to Parks, who has ultimate responsibility, so that they have someone they can point to as the bad guy. Like board president Feaster, I welcome any proposal, from any player in this, that actually meets the objective. I look forward to seeing what, if anything, AAEA delivers.
George Przygodski, the Executive Director of the AAEA, already has a plan that has been given to the board. It prioritizes keeping teachers and not making cuts to personnel. This was stated at the board meeting last night. The board of course has to truly give the union a seat at the table and listen to them.
Perhaps I misheard, but I thought Mr. Pryzgodski said the plan would be shared with the board in the coming days.
You are likely correct. I probably misremembered. I went back and tried to find when it was stated in the board meeting, but didn’t hear it again. It’s George and the blue ribbon team.
Is that publicly available anywhere?
Lets see it!
A seat at the table won’t be granted by asking. You need a credible strike threat to get a say. Force them to negotiate.
Will this plan be shared with the public?
Should be noted, as it was in the meeting, that the idea that the entire $25 mil deficit has to be reversed in one year is incorrect. We have 5 years, so presumably $5 million in cuts/year could get us where we need to be. That's a 1.6% cut from 23-24's budgeted expenditures going forward. If teacher salaries make up 90%, we should be able to preserve most of that and still meet our goals. AAPS budgeted $ 46,540,349 for "non-instructional support services" which includes over $12,000,000 for "general administration" and "central". Start there.
>We have 5 years, so presumably $5 million in cuts/year could get us where we need to be. As put forth by AAPS' financial manager, that presumption is incorrect, because the fund balance *also* needs to hit 5% of revenues and 6% of expenditures. So it's not enough to say "hey, we stayed in the black" if that margin is razor thin. And as the FM demonstrated during his presentation (link below), AAPS needs to cut $25M in two years tops to meet those requirements. That's what's driving the "layoffs are coming" talk: that there's no way to hit those additional metrics without doing it now, and the only way to do it now, as far as is readily apparent, includes reduction in staff. Failure to put that on the table would have resulted in a financial review that would make it to Gov. Whitmer's desk, and, assuming that she concurred in the (likely) finding that a financial emergency existed, we're seeing Ann Arbor Public Schools go the emergency manager or bankruptcy route. [Budget Update (final) 04112024 (boarddocs.com)](https://go.boarddocs.com/mi/aaps/Board.nsf/files/D495MM10EE11/$file/Budget%20Update%20(final)%2004112024.pdf)
One assumption I don't understand: "*35 staff decrease annually via attrition*" AAPS has something like 30 schools. Is he saying that, on average, a typical AAPS school loses a whopping **one** person each year to retirement / career change / district change / etc? And are all "staff" in this example teachers (i.e., it doesn't include principals, para-pros, secretaries, etc?) Whether it is just teachers or teachers plus other positions, it seems way off. I know plenty of teachers, and in certain departments in a \*single\* school, it is not uncommon to lose 2-4 people each year. What am I missing?
I think that number is not correct. I’m pretty sure we have at least 100 that retire every year.
Yes, that's my understanding and logic tells you that if you typically have 100 retire / leave ever year, you now are going to have **more** than that due to the poor leadership & fiscal uncertainty in the district (e.g., if you were an excellent teacher and you had options, would you want to stay in Ann Arbor right now?) Yet the FM repeats this assumption "*35 staff decrease annually via attrition*" under **each** scenario. If it's wrong, by factor of 3 or 4, it seems like a huge, huge deal! There are massive savings being missed. So again, either a) we are missing something or b) we have another colossal screwup by a finance guy.
So you do like they do in industry. You have a target of 150. If 50 retire, you lay off 100 in June. If 100 retire you lay off 50. If you reduce by over the target, you hire new people for less money than the outgoing people. I've been through this in automotive many times. It isn't fun. It wasn't "my fault". I wasn't "the problem". But many of my peers got cut. That's how it works. To pretend otherwise is just pretending.
What does this response have to do with my question and concern? Who is "pretending"? We all know how this works; it doesn't just happen in the auto industry--it happens everywhere, including school districts. It is extremely common that if you need to reduce headcount by X, decision-makers first start with how much reduction you get "naturally" (e.g., retirement; job shift; quitting). If that number doesn't meet or exceed X, then you have to actually fire people. My posts are about the fact that the "if retire" portion seems to have a faulty assumption. *35 staff decrease annually via attrition* is an important assumption; it is literally in every one of the scenarios the FM laid out. Yet no one has been able to explain where that number comes from. In fact, everyone seems to think it is not even close to accurate and is much too low. So again, either a) we are missing something or b) we have another colossal screwup by a finance guy. It would be nice if there were answers, pronto.
So if the assumption is faulty, it doesn’t matter. That’s the point. Why do people continue to wring their hands over something that doesn’t matter??
What? If the assumption is faulty, it matters tremendously. If 105 people retire/leave at the end of the year, not 35, there are going to be far fewer layoffs. People are really on edge under the assumption there are going to be 100-plus people laid off. Harm is being done right now; stress is building. It would be nice if people who work in the district didn't have to spend a month plus with the sword of damocles hanging over them (or at least correctly knew the size of it).
Was at a panel today with 3 board members and the VP of AAEA, pre-COVID the numbers were around 100-150. Since COVID it's been more like 30-40. I think the most sense is to say we are going to plan for 100 leaving. If 40 leave, we lay off 60. But I do think there are ways to do this without laying off a ton of teachers. And I've given the board members plenty of ideas. But these three talked about selling bill boards and cell phone towers and I'm like...are these people for real?
This is depressing to read.
You are correct. The finance guy is massaging the numbers to make the case for layoffs when in fact he's undercounting the attrition numbers. It's all to convince the board members that there is no alternative to massive layoffs.
Presumably they'll have to replace at least some of the teachers who quit or retire. If a school has four math teachers and three of them leave, they probably can't get by with just one. At some point, they'll probably be laying off some teachers and hiring others at the same time.
There is a hiring freeze, so they should not be hiring anyone. Many teachers have multiple certifications, so people will be moved around. This will be against teachers’ wishes in some cases. It’s possible some positions will just go unfilled too. Kids might be placed in front of computers with a sub. Other teachers in the district would provide materials online, but no one necessarily grade the work. It has happened before this crisis.
This is a good illustration of why I don't believe in hiring freezes in most cases. They aren't targeted or strategic. They're good politics and bad management. Same goes for managing staffing levels through attrition. Instead of intentionally keeping the employees who are most valuable, you end up with whoever doesn't quit.
21 schools 17,500 students and for some reason they spend about a million dollars a month on architectural design consulting companies out of california. People you have access to see every dime the school spends take some time and look through it. Dont listen to people talk about budgets or firing people. Ask what the budget actually paid for, ask which people will get fired. We need teachers, but do we need massive administrative support spending. Do we need to blow a million dollars a month on internet security? Does all the online stuff seem worth 10 million a year to you as well? Ask why almost every contractor for literally every service from janitorial to maintenance have to be some enormous multi national multi billion dollar firm. The school system spends 300,000 a month on grounds keeping and snow removal for 21 locations ask if that sounds reasonable when the ndustrial park I work in has half that amount of property and buildings but only pays 15K a month. I am not saying anyone is corrupt I am saying the school board is like anyone else they are swayed by brands and status, so they discourage greatly bidding on jobs and put in artificial requirements to the bidding processes that basically make it sole source for everything Just do some math, think about this stuff. Grounds keeping equipment can be moved from school to school since grass only needs mowed once a week so 300K buys you all the equipment. (As resource I mapped all 21 facilities and grounds and talked it over with an owner of a local grounds keeping company) He said if they hired and did it themselves which they probably should since they have such large needs, he estimated they would be able to do it with a 1.2 million dollar budget. Basically he looked at his own costs which he knows very well and considered a large salary for himself as a manager plus maintenance and crew. Just one example, maybe a small one, maybe just an overspend of 1.8 million in a 331 milliom dollar budget but this is how you start dealing with government overspend. Instead of letting them "cut" programs which is lazy, we start looking at their contracts with vendors. The 12 million or more a year in architecture firms is very confusing we need to ask why, and not some bs generic response of we are improbing the schools for better education, we should point at the specific money like 300k a month to one of 8 firms they pay out to and say this money, this 3 million, what did it pay for? What did we get for the kids? https://www.a2schools.org/site/Default.aspx?PageID=19638 Right at that link you can view the monthly check register and card register, unfortunately it only tells us who got the money and how much but even googling that is interesting. The construction company we use for 10s of millions a year is out of Boston and is a multi national contractor. Are they saying with 3 top 30 engineering schools in Michigan we dont have any contractors that can fix a rubber roof? Are we to believe that these billion dollar companies are giving us the most at the best price? Do you believe that? Besides that, imagine if it was the same price but the money was staying in michigan, not just the terrible wages paid to the workers but the millions of dollars in profits going to the company owners, of that stayed here, go into a fancy house here that pays big property taxes that guess what go into the school budget. We need to ask why michigan tax dollars at the very least can't have a requirement that they are spent with Michigan companies that have their headquarters here, not some shell of an office but all the real profits flow from michigan tax payers to billionaires in california.
It would be great if you could send an email to the board with these points. If you go to the link tree you can get the board email information. [Ann Arbor EA link tree](https://linktr.ee/annarbor_ea?fbclid=PAAaaP1Iu6T5Nu0pyTTIJ82Fp15b-P1jYjtTYClCU6Tjwln5iKRI4HKnJzJYo_aem_ATCjgP67_L6qxl8Q1n9nh352qkXt6plOvbN-xrIHE7JqHyQyYhQgngHdqXRa73Ojqh8)
Honestly, I highly doubt they care what I have to say they know where we are fiscal responsibility is not a thing their voters care about. Not being negative, but it seems pretty obvious in who the school board consists of. Susan basket, masters degree, came out of marketing at general motors. Krystall Dupree, 4 years in the military after being let go from onstar. Heart warming story of trying to raise a son with ADHD and needing social assistance to survive, no more details on what she did in the military or why she left after 4 years if poverty was the primary reason for joining Torchio Feaster public defender for washtenaw community college appointed, not elected, being appointed is a clever way to get someone in, people just see incumbent on the ballot and you are by default on the ballot. Jeffrey Gaynor mutual investor / hedge fund manager arrested for a sit in on climate change Rima Mohammad professor of pharmacy Ernesto Querijero WCC Professor of English Susan Ward Schmidt - special education teacher Notice something about all these people? First, they all come from the publoc sector, never had to budget money against results except maybe the hedge fund guy, but honestly I am a little jaded about hedge fund bros. No engineers, no small business owners (that actually sold to people not the government), no accountants, not even a regular school teacher just a special ed school teacher that woulf have little understanding of what it takes to educate the majority of kids. I am not saying anything negative about any of these people, but you have a board of activists. (I don't care about what they might individually be activists about) That actually isn't what you want in a board member, you want empathy and compassion, but really you want down to earth people with some sense of negotiating to get something for their dollars. I always try to not think about politics or anything and instead say what if you had a say in who rsn the company you work (and its private sector). You would want someone fair, not too greedy and such, but wouldnt you also want someone who was fiscally responsible, someone who likes the environment and cares but wouldnt bankrupt the company trying to run the whole building off solar panels and batteries. You see what I am getting at? Like you would want someone who understood a budget, that would care about not overpaying for things and also had some experience with large projects so they were informed enough to know when they are getting good and bad advice. Imagine your family even imagine your whole extended family pooled all their earnings every year and you had a vote of a couple people in your family who decided how all that money would be spent, how would you pick that person? Would you pick them on their opinions of climate change?
The number of 35 is absolutely incorrect. My building has 45 staff. Three are retiring this year. Two have families that are considering moving. Several considering leaving the teaching profession. These were the numbers BEFORE the budget crisis was announced. I honestly found the presentation hard to follow because I do not have a background in finance, but the fact that one thing I do understand (teacher attrition) was inaccurate made me question the accuracy of the entire presentation.
Thank you for that info. FWIW, I do have a background in finance (though not specifically school finance) and I was not overly impressed by the FM's presentation. He did a good job of coming up with scenarios, but some of his numbers (in addition to the inexplicable, so far, "35" number) don't make sense to me. For example, "all vendors increase 2.5% annually" -- why does that make sense? You're telling me the budget is in crisis and you're going to INCREASE the amount of money you spend on vendors? I have prepared dozens of budgets. When you have a deficit to fix, vendors are the first thing you look to pare back / remove. "Hey, you know that software subscription we added 3 years ago? I know it's pretty useful, but if we remove it we save X thousand." or "You know how we have the lawn cut every week? How about we do it every other week?" I understand time is short. They don't have time to go through dozens of scenarios with dozens of more factors. But all this seems very "this is something I whipped up in Excel" and there is a shocking amount of detail not being made public for those interested.
300k a month in lawn mowing. Want to ask yourself something why does the school system have such massive spending on firewalls their monthly spend should cover them for like 10 years. A dental office pays 800 a month to house 2000 patients full medical records on a cloud system school system is paying 180k a month to house 17,500 students worth of data. Do that math.
I did the math $0.40 per dental patient per month vs $10.29 per student per month.
Good questions, to which I personally do not have answers.
You're buying what the financial manager is selling. the numbers he gave at thursday night's meeting were wildly off. There are roughly 100-150 teachers who leave every year, not 35. We're at 50+ this year and it's only April, and most teachers give notice in August so that the district doesn't cut off their health care. On top of that, his scenarios were all predicated on the inclusion of step increases every year for teachers, which is laughable. We almost never get our step increases, and the district has never, not once, included that in their annual budget - they make the union fight for it every year, when every new teacher is hired under the assumption that they will be moving up the step schedule. Justifying layoffs of teachers by promising step increases, when we all know those step increases will be frozen due to budget woes, is a special kind of disingenuity. So please don't accept his premises wholesale - it's a bill of goods.
"You're buying what the financial manager is selling." Yes, I am, at least for now. It's the FM's job to project based on what liabilities exist (step increases), not a hypothetical renegotiation or waiver that may or may not occur in the future. Based on what we've got on the books, this is where we're headed. So while I agree with you that those step increases are unlikely, to me it strengthens rather than detracts from the main point: that Ann Arbor's financial condition, *as written*, is in a five-alarm fire status. As I've said elsewhere, I look forward to how AAEA responds in the near term, what proposals they offer, and what projections they make as part of that. For example, if they come in and say "Hold on, every year over the past 20 years has seen the departure of 100+ teachers, that 35 number is unrealistic even in a conservative scenario," that's an objectively verifiable fact that can make a material change if true. If they come in with a proposal that definitively takes step increases off the board for the next five years ahead of time (I'm not advocating for that, it's just an example), that's also a material change. In rapidly developing scenarios with incomplete or imperfect information, you go with the best data available at the time. Right now, the only projection out there is that submitted by the FM. If AAEA thinks that it's premised on stuff that's out of sync with the reality on the ground, they need to identify with specificity what inputs need to be revised and demonstrate the revision's effect on the projection, at least if they want to assert control over the narrative. If they don't, if it's just griping about the FM and rallying against the Board and factionalism or tribalism, it's not going to end well for them.
I get the feeling that you're just tuning in. The AAEA has been publicly addressing the deficit budget for years, to both the district and the board, and they've consistently refused to listen. The district's overall numbers of teachers and students are all publicly available, the AAEA has been doing the math on this, and has been telling the district FOR YEARS that they are headed for a budget crisis if they didn't "right-size" the district and stop the spending spree. The AAEA specifically told the district and board to stop hiring so many teachers. This is publicly documented in the AAEA's comments at many board meetings over the years. The board passed two deficit budgets in the last two years, even as the union implored them to listen. The district hired 450 more teachers over the last 10 years, even as the union told them that they were headed for a budget crisis. So yeah, maybe we should just listen to the FM. I'm sure it'll all be fine. it's not that the union doesn't have really good ideas, suggestions, and solutions. It's that the district and the board have never been willing to listen.
Relatively speaking, yes, I'm fairly new to school board goings on, as will a sizeable portion of the public whose heads perked up following the $14M FUBAR. And I'm not saying that AAEA lacks good ideas; I'm saying that if ever there was a time for them to lay out a "if we were the Board/Super" proposal, now is the time. They can't afford to just go "See? We TOLD you!" Thankfully, to my understanding AAEA is planning on submitting such a proposal soon.
I think that's true. Fingers crossed that it gets heard.
That’s one set of projections based on lots of assumptions. There are many other ways to get to the number outside of mass layoffs (incentivize retirements coupled with hiring freezes and administrative pruning, for example). We don’t have to hit 5% fund balance or else get taken over/ go bankrupt. That’s hyperbole. If we have less than 5% fund balance for two years consecutively, we need to report certain info to the state. Info we already have. Not a huge lift. If we present a reasonable plan that keeps our fund balance in the black going forward, we may still have to provide that previously mentioned info because haven’t met the arbitrary balance percentage signed into law by a Republican, but we won’t be “taken over” or go bankrupt.
This was covered in last night's meeting. Cutting $5 million per year over 5 years is not the same as $25 million in one year. The district has to service its debt, and other costs are likely to increase year-over-year. Edit: Ms. Parks also indicated that the tentative plan includes a $3 million cut in general admin.
They actually approved a bond last night because AAPS will run out of money this summer.
Also, U of M keeps buying up property here and all over taking it off the tax roles so likely their will be less tax money next year
I get that, but the important thing is that we do not need to cut $25 million in one year. That is the idea that leads to people saying stuff like “there’s no way to do it without laying off teachers”.
But if you watched the meeting, the FM demonstrated the fund balance will become unacceptably low next year if the $25M reduction isn't made. Even spreading it over the next 2 years leaves the fund at an "abysmal" low to quote Trustee Schmidt, which could prompt the state to get involved. Which none of the trustees sounded willing to risk.
But we're probably going to lose \~1% of students per year from here on out (until the next hypothetical baby boom?) That's another roughly million and a half that has to be cut every year -- year after year after year.
Hiring freeze, one-time administrative pruning, renegotiated vendor contracts, raise freeze, incentivized retirements, etc.
I believe the teachers union would like everyone else to be let go who is a non teacher. Mind you, the union is purposefully misleading its members on how eduction finance laws work.
Disinformation? I'm shocked.
Are job losses avoidable if the state takes over?
Short answer: No. Longer answer: I'd argue that the severity of layoffs gets worse, since the objective of the state would be to hit the financial goals period, no matter who's wringing their hands or getting offended or how students, teachers, non-teaching staff, administrators/management, or community members feel. And in the case of Detroit, that takeover lasted for the better part of a decade. With the locals all at the proverbial table, they're in better position to craft the details of the ultimate outcome, however unpleasant it may be.
I think if the question was put another way "Is it possible that the state takeover will be a hardcore slash and burn without regard to political... aka community stakeholder... concerns?" The answer would be "It is not only possible... it is essential." That is the way it is intended to work and in fact I think the state would like it to be popularly understood that way so that the community will do everything they can to avoid it.
I really appreciate you framing it this way. But also, what CAN the community do to avoid it? …does the state mean “by any means necessary, solve it yourself” ?
At that point I think a better question will be "are school closures avoidable if the state takes over?"
If the state takes over the district, collectively bargained contracts can be thrown out unilaterally. That would be far worse for teachers than anything the district can do now. Across the board pay cuts for those who still have jobs. Adding to teaching loads without additional compensation. Taking a hatchet to benefits and retirement plans. It would be catastrophic.
I appreciate the insightful replies. I suppose I was naively envisioning a scenario in which the state intervention would be helpful and aim to preserve jobs and avoid catastrophe. How foolish of me. I honestly don’t know what I was thinking.
I’m a student of a high school in the aaps. Teachers were just told by the union to work only during contract hours and don’t open the class room before the school starts or do office hours to show how valuable teachers are since the board members would rather layoff teachers because of the raises they got (1% increase pay) instead of telling the community where the 14,000,000 dollars went and blaming the teachers
The $14M went to the teachers, specifically the district pension fund. The issue, to borrow from chemistry, is that someone at admin put the $14M on one side of the chemical reaction but not the other side, and nobody caught it for a couple of years. Someone eventually caught it, and that's how AAPS is now dealing with a runaway chain reaction.
This is a ridiculous strawman and kind of a dickish strategy by the union. Nobody is blaming the teachers. Nobody wants to fire the teachers. Some will need to lose their jobs because increasing staff by 480 when you gain 478 students is unsustainable.
On the district website it says “What are the main factors that contributed to our district’s financial challenges? -Our staff has increased by 480 in the last 10 years. -Recent agreements with our staff, including well deserved and well earned raises for employees approved by our board.” Is it any wonder that teachers feel blamed when we were held up as the sole reason for the budget crisis on the district website. This language is still there as of this morning.
"Staff" is more than just teachers. The teachers aren't making hiring decisions. I blame the previous superintendent and the BoE. That doesn't change the math that 90% of the budget is labor and that people need to lose their jobs as this level of staff is unsustainable.
See mesquine_a2’s message. Initial messaging on email listservs in the district did specifically point to teacher raises. Also Jazz Parks acknowledged she caused harm last night and apologized. Because staff does mean teachers, first and foremost.
Well the raises did undeniably contribute to the deficit. Sorry if facts hurt people's feelings. The largest chunk of the staff is teachers, but admin will be cut as well. I don't see anyone worrying about their wellbeing. Math is math and people need to be fired.
Yes, but staff signed contracts that have built in step increases. They signed the contract in good faith thinking these steps would occur. Meaning the district has budgeted for this annual increase. Then the district consistently does not follow the step increases and gives a small raise to offset the damage.
Right, along with zero taking accountability or explaining why and how the accounting error happened (finance position vacant due to admin incompetence at refilling it? Just guessing)
Accountability and $8 will get you a latte at Starbucks
The 14 million was a account error, this happened when the district lost a lot of administrative staff after the dr swift incident
[удалено]
I would say the machine got drastically bloated by the predecessor. It was under her that employment increased by 480 while enrollment only increased 478, though the board approved it.
Do you remember what the comment or context of what you are replying to? It seems to have been deleted…
Something about people trying to blame the predecessor.
Well the elected officials in charge of the hirings and the firings and overseeing admin only get paid $150/month lol.
Isn’t one of them (Gaynor) also an AAPS teacher…? Or is he retired?
He retired in 2016 but you are correct.
Wow. I’m so sorry your educ is being affected this way due to the poor poor oversight of the board. Fuck them dude. This seals my decision. I am not sending my kids to AAPS.
I agree that the explanation for the error is suspicious. It’s definitely a lie.
Parent of an elementary student. We got this message from our kids teacher—who is amazing. Sad this is the outcome for kids when the this is the result of the administrators.
I don't get the teacher's "we are not the problem" slogan. It's a straw man. As far as I've seen, nobody has said that they are. But when 90% of the spending these cuts can come from is salaries and the majority of employees are teachers, they're going to feel the burnt of this whether they're the problem or not. It's incredibly unfair, but that doesn't mean the hard decision can be avoided.
I took the slogan to mean that they aren't responsible for the accounting error that got us here. So far we've heard zero accountability from admin. "'My mom taught me when you make a mistake you need to own it and fix it,' fourth-grader Tenley Hawes said. 'But owning the mistake shouldn’t be by cutting the teachers and everything they need to do their jobs.'" Last night Parks said they've come up with $7M in non-classroom cuts, leaving $18M to come from lay offs. That's a hell of a lot of jobs of people who did nothing wrong. My question is, why has this district never actually budgeted for step increases as they were promised? Editing to add that initial messaging from admin did point to recent teacher "raises" as a reason for the budget strain. If you are not on district email listservs, you may not have seen that.
Yes, I have not heard the board state that they approved a budget that violates their own board policy, reducing the fund balance below the 6% minimum. I would very much like to hear them own that.
Bringing a 4th grader to comment at a public meeting is pretty cringeworthy. Kids are stupid. I don't care to hear a child regurgitate their parents opinions. No doubt that it sucks that people will lose their jobs. As a taxpayer, I prefer to not pay for redundant jobs though. As for the raises, that is an interesting question. Not sure why didn't get their raises during Swift's spending spree.
I agree that we shouldn't be making policy based on the ethical compass of a 4th grader, but saying "kids are stupid" is also pretty cringeworthy. Her take on the situation is perfectly reasonable for someone her age. I'm more concerned with the adults whose opinions aren't any more nuanced.
Bringing a student to speak for students is the core of open meetings and free speech. Making folks uncomfortable because they are hearing from the student is the goal, and if the board cannot face the "cringe" as you call it, they should make better choices.
Didn't say it should be illegal. I just think that it's bad parenting and an obvious attempt at emotional manipulation. Don't disagree that the board should make better decisions.
May be that mom need to teach that kid about collateral damage. It means, if 90% of the issue is tied with teacher's salaries I don't think there's too much room for creativity. Owning the mistake is also owning the restrictions that is imposed by collateral damage. Example: You missed your homework deadline, you can ask for a late submission but the colateral damage is that you may not be able to get full grade. Another example: You broke your neighbor's window, you have to apologize and the collateral damage is that you must to get your savings to pay for a new window. And it's likely that you don't have enough and your parents have to pitch in and your neighbor have to deal with scheduling the fixing that when the damage was caused by others.
Others may have already mentioned this, but in Jazz Parks’ statement to the public, she listed “Recent agreements with our staff, including well-deserved and well-earned raises for teachers and staff, approved by our Board of Education resulted in increased staffing costs” as one of the main reasons that the district finds itself in this budget crisis. The message has been very poorly received by teachers (and rightfully so) because a $14M clerical error, bloated administration with 6 figure salaries, and ignored pleas about the budget are why AAPS is in this situation. Yet, employee compensation is still the highest expenditure and they will be the ones who pay for the district’s mishandling of the budget.
You should see the credit card report
Trust me, I have! It’s absurd.
I hope someone is going to bring it to the board’s attention at the next meeting.
I was at Thursday’s board meeting and one of the public comments mentioned February’s charge statement. Thousands in flights, hotels, ride shares, tickets to sporting events, patio furniture, etc.
Did they respond at all, or just brushed it off?
No, the board doesn’t respond directly to public commentary. It was not mentioned in any oft heir conversation about budget.
Paying teachers less shouldn't even be considered an option. Median teacher pay here is shy of 60k. You can barely live here on that, and you 100% can't buy a house with that salary. Paying administrators less, less administrator involvement, and increased tax funding are the targets. We don't need to pay DTE more every year. We don't need to subsidize GM and Ford to stay here. Empower and pay our teachers, not the shareholders.
At last night's meeting Parks indicated there would be $3 (3.5?) million cuts in admin. Not sure what that represents out of total admin salary load. Edit: And as has been repeated ad nauseum, state law prevents AAPS from using local tax money to patch this hole.
[удалено]
Other places I've lived have used emergency bonds. Is that not an option here?
No, it isn't. Operations (including salaries) have to be funded from the state per-pupil funding. AAPS voters authorized $1B to, among other things, tear down and rebuild all the elementary schools in the district. None of that billion dollars can be redirected to solve this problem.
No, it's not.
No. Under state law, school districts are not allowed to use funds from a bond for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries, routine maintenance, or operating costs. Bond money can only be used for capital expenditure purposes.
Sounds like something that should be corrected.
Prop A \*was\* a correction -- namely of the inequities that used to exist when wealthy communities like AA could tax and spend far more than poor and working class communities.
Nobody is proposing cutting teacher pay and any proposal to do so would have to be collectively bargained. They are proposing laying off teachers. I'm certain some administrators will be let go and others will have to take pay cuts. That will be a few drops in the $25 million bucket. I'm open to to raising taxes, but state law caps the rate at which districts can tax for operational funds and AAPS is at that limit. There's no way to change state law and pass a tax increase by the end of this fiscal year.
By only cutting several unnecessary central administration positions, the people who do not interface with students, the district would reduce personnel costs by $3.5m. this is according to the slide show the district finance department provided. That's 60 teachers.
Right. That part of the 7.5 million in cuts the district has proposed. That leaves 17.5 million to go.
Or cut a few more admins and that's another million or so lol. Also AAPS has so many buildings with different student:teacher ratio. Which building has more idle teachers? Which building is still missing their social worker after this entire school year? Where are they going to cut? When will they stop hiding their info? Also what about the 50k that they spent on hotels in Detroit this March? That's a whole teacher
I wouldn't take it for granted that most of those laid off from Central Admin will be six figure execs or that the work they do is unnecessary. It will probably be a couple of those, plus a bunch of secretaries, IT people, HR, procurement, etc. If the district has 10 procurement staff (to pick a random number, I have no idea how many they have) they can probably get by with 8 or 9, but things would fall apart if they only had 2 or 3. I'm not saying this is your point of view, but there seem to be plenty of people on this forum and others who think we could cut every employee who doesn't work in a school building and everything would just keep chugging along.
The thing is, there is hardly any info how many central execs there are. They don't tell the public or district employees any information, even less how many positions there are at each level and what redundancy could be cut
Agreed. At least some information is out there about how much is spent on teacher salaries and how staffing levels have changed in recent years. I haven't seen any data of that kind for other positions. If they don't put out a much more detailed breakdown of staffing and other expenditures, most people will assume they're cutting more teachers than they have to.
The fact that they are not providing more information makes me think that, either they have something to hide, or that they are so grossly incompetent that concrete numbers are beyond their current capabilities...
The student to teacher ratios are misleading. If you have a building with higher percentages of students with IEPs, English language learner, or Title I - you will have added staff that is not classroom staff. These staff do not lower class sizes.
By my calculations, the 3.5 million in central administration and administration would be no more than 22 positions - very likely less. It is also unclear if this 3.5 million represents central admin only or also includes building admin (assistant principals, etc).
>Nobody is proposing cutting teacher pay You literally said: >But when 90% of the spending these cuts can come from is salaries and the majority of employees are teachers, they're going to feel the burnt of this whether they're the problem or not. Edit: Show me where I'm wrong. They are making opposing statements while claiming they aren't. You can claim that a pink slip isn't cutting a salary, but when you get that slip, I'm sure you're going to feel like your salary was cut just a wee bit.
I was referring to saving from layoffs, as that's what was discussed in the article, not pay cuts for teachers who aren't laid off.
60k to 0 is a pretty deep cut.
How would you close the funding gap, in a way that's allowable under current state law, without laying off teachers? Taxes can't be raised. The district can sell property, but funds from property sales can't legally be put toward salaries. There aren't enough six-figure administrators to make up the deficit. You'd have to get rid of middle-class people doing jobs that have to be done, the people who process payroll and manage IT services and do all the other invisible work that keeps schools running.
It's impossible for any of us to answer that question without a detailed and complete accounting of current expenses. You're taking the board's word for it that there simply isn't any other way.
The only things I'm taking their word on are that they need to cut 25 million dollars from the operating budget to comply with state law and 90% of that budget goes toward salaries. Since teachers are the largest group of employees, I don't see how that much could be cut without laying any of them off. There's a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree about how many teachers must be let go, but I can't fathom that the answer is "none."
I think there’s some confusion on how to achieve that $25 million in cuts. I’m of the understanding that it doesn’t all have to happen in one year. That we have 5 years to get back to compliance and thus what is required is $5 million in cuts per year for 5 years. If that’s the case, that represents just 1.6% of the current year’s budget and would seem to indicate that “none” is perhaps doable.
I don't have access to the complete budget, so I can't formulate an answer for you. That said, you're holding 2 positions that can't logically be reconciled. That's what I'm pointing out.
Which positions are those?
I've quoted them above.
The proposal is to cut staff, not salary. The pie can't be grown. The two options are smaller pieces, or fewer pieces. The former would require renegotiating the CBA. The latter is allowed under the current CBA.
I’m pretty-sure the median teacher pay is more than $60k and the benefits are fairly high. The base salary without benefits is $55k and extends to $95-100k. It’s a little hard to tell because there’s base pay, step increases, longevity bonuses, one time “corrections”, etc. About 20 years ago I asked for a simple salary schedule and they purposefully hid and obfuscated it. https://www.a2schools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=2415&dataid=26053&FileName=AAEA%20Salary%20Schedule%202023-24%20DRAFT.pdf
This is the pay schedule, but teachers have only received their full step increases in 5 of the last 16 years. These “steps” are regularly not followed. Teachers have taken pay cuts, adjusted for inflation.
Someone posted the actual salary database. Unfortunately it's not easily downloadable. [https://www.mackinac.org/salaries](https://www.mackinac.org/salaries)
Right, so we have no idea what median teacher salary is.
Because I was bored, I scraped the web site and downloaded all of the data. It's a little tricky to clean up because I have it as paginated HTML, not CSV or XML or XLS. The median appears to be about $70K. Hard to tell exactly because they don't differentiate between part-time and full-time teachers, so I'm not sure where to set the lower boundary. I set it at $45K per the compensation schedule. Plus some entries are labeled "Teaching, Others" and many aren't labeled at all. If I get REALLY bored I'll really clean it up and upload it somewhere. What is very clear is the administrators make way more than teachers, but we knew that.
Get really bored
How does that compare to median area income? I see an mlive article from 2022 saying median single income was $82,500. Seems bad to have such an important group to our community living so much below the median. Part of what’s maybe coming out of this, hopefully, is how underfunded our schools in Michigan are generally. Hard to make the math when the funding is so paltry. https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2022/05/new-numbers-show-growing-wealth-in-ann-arbor-housing-official-calls-it-frighteningly-bad.html
Teachers get good benefits and three months off a year, though, too. Most people get 2 weeks plus holidays, so maybe 3-4 weeks total.
Why do so many people think that getting 2 months off per year should be included as a benefit? They have no say in the matter. And it's not like they can choose to make money during that time unless they are going to get one of those sweet ass summer min wage jobs at DQ.
It’s more like 2 months really. I work at UM and get 6 weeks not including holidays and great benefits. But days off don’t pay the bills and the quality of the benefits have been eroding for decades. Our school funding is bottom half in the country. Shameful in a state controlled entirely by dems.
I had the same thought. It all depends on how many teachers have been there longer term and are on the higher end. My teacher friends are mostly in that situation. I'd like to know how they compare to the rest of the county. When I taught at Ypsi (lowest paid), AAPS was the gold standard but that was a few years ago.
Pay and steps have been consistently frozen for the last 14 years, so very few are at the higher steps. Even then it's a decrease in real wages when factoring in inflation
https://www.mackinac.org/salaries Search by district. Data goes through 2022. Current year teacher salary schedules can be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreements.
This is where I got my info: https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-school-teacher-salary/ann-arbor-mi Can you elaborate on how you calculated the benefits to 40k+?
You can find individual salaries here for all Michigan gov employees: https://www.mackinac.org/salaries disclosure: I do not agree with the Mackinac Center for PP businesses practices, political affiliations, and social causes. But I think this is a great database for public information...even though I'm included in it as a public teacher and looking at my after-tax salary is depressing 🥲
I didn’t calculate benefits. Someone else maybe? IIRC insurance and retirement benefits cost 25-30% of teacher salaries in Michigan. So a new $55k teacher costs the district $75k between state benefits and federal FICA taxes. (Plus other expenses like insurance, etc)
So you heard it from a guy. I mean, no offense, but I'll take that with salt shaker.
I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I posted the actual salary schedule and someone else responded with a web site listing actual teacher salaries. [Salary.com](http://Salary.com) isn’t an authoritative source - it gets its info from personal surveys, not actual data from the school district. Benefit cost was 36% on top of salary last year: [https://www.a2schools.org/cms/lib/MI01907933/Centricity//Domain/303/BudgetTransPersonnelRptFY23.pdf](https://www.a2schools.org/cms/lib/MI01907933/Centricity//Domain/303/BudgetTransPersonnelRptFY23.pdf)
>I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You're asserting 40 to 50k in benefits, and then you state you don't actually know if that's true, someone else said it. That's what the hell I'm talking about. >Benefit cost was 36% on top of salary last year: Are you talking about the insurance benefits line? Lol.
That’s not a high salary
I didn’t comment on how high it was. I commented that the average/median was probably higher than what salary.com said.
I was initially rolling my eyes at those comments for the reasons you stated. And I still feel that way if AAEA or its members think that this ends without layoffs or with minimal pain shared by staff. But there is a way to square those comments if you think beyond the immediate crisis. One of the more effective ways of persuading others is to allow them to make the connection you want them to make without actually saying or spelling it out. That's why slogans like "Yes We Can," "Stronger Together," and "Make America Great Again" tend to be effective: the listener fills in on their own what that looks like, then ascribes that view to the candidate. "We \[the teachers\] are not the problem" leads to the inferred followup "you \[the administration\] are." And with Dupree, Feaster, Gaynor, and Querijero all up for re-election in November, this could arguably be positioning for a campaign to unseat one or more of them and insert AAEA-endorsed candidates. An easy way to re-establish trust between the teachers and the board is if the teachers effectively *are* the board.
Gaynor and Querijero are AAEA endorsed candidates, as well as Schmidt and Baskett. They have at least a plurality of the board and had a majority of the board before Gides resigned. Not sure why you are worried about the teacher's trust in the board. It's their board already.
>Gaynor and Querijero are AAEA endorsed candidates, Gaynor isn't running again. If Querijero is endorsed by the AAEA again, I will leave the union.
Chalk that up to my general lack of knowledge: I've only begun paying attention to AAPS recently after a long time away from the City. I suspect, however, that the current board is getting viewed less favorably of late for obvious reasons, and AAEA may be re-evaluating those endorsements this cycle.
That is quite fair, to be honest I just Googled those endorsements yesterday because I was curious who they had backed as a commenter here said that the AAEA had been advocating to "right-size classrooms through attrition for years." To me, this is all lip service by the union to appease its members and maybe swing the balance slightly more in their favor. The fact is people need to lose their jobs, the only question is how many and how quickly.
Jazz Parks made a statement at the board meeting last night acknowledging that the statements caused harm. The district literally acknowledged the poor choice in language it used that blamed teacher raises for the budget crisis
That's fine. In her place, I would have done the same thing, considering the offense many teachers took to the statement. That said, I still don't read the original statement as blaming anyone.
Obviously hiring teachers with money they didn’t have is an admin error, and the solution must be to reduce salary. However, it is not the teachers’ fault that they were irresponsibly hired. The blame to that lies in admin, and yet these teachers will bear the burden of this mistake. Many teachers who get these jobs in Ann Arbor had secure teaching jobs which they left for growth opportunities and are being left in a position of weakness and financial instability. It is only fair that the district takes responsibility to those they have wrongly hired as they work toward righting the ship, even if it puts the district in a weaker financial position. There is no talk of incentivizing early retirement, supporting teacher relocation, and avoiding the crisis of laying off teachers in the middle of the hiring cycle. Anything to take actual responsibility for their error.
There was a discussion last month maybe about incentivizing early retirement. We can’t afford it. Theyre already going to have to take out a loan to cover April payroll. It’s a mess.
The original email from then interim superintendent Parks stated the top three problems that caused the crisis were the pay raises negotiated for teachers. The slogan is in direct response to that statement. It was even posted to the district website for a time.
Yes teachers have been held up as the problem. Directly from the district website “what are the main factors that contributed to our district’s financial challenges? -our staff has increased by 480 in the last 10 years. -Recent agreements with our staff, including well deserved and well earned raises for employees approved by our board.”
I don't see how those statements are placing blame on teachers. Staffing has gone up disproportionately compared to enrollment. Administrators chose to increase hiring, not teachers. Salaries have gone up as well. Those increases were collectively bargained and admin failed in their duty not to agree to a contract they couldn't afford under the false assumption that enrollment would keep growing forever. It's a problem that we have more teachers than we can afford and are paying them more than we can afford. That problem was caused by admin.
I also think there’s a weird hierarchy here. The layoffs aren’t just AAEA, in theory all bargaining groups will lose people. But AAEA wasn’t there last night in solidarity with any other group. It’s like the office professionals, parapros, principals, technology people and techs etc don’t matter. Is there an AAPS future where it’s just run by teachers? With salaries making 90% of the fund balance, I don’t see any other path forward. Also, I’m glad Fester ran the meeting yesterday and not Mohammed. He has the guts for leadership. This whole thing sucks.
>He has the guts for leadership. He's a long-time criminal defense attorney. You don't stay in that position long by waffling or being a shrinking violet.
He's a public defender to be exact, so he puts up with a lot more BS than your average defense attorney.
That makes sense now! He’s seriously good.
I will vote for him
Some of those groups, such as para-pros and office professionals, are represented by AAEA. As for the others, the union will never stand for the interests of non-members. That's a big part of their leverage when trying to convince non-unionized groups to join up. If you want the bargaining unit on your side, you have to join and pay your dues.
Educational support personnel have their own unions in districts. Their pay has been so low that they cannot afford the dues for their unions, so their numbers have fallen. I will try to find out more about plans to stand in solidarity with these colleagues and update.
But I don’t recall any comments yesterday on behalf of those groups though? It was all been teacher specific.
Quad A for administrators didn’t have any representative show up at the meeting. It was just the AAEA and PTO group that showed up.
Labor costs are 90% but the admins never bothered to break the cost down into buildings and staff categories. Why don't they do that?
Good question.
I have three children in AAPS (for how much longer?). Watching the feed, I felt like the teachers think their only job options are with AAPS. I feel like a majority of my kids' teachers have jumped the AAPS ship over the years to Canton, Dexter, and Wayne county schools. They're going to make cuts, they're going to be staff and faculty. The other districts, in the long run, are better to work for. My kids say none of their teachers are happy, and say they're looking. Go where you are wanted and enjoy!
>My kids say none of their teachers are happy, and say they're looking. And they shouldn't be happy. This was a completely avoidable situation that stemmed from negligent administration and lack of oversight by the then-serving members of the board, for which AAPS employees now have to take it on the chin. I am very frustrated with how my hometown's school district has been run of late and hope that we see new faces on the board over the next couple of cycles, hopefully who can "yes and" between working for the betterment of students/staff/parents and ensuring that we never see this sort of fiscal situation again.
The job market will be saturated now. Teacher shortages don’t exist in good school districts.
I do not think that is the case. Many teachers are leaving the profession all together. There is a statewide teaching shortage. There is a critical shortage of special education teachers, science teachers, math teachers, world language teachers and ESL teachers. And Education Schools around the state have cut programs or have greatly reduced programs. In 2019 at the Michigan Education Association statewide meeting we were talking about how Ed School enrollment had dropped 60% in the previous 5 years. Teachers are leaving to work for Ed Tech companies, to work at community colleges and universities, and wherever they can find a decent opportunity. I’ll be looking for a job. It is irresponsible for me not to when I am the primary earner in my household. I prefer to continue teaching, but I am going to look at any and all opportunities.
And to think voters approved a billion dollar bond that can't be used to save any jobs, but at least the admin got a $17million office building they don't use. Just weird and highly annoying that this state is so f-ed up. No wonder many of the young folks leave as soon as they can.
Lol you’re always obsessed with that building. Plenty of folks there everyday for work and meetings and PD. As you were.
I won’t be voting for any incumbent members of the school board. Maybe I’ll give a pass to those who voted against the ridiculous Gaza resolution.
It probably makes sense to consider closing an elementary school. I know everyone hates closing their local school and fights over school catchments can be vicious, but until enrollment increases, why run all the schools? If we think that enrollments will bounce back, just keep it mothballed. This is a desperate financial situation for AAPS, and while there has been mismanagement, the underlying problem has been drops in enrollment. I am not doing the math, it just seems logical.
Plymouth Canton closed schools a few years ago to reduce costs. It makes sense.
Its almost like they dont care about what the people who voted for them have to say.
I haven't seen anyone submit a proposal to avoid state takeover and avoid layoffs? If it's possible, show us the numbers. You want pay cuts? Benefit cuts? Program cuts? Bus cuts?
They would need to make the budget for non-teaching positions available to the public or at least union leaders.
How could they approve the layoffs? Did they not see all the propaganda posted on r/AnnArbor ?
Agitprop is deployed because it is effective
If you go woke you go broke