pre and post employment teacher trainingcrcmich.org/publicat/2010s/2012/rpt380.pdf · • spikes in...

EducEducEducEducEducaaaaation Reftion Reftion Reftion Reftion Reform:orm:orm:orm:orm:Teacher Tenure and CTeacher Tenure and CTeacher Tenure and CTeacher Tenure and CTeacher Tenure and Collecollecollecollecollective Bargainingtive Bargainingtive Bargainingtive Bargainingtive Bargaining


July 2012July 2012July 2012July 2012July 2012

RepRepRepRepRepororororort 380t 380t 380t 380t 380



CCCCCELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRAAAAATINGTINGTINGTINGTING 96 Y 96 Y 96 Y 96 Y 96 YEARSEARSEARSEARSEARS OFOFOFOFOF I I I I INDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENT,,,,, N N N N NONPONPONPONPONPARARARARARTISANTISANTISANTISANTISAN

PPPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC P P P P POLICOLICOLICOLICOLICYYYYY R R R R RESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCH INININININ M M M M MICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Board of DirectorsChair Vice Chair Treasurer

Jeffrey D. Bergeron Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek

John J. GasparovicBorgWarner Inc.

Ingrid A. GreggEarhart Foundation

Marybeth S. HoweWells Fargo Bank

Nick A. KhouriDTE Energy Company

Daniel T. LisKelly Services, Inc.

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Michael P. McGeeMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Aleksandra A. MiziolekDykema Gossett PLLC

Jim MurrayAT&T Michigan

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Michael G. BickersPNC Financial Services Group

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Mark A. DavidoffDeloitte LLP

Terence M. DonnellyDickinson Wright PLLC

Randall W. EbertsW. E. Upjohn Institute

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber FoundationNew Economy Initiative

Laura FournierCompuware

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

Cathy NashCitizens Bank

Paul R. ObermeyerComerica Bank

Brian PetersMichigan Health & Hospital Association

Kevin ProkopRockbridge Growth Equity, LLC

Lynda RossiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Jerry E. RushMeritor, Inc.

Michael A. SemancoHennessey Capital LLC

Terence A. Thomas, Sr.Thomas Group Consulting, Inc.

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Theodore J. VogelCMS Energy Corporation

Advisory DirectorLouis Betanzos

Board of TrusteesChair

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.

Terence E. AdderleyKelly Services, Inc.

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Stephanie W. BergeronWalsh College

David P. BoylePNC

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Mary Sue ColemanUniversity of Michigan

Matthew P. CullenRock Ventures LLC

Tarik DaoudLong Family Service Center

Stephen R. D’ArcyDetroit Medical Center

John M. DunnWestern Michigan University

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber FoundationNew Economy Initiative

David L. EislerFerris State University

David G. FreyFrey Foundation

Mark T. GaffneyEugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

Ralph J. GersonGuardian Industries Corporation

Eric R. GilbertsonSaginaw Valley State University

Allan D. GilmourWayne State University

Alfred R. Glancy IIIUnico Investment Group LLC

Thomas J. HaasGrand Valley State University

James S. HilboldtThe Connable Office, Inc.

Paul C. HillegondsDTE Energy Company

Daniel J. KellyDeloitte. Retired

David B. KennedyEarhart Foundation

Mary KramerCrain Communications, Inc.

Gordon KraterPlante & Moran PLLC

David LeitchFord Motor Company

Edward C. Levy, Jr.Edw. C. Levy Co.

Daniel LittleUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn

Alphonse S. LucarelliErnst & Young LLP, Retired

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Paul W. McCrackenUniversity of Michigan, Emeritus

Patrick M. McQueenMcQueen Financial Advisors

Robert MilewskiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Glenn D. MrozMichigan Technological University

Mark A. MurrayMeijer Inc.

Cathy H. NashCitizens Bank

James M. NicholsonPVS Chemicals

Donald R. ParfetApjohn Group LLC

Sandra E. PierceCharter One

Philip H. PowerThe Center for Michigan

Keith A. PrettyNorthwood University

John Rakolta Jr.Walbridge

Douglas B. RobertsIPPSR- Michigan State University

Milt Rohwer

Irving RoseEdward Rose & Sons

George E. RossCentral Michigan University

Gary D. RussiOakland University

Nancy M. SchlichtingHenry Ford Health System

John M. SchreuderFirst National Bank of Michigan

Lloyd A. SempleUniversity of Detroit Mercy School of LawLou Anna K. SimonMichigan State University

S. Martin TaylorAmanda Van DusenMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Theodore J. VogelCMS Energy Corporation

Gail L. WardenHenry Ford Health System,Emeritus

Jeffrey K. WillemainDeloitte.

Citizens Research Council of Michigan is a tax deductible 501(c)(3) organization

C I T I Z E N S R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L O F M I C H I G A N

M A I N O F F I C E 38777 Six Mile Road, Suite 208 • Livonia, MI 48152-3974 • 734-542-8001 • Fax 734-542-8004L A N S I N G O F F I C E 124 West Allegan, Suite 620 • Lansing, MI 48933-1738 • 517-485-9444 • Fax 517-485-0423

CRCMICH.ORG

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Council ouncil ouncil ouncil ouncil of Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan




CRC’s education project is funded in part by grants from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation,the Frey Foundation, the PNC Foundation, Meritor, the Richard C. and Barbara C. VanDusen Family Fund, and a consortium of education groups including the Tri-CountyAlliance for Public Education, Michigan Association of School Boards, Metropolitan DetroitBureau of School Studies, Inc., Michigan Association of School Administrators, MichiganSchool Business Officials, Middle Cities Education Association, Michigan Association ofIntermediate School Administrators, Michigan PTSA, Michigan Association of SecondarySchool Principals, and the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association.

C I T I Z E N S R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L O F M I C H I G A N

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

M a i n O f f i c e

38777 West Six Mile RoadSuite 208Livonia, MI 48152-3974734-542-8001Fax 734-542-8004

L ansing O ffice

124 West AlleganSuite 620Lansing, MI 48933-1738517-485-9444Fax 517-485-0423

crcmich.org

PPPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC K K K K K-12 E-12 E-12 E-12 E-12 EDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION INININININ M M M M MICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN

In 2010, Michigan residents found public primary and secondary education facingnumerous challenges:

• State revenues are falling;

• Local revenue growth is stagnating;

• K-12 education service providers are facing escalating cost pressures, withannual growth rates outpacing the projected growth in available resources;

• Spikes in the level of federal education funding resulting from the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will produce a budgetary “cliff”when the additional dollars expire; and

• School district organization and service provision structures are being reviewedwith the goals of reducing costs and increasing efficiencies.

Because of the critical importance of education to the state, its economy, and its budget,the Citizens Research Council of Michigan (CRC) began a long-term project researchingeducation in Michigan with an emphasis on the current governance, funding, and serviceprovision structures and their sustainability.

Public education has been governed largely the same way since its inception in the1800s. It is important to review the current organization of school districts and structureof education governance, as well as to review new and different ways to organize andgovern public education, to determine if Michigan’s governance structure meets today’sneeds. The school finance system has been revamped on a more regular basis throughouthistory. Changes have been made to address a host of concerns, including per-pupilrevenue disparities, revenue-raising limitations of state and local tax systems, as wellas taxpayer discontent with high property taxes. Michigan’s current finance systemwas last overhauled in 1994 with the passage of Proposal A, providing sufficientexperience to reconsider the goals of the finance reforms and determine whether thesystem has performed as originally contemplated.

In addition to analyzing education governance and revenues, it is important to reviewcost pressures facing districts and how education services are provided in Michigan.School budgets are dominated by personnel costs, the level of which are largely dictatedby decisions made at the local level. Local school operating revenues are fixed bydecisions and actions at the state and federal levels, but local school officials are taskedwith making spending decisions and matching projected spending levels with availableresources. However, those local decisions are often impacted by state laws (e.g., statelaw requires districts to engage in collective bargaining, to participate in the state-runretirement system, and to serve special education students through the age of 25).The freefall of the Michigan economy since the 2001 recession has impacted all aspectsof the state budget, including K-12 education, and requires state and local officials toreview how things are done in an attempt to increase revenues and/or reduce costs.

Jeffrey D. Bergeron, Chair Ernst & Young LLPTerence M. Donnelly, Vice Chair Dickinson Wright PLLCAleksandra A. Miziolek, Treasurer Dykema Gossett PLLCMichael G. Bickers PNC Financial Services GroupBeth Chappell Detroit Economic ClubMark A. Davidoff Deloitte LLPRandall W. Eberts W. E. Upjohn InstituteDavid O. Egner Hudson-Webber Foundation New Economy InitiativeLaura Fournier Compuware CorporationEugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Manoogian FoundationJohn J. Gasparovic BorgWarner Inc.Ingrid A. Gregg Earhart FoundationMarybeth S. Howe Wells Fargo BankNick A. Khouri DTE EnergyDaniel T. Lis Kelly Services, Inc.Sarah L. McClelland JPMorgan Chase & Co.Michael P. McGee Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLCJim Murray AT&T MichiganCathy Nash Citizens BankPaul R. Obermeyer Comerica BankKevin Prokop Rockbridge Growth Equity, LLCLynda Rossi Blue Cross Blue Shield of MichiganJerry E. Rush Meritor, Inc.Michael A. Semanco Hennessey Capital LLCTerence A. Thomas, Sr. Thomas Group Consulting, Inc.Kent J. Vana VarnumTheodore J. Vogel CMS Energy CorporationJeffrey P. Guilfoyle, President

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nii

Citizens Research Council Education Project

In 2009, CRC was approached by a consortium of education interests and asked to take a comprehensive lookat education in Michigan. CRC agreed to do this because of the importance of education to the prosperity ofthe state, historically and prospectively, and also because of the share of the state budget that educationdemands. Education is critical to the state and its citizens for many reasons: 1) A successful democracy relieson an educated citizenry. 2) Reeducating workers and preparing students for the global economy are bothcrucial to transforming Michigan’s economy. 3) Education is vital to state and local budgets. 4) Public educationrepresents a government program that many residents directly benefit from, not to mention the indirectbenefits associated with living and working with educated people. As with all CRC research, findings andrecommendations will flow from objective facts and analyses and will be made publicly available. Funding forthis research effort is being provided by the education consortium and some Michigan foundations. CRC is stillsoliciting funds for this project from the business and foundation communities.

The goal of this comprehensive review of education is to provide the necessary data and expertise to informthe education debate in Lansing and around the state. This is a long-term project that will take much of thefocus of CRC in 2010 and into 2011. While an overall project completion date is unknown, CRC plans toapproach the project in stages and release reports as they are completed. Topic areas CRC plans to studyinclude education governance, K-12 revenues and school finance, school district spending analyses, publicschool academies (PSAs) and non-traditional schools, school district service provision and reorganization, andanalyses of changes to Michigan’s educational system.

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n iii

EEEEEDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION R R R R REFEFEFEFEFORMORMORMORMORM:::::TTTTTEACHEREACHEREACHEREACHEREACHER T T T T TENUREENUREENUREENUREENURE ANDANDANDANDAND C C C C COLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECTIVETIVETIVETIVETIVE BARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAINING

Contents

Key Findings ................................................................................................................ vIntroduction ................................................................................................................ 1Teacher Tenure ........................................................................................................... 3

History ......................................................................................................................... 3Precautionary Period ................................................................................................ 4

Continuing Tenure ........................................................................................................ 5Performance Evaluation ........................................................................................... 5Leave of Absence .................................................................................................... 5Layoff and Recall ..................................................................................................... 7Demotion or Dismissal of a Tenured Teacher ............................................................. 7Appeal to the Tenure Commission ............................................................................. 8Salary during Proceedings ........................................................................................ 9

Collective Bargaining, Teacher Unions, and Negotiated Rights and Benefits .......... 10Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act .................................................................. 10Teacher Unions ........................................................................................................... 12

National Scene ...................................................................................................... 12The Michigan Scene............................................................................................... 13

Teacher Compensation: Salaries................................................................................... 13The National Context ............................................................................................. 14Teacher Salaries in Michigan................................................................................... 16Comparison with Private Sector Pay ........................................................................ 18

Teacher Compensation: Benefits .................................................................................. 20Retirement Benefits ............................................................................................... 22Health and Other Insurances for Active Employees .................................................. 24

Assignment ................................................................................................................ 27Layoffs ....................................................................................................................... 27Class Size ................................................................................................................... 29Impact of Collective Bargaining on Student Achievement ............................................... 29Challenges to Collective Bargaining .............................................................................. 29

PA 204 of 2009 ..................................................................................................... 30PA 4 of 2011 ......................................................................................................... 31The Education Achievement System........................................................................ 31Challenges to Collective Bargaining in Other States .................................................. 33

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 35Postscript .................................................................................................................. 36

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a niv

EEEEEDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION R R R R REFEFEFEFEFORMORMORMORMORM:::::TTTTTEACHEREACHEREACHEREACHEREACHER T T T T TENUREENUREENUREENUREENURE ANDANDANDANDAND C C C C COLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECTIVETIVETIVETIVETIVE BARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAININGBARGAINING

Tables

Table 1 States Spending the Largest Amounts on Salaries and Wagesfor Instruction Staff by Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09...... 14

Table 2 Value of College Majors, 2009 ............................................................................ 15

Table 3 Michigan Public Schools, 2010-11 ....................................................................... 16

Table 4 Highest Average Teacher Salaries, 2010-11 ......................................................... 17

Table 5 Employer Costs per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation March 2011 ........... 19

Table 6 States with the Highest Spending on Employee Benefits for Instruction Staffby Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09 ................................... 20

Table 7 Spending on Employee Benefits as a Proportion of Salaries and Wages,Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems, 2008-09 ................................. 21

Table 8 Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System: Pension Plan ................... 23

Table 9 Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System: OPEB .............................. 23

Table 10 Average Costs for Employer-Based Health Insurance, Michigan, 2010 ................... 26

Table 11 Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools in ISDs ..................................................... 30

Table 12 State Spending on Salaries and Wages for Instruction Staff by PublicElementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09 ................................................. 37

Table 13 Per Pupil Amounts of State Spending on Salaries and Wagesfor Instruction Staff by Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09...... 38

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n v

EEEEEDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION R R R R REFEFEFEFEFORMORMORMORMORM:::::TTTTTEACHEREACHEREACHEREACHEREACHER T T T T TENUREENUREENUREENUREENURE ANDANDANDANDAND C C C C COLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECTIVETIVETIVETIVETIVE B B B B BARGAININGARGAININGARGAININGARGAININGARGAINING

Key Findings

• Teachers’ unions have historically been veryeffective in obtaining state legislation that establishtenure and bargaining rights, and in using thosestatutes to protect members’ financial and otherinterests. More recently, the loss of jobs and paycuts in the private sector have resulted in greaterscrutiny of public sector job protections andcompensation. Legislative changes in 2011 havestrengthened school district management andweakened seniority protections. Public schoolmanagement rights and responsibilities are beingreinforced and school administrators are beingbetter equipped to improve overall teacher quality.Struggling teachers will be identified and it will beless difficult to fire poorly performing teachers.

• In 2009-10, the average Michigan public schoolteacher’s salary was $63,024. Education is a keyfactor determining salary levels: teachers, whomust have at least a Bachelor’s Degree, arerewarded for earning advanced degrees. Inaddition to spending over $6 billion annually onteachers’ salaries, Michigan spends proportionatelymore on teachers’ benefits than the nationalaverage (43.3 percent of salaries in Michigancompared to the national average of 33.5 percent,due in part to the costs associated with theMichigan Public School Employees RetirementSystem). Though on average teachers’ salarieslag those of other college trained professionals,reducing the amount spent on instructional salaries(the largest expenditure category in education) andbenefits would be one way to maintain or expandK-12 programs without a commensurate increasein costs.

• Recent changes in state law have dramaticallyshifted power away from teachers’ unions.Teachers retain the right to bargain collectively,but the number of employer rights that are exemptfrom bargaining has been expanded; teacherassignment will no longer be subject to collectivebargaining. Teachers will have less job securitydue to changes in rules affecting seniority andtenure. Associated risks include age discriminationand favoritism.

Supporters explain the new statutes and variousbills as efforts to help school districts improve thequality of teaching and reduce costs. Opponentsdefine the new rules as efforts to weaken collectivebargaining, teachers’ unions, and traditional publicschools.

• Teacher performance evaluations will affect tenure,pay, and layoff decisions. Effective teachers willobtain tenure faster and will not be laid off in favorof an ineffective teacher. The challenge in havingteacher performance evaluations drive tenure andpay decisions is ensuring that these evaluationscan fairly and properly account for issues of studentpreparation, class size, infrastructure, and otherchallenges to educating students that may differacross classrooms. As of November 30, 2011, morethan 40 percent of the public and charter schooldistricts in the state had asked for an exemptionfrom the state uniform teacher evaluation systemthat is supposed to be in place by 2013, suggestinga lack of confidence among districts in theeffectiveness of the new evaluation system.

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nvi

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n 1

Part of a Series on Public Education in Michigan

This report is part of a series on public education in Michigan. Other reports include the primer in the series releasedin January 2010, Public Education Governance in Michigan, which describes the complex governance structure andfunctions carried out by all three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Since January 2010, CRC hasreleased the following reports: Nontraditional K-12 Schools in Michigan, which explores the role of charter, parochi-al, and other means of educating children outside of the public school system; Early Childhood Education, whichdiscusses the value of investing in preschool and kindergarten programs; Child Care and the State, which describeschild care options and average costs and reports what is known about the effects of various child care arrangementson children’s development; and Reform of K-12 School District Governance and Management in Michigan, whichanalyzes different models for governing education systems. State and Local Revenues for Public Education inMichigan discussed the sources of revenue to fund education, and Distribution of State Aid to Michigan Schoolsdiscussed the methodologies for distributing those revenues to individual school districts.

EEEEEDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION R R R R REFEFEFEFEFORMORMORMORMORM:::::TTTTTEACHEREACHEREACHEREACHEREACHER T T T T TENUREENUREENUREENUREENURE ANDANDANDANDAND C C C C COLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECOLLECTIVETIVETIVETIVETIVE B B B B BARGAININGARGAININGARGAININGARGAININGARGAINING

Introduction

ers’ salaries and benefits is the third installment underthe general heading of “Education Reform: Teachers.”The first installment described various aspects of pre-and post-employment teacher training; the secondinstallment described teacher performance manage-ment systems. This focus on teachers reflects boththeir importance in the education system and the 2011changes to state statutes that affect teachers. Educa-tion Reform: Teachers is part of a larger series on ed-ucation that includes descriptions of education gover-nance, funding, non-traditional schools, early childhoodeducation, and related issues.

Just four months after taking office, Governor Snyderissued a special message on education reform thatcontained his agenda for changing statutes and prac-tices that directly affect public school teachers, and atsix months into his first term, he had signed a seriesof bills into law that implement a number of his rec-ommendations. This report is designed to help ex-plain both the traditional and the more recently adoptedpublic policies that affect teachers’ rights in our tax-supported schools.

This report on public policy related to teacher tenure,teachers’ unions and collective bargaining, and teach-

Economic restructuring and net tax cuts have reducedtax revenues available to the State of Michigan, whichis the primary funder of public schools. At the sametime that efforts to improve education have recognizedthe importance of teachers, funding for public K-12education has been reduced, criticism of the teachingprofession has increased, and new legislation has beenadopted that will restrict teacher collective bargainingrights and make firing tenured teachers easier.

Fiscal pressures and policy changes affect all of theapproximately 105,000 Michigan public school teach-ers, but these pressures are not unique to Michigan.There are 3.2 million public school teachers educating49.4 million children in U.S. prekindergaten throughhigh school classes.1 Governing Magazine estimates

that across the nation, over a quarter million educa-tors may be laid off this year.2 Nor is Michigan uniquein addressing collective bargaining rights and tenure:across the nation, changes have been adopted thatreduce teacher compensation, restrict collective bar-gaining, tie teacher evaluations to student perfor-mance, and link evaluation results to tenure, pay, andpromotions. Laws passed in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ida-ho, Tennessee and other states have eliminated orreduced collective bargaining rights for teachers andother public employees. Florida eliminated tenure andinstituted merit pay for teachers.3 New evaluationsystems and performance requirements are being im-posed and protections offered by seniority and tenureare being challenged in many states.

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n2

27, 2011, changing state retirement system and stateHealth Benefits Programs operations, employee con-

tributions and benefits.6 Not all ofthese changes have been acceptedby the electorate: restrictions oncollective bargaining championed byGovernor John Kasich and adoptedby the Ohio legislature were reject-ed by voters in a referendum on No-vember 8, 2011.

The first state to incorpo-rate teacher tenure in lawwas New Jersey in 1909.Ironically, New Jersey Gov-ernor Chris Christie is par-ticularly identified with stateefforts to reduce the wag-es and benefits of 500,000public sector workers, es-pecially teachers.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is particularly iden-tified with state efforts to reduce the wages and ben-efits of 500,000 public sector work-ers, especially teachers.4 New Jerseyalso achieved state employee healthbenefit changes through legislationrather than through collective bar-gaining.5 Governor Christie signedChapter 78, P.L. 2011, effective June

EDUCATION REFORM: TEACHER TENURE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING


In addition to defining certification and continuing train-ing and education requirements, Michigan state law(not local union contracts) also defines teacher ten-ure. A series of statutes adopted in 2011 substantive-ly changed the tenure rules to strengthen manage-ment authority, reduce teacher protections, and reducethe time and costs associated with teacher dismissal.These new laws also strengthened rules on teacherperformance evaluations and changed the rules oncompensation, placement, and layoff of teachers.

History

Teacher tenure laws, which were originally passed toprotect teachers from being fired because of race,gender, political views, or cronyism, provide teachersthreatened with dismissal with the right to defendthemselves.7 Ironically, the first state to incorporateteacher tenure in law was New Jersey in 1909. Mich-igan’s original 1937 tenure law required local schoolboards to vote to be covered by the law; in the 1960s,the law was changed to provide tenure for all teachersafter a probationary period.

According to supporters of tenure, strong teacher ten-ure laws ensure fair employment practices and dueprocess, giving teachers who have been teaching formore than the probationary period the right to con-

test their firing (teachers in some states are not pro-tected by tenure laws: teachers Mississippi are yearlycontract employees; Idaho is phasing out tenure fornew teachers). Tenured teachers have the right tolegal representation, to testify before a hearing, andto present witnesses in their defense. Because of ten-ure, the process involved in firing a teacher may takeyears.8

The purpose of tenure is to provide a measureof job security for teachers, protection againstarbitrary employment practices and political orpersonal patronage, and protection for academ-ic freedom, fostering a classroom environmentconducive to learning and open inquiry.9

According to critics, strong tenure laws protect inef-fective teachers by requiring such a long, expensiveprocess that many districts won’t even attempt to fireteachers for less than egregious, easily proven infrac-tions (and, critics claim, even then the Tenure Com-mission could put the teacher back in the classroom).Critics note that teachers generally are paid duringthe suspension that accompanies the appeal process,and that the process may take more than a year andcost hundreds of thousands of dollars. An unintendedconsequence of strong tenure laws has been that prin-cipals would encourage an unsatisfactory teacher totransfer to another school rather than undertake a long,

Teacher Tenure

Academic Tenure

Academic tenure is a professor’s or teacher’s contractual right not to be removed from his or her position withoutjust cause. This job security is intended to protect academic freedom and free speech and to protect educatorsfrom external pressures.

In colleges and universities, the “tenure track” leads those who meet requirements, including teaching ability,departmental service, published research (source of the “publish or perish” threat), and attracting grant funding,to a position with tenure (professor); the decision is usually made by a committee of faculty. In colleges anduniversities, acquiring tenure can require up to ten years, though many institutions limit the time an individualcan spend in a tenure track position. Many college and university teaching and research positions (lecturer,adjunct professor, and research professor) do not lead to tenured positions.

Some judges have lifetime tenure: they are appointed for life and can only be removed by impeachment orconviction by the legislature.

Civil service rules provide a form of tenure to covered public employees after successful completion of a proba-tionary period. Tenure does not protect against the elimination of a position due to lack of funds, but doesprotect covered individuals against firing for political, partisan, or personal reasons.

CRC Report


expensive, and possibly unsuccessful effort to removethat employee. Critics profess to value job perfor-mance over seniority, and question why teachers shouldhave extraordinary job protections that are not avail-able to other workers (although other public sectorworkers may have civil service protections).

Stories about New York City’s “rubber rooms,” wherehundreds of New York City’s tenured teachers who hadbeen charged with wrongdoing or incompetence col-lected full salaries and waited, sometimes for years,for their cases to be resolved, inflamed public opinion(in 2010, rubber rooms were eliminated and accusedteachers were assigned to administrative work or non-classroom duties while their cases were pending). Sim-ilarly, reports of NYC’s reserve teacher pools, whereteachers who have lost their jobs because of budgetcuts or closed schools, but who have not been chargedwith incompetence or wrongdoing, draw full salariesin spite of not having permanent classroom jobs, drewattention to inefficiencies related to tenure. Thesestories exacerbated the resentment of taxpayers whohad no such job protection, and whose jobs, salaries,and benefits were threatened or lost.

In 2011, a number of bills were introduced in the Mich-igan legislature to reform various aspects of publiceducation, and 12 of the bills introduced in the firsthalf of 2011 would modify (including eliminate) thestate’s teacher tenure law. A spokesperson for theMichigan Education Association (MEA) indicated thatwhile the union would seek to ensure that teacherscannot be fired without due process, the MEA had nointerest in keeping bad teachers in the classroom andwas willing to discuss changes in the current TeacherTenure Law.10 The Michigan branch of the AmericanFederation of Teachers (AFT Michigan) recommendeda change that would reduce the time required to com-plete the discharge process.11 But in a June 29, 2011column in The Detroit News, Iris Salters, then presi-dent of the Michigan Education Association, wroteabout the proposed bills: “ …this legislation is anotherspiteful attack on teachers and other school employ-ees, on their due process rights and on collective bar-gaining in general. In an attempt to scapegoat teach-ers as the cause of all the problems in education, somelegislators have created a hodge-podge of bad lawsthat throw out meaningful tenure reform and muddythe water with issues of seniority, evaluations and col-lective bargaining.” Ms. Salters supported another bill

“that shifts tenure decisions from the current lengthyand costly system to an efficient, locally-driven arbi-tration process.”12

On June 30, 2011, four tie-barred bills related to teach-er tenure were approved by the legislature. These billsbecame public acts 100,101,102, and 103 of 2011.

Probationary Period

Research has found that teachers’ effectiveness im-proves during the first two to five years, as new teach-ers gain practical experience. In general, researchhas found that little improvement occurs after thatinitial period. Most states’ tenure laws allow teachersto earn tenure after two or three years on probation.

In Michigan, a new probationary teacher must be pro-vided with an individualized development plan creat-ed by appropriate administrators in consultation withthe probationary teacher. A first year probationaryteacher must receive a mid-year progress report; allprobationary teachers also must receive at least anannual year-end performance evaluation. Performanceevaluations must include ratings of highly effective,effective, minimally effective, or ineffective (perfor-mance evaluations were described in a previous re-port, Teacher Performance Management Systems) andbe based in part on classroom observations that in-clude an assessment of whether the probationaryteacher is meeting the goals of the individualized de-velopment plan. The school board is responsible fordetermining the number and format of observationsfor both probationary and tenured teachers in consul-tation with teachers and school administrators.

The school district is required to provide the proba-tionary teacher with a written statement as to wheth-er his or her work has been effective before the end ofeach school year.

A probationary teacher may be dismissed from em-ployment by the school board at any time. But a pro-bationary teacher is automatically employed by thedistrict the next year unless he or she is notified bythe district at least 15 days before the end of the schoolyear that his or her services will be discontinued (pre-viously, a probationary teacher had to be notified atleast 60 days before the end of a school year that hisor her services would be discontinued).



The 2011 changes to Michigan’s tenure law extendthe probationary period for Michigan teachers fromfour to up to five years and require a probationaryteacher to have been rated as “effective” or “highlyeffective” in the final three years of the extended five-year period in order to successfully complete the pro-bationary period. However, a teacher who receivesthree consecutive ratings of “highly effective” and whohas been employed for at least fouryears is also considered to have com-pleted the probationary period, sothe highest rated teachers can begranted tenure in the same periodas was previously the case. Further-more, under the new law, a proba-tionary teacher who is rated “effec-tive” or “highly effective” on his orher most recent year-end evaluationcannot be displaced by a tenuredteacher solely because that teacherhas tenure.

If local school administrators imple-ment rigorous evaluation and devel-opment tools for new teachers, thestatutory changes applicable to pro-bationary teachers should result inmore effective teaching over the longrun. In the short run, funding con-straints make it more probable thatrules applicable to layoffs will bemore important than rules that apply to new hires.

Continuing Tenure

After successfully completing the probationary period,a teacher is on continuing tenure, and once a teacherhas achieved tenure, he or she can only be dismissedor demoted in accordance with state law.

Performance Evaluation

Prior to adoption of the 2011 changes, a tenured teach-er was required to receive a performance evaluationat least once every three years. If that evaluation wasless than satisfactory, the school district was requiredto provide the teacher with an individualized develop-ment plan developed by the appropriate administra-tive personnel in consultation with the teacher. Theperformance evaluation was to be based on at least

two classroom observations, and if the teacher had anindividualized development plan, the evaluation hadto include an assessment of the teacher’s progress inmeeting the goals of the plan. A collective bargainingagreement could require more observations or evalu-ations, and the state law did not require any particularmethod for conducting an observation or evaluationor for providing an individualized development plan.

According to the law, failure to pro-vide an evaluation was conclusiveevidence that the teacher’s perfor-mance was satisfactory.

State law now requires that localschool boards, with the involvementof teachers and school administra-tors, must have adopted and im-plemented a local, rigorous, fair, andtransparent performance evaluationsystem by September 1, 2011, un-less that school was already usinga performance evaluation systemthat met state requirements.

Under the 2011 law, teachers oncontinuing tenure must receive anannual year-end performance eval-uation, and if a teacher receives arating of ineffective or minimallyeffective, he or she must be pro-vided with an individualized devel-

opment plan that requires the teacher to make progresstoward individual development goals within a speci-fied time not to exceed 180 days. The annual perfor-mance evaluation must be based on multiple class-room observations during the period covered by theevaluation (the number and format of evaluations isto be determined by the school board in consultationwith teachers and school administrators) and an as-sessment of progress in meeting the goals of any indi-vidualized development plan.

The performance evaluation system must establishclear approaches to measuring student growth andprovide teachers with relevant data on student growthand must provide timely and constructive feedback onperformance to teachers. Student growth is to bemeasured by national, state, or local assessments andother objective criteria.

If local school administra-tors implement rigorousevaluation and develop-ment tools for new teach-ers, the statutory changesapplicable to probationaryteachers should result inmore effective teachingover the long run. In theshort run, funding con-straints make it more prob-able that rules applicable tolayoffs will be more impor-tant than rules that applyto new hires.

CRC Report


Teachers are to be rated as highly effective, effec-tive, minimally effective, or ineffective. These evalu-ations are to inform decisions about teacher’s effec-t iveness and ensure that they have ampleopportunities for improvement; promotion, retention,and development including relevant coaching, instruc-tion support, and professional development; grant-ing tenure or full certification; and removing tenuredand probationary teachers after they have had am-ple opportunities to improve.

For the 2013-14 school year, at least 25 percent of theyear-end evaluation must be basedon student growth and assessmentdata; for 2014-15, at least 40 per-cent must be based on studentgrowth and assessment data; andfor 2015-16, at least 50 percent mustbe based on student growth and as-sessment data. The student growthand assessment data are to be mea-sured by an evaluation tool that willbe developed by the state after re-viewing the recommendations of theMichigan Council for Educator Effec-tiveness,13 which was created by the2011 legislation.

By the November 30, 2011 deadline,344 public and charter school dis-tricts (more than 40 percent of allthe public school and charter districtsin the state) had asked the Gover-nor’s Council on Education Effective-ness for exemptions from adoptingthe state uniform teacher evaluationsystem by 2013.14

The performance evaluation systemadopted by school districts must in-clude classroom observations. Class-room observations must include a review of the teach-er’s lesson plan and the state curriculum standard beingused in the lesson plan and a review of student en-gagement in the lesson. Multiple classroom observa-tions are required for any teacher who has not re-ceived a rating of effective or highly effective on his orher two most recent year-end evaluations. The plannedstate evaluation tool will prescribe how classroom ob-servations are to be conducted, and school districtsmay either adopt this tool or use a local evaluationtool that is consistent with the state tool.

The year-end evaluation must include specific perfor-mance goals and any recommended training for thatteacher for the next year. The goals and training mustbe developed by the school administrator or his or herdesignee in consultation with the teacher. A teacherwho is rated as highly effective on three consecutiveyear-end evaluations may be evaluated biennially in-stead of annually, as long as he or she continues to berated highly effective.

If the rating on a teacher’s year-end evaluation is “in-effective” or “minimally effective,” the district must

provide the teacher with an individ-ualized development plan that re-quires the teacher to make progresstoward individual developmentgoals within a specified time periodof less than 180 days. In that case,the performance evaluation mustalso include an assessment ofwhether the teacher is meeting thegoals in the plan. Teachers who re-ceive a rating of minimally effectiveor ineffective in their most recentyear-end evaluation (as well as firstyear probationary teachers) mustreceive a midyear progress report.The midyear progress report is de-signed to help the teacher improve.It must be based at least in part onstudent achievement, it must bealigned with the teacher’s individu-alized development plan, and itmust include specific performancegoals and recommended training forthe rest of the school year. Districtsare encouraged to assign a mentoror coach to teachers who receiveratings of minimally effective or in-effective.

Districts may dismiss an ineffective teacher regardlessof whether he or she has been rated ineffective onthree consecutive evaluations, but a teacher who israted ineffective on three consecutive year-end evalu-ations must be dismissed from employment. Teach-ers may request a review by the district superinten-dent (the chief administrative officer of a public schoolacademy) of a rating of ineffective, but not more thantwice in a three-year period.

Teachers are to be rated ashighly effective, effective,minimally effective, or inef-fective. These evaluationsare to inform decisionsabout teacher’s effective-ness and ensure that theyhave ample opportunitiesfor improvement; promo-tion, retention, and devel-opment including relevantcoaching, instruction sup-port, and professional de-velopment; granting tenureor full certification; and re-moving tenured and proba-tionary teachers after theyhave had ample opportuni-ties to improve.



Leave of Absence

A school board may grant a tenured teacher’s requestfor a leave of absence for up to one year, subject torenewal at the will of the board.

School boards are authorized to place a teacher onleave of absence even if the teacher has not request-ed leave. A board may grant a leave of absence be-cause of physical or mental disability, without receiv-ing a request from the teacher, for a leave of absencefor up to one year, subject to re-newal at the will of the board. Ateacher placed on unrequested leavehas the right to a hearing, and theboard may require a teacher whohas been placed on an unrequestedleave and desires reinstatement tofurnish verification of his or her abil-ity to perform the job.

Layoff and Recall

Districts are required to adopt andimplement a policy that ensures thatin a staffing reduction or recall, anyteacher rated ineffective is not re-tained over a teacher who receivesa higher rating. School districts areprohibited from adopting or imple-menting a policy that uses seniorityor tenure as the primary or deter-mining factor in layoffs and recalls(though seniority or tenure may bea tiebreaker if all other factors areequal). Rather, layoff and recall pol-icies must be based on retainingeffective teachers. This is a majorbreak from past practice, when ten-ure and seniority were controlling factors in layoffsand recall.

Individual performance must be the majority factor inlayoff and recall decisions. A teacher’s individual per-formance must be judged on evidence of studentgrowth, demonstrated pedagogical skill, classroommanagement, attendance and disciplinary record.Other factors include relevant accomplishments andcontributions to the overall performance of the school,and relevant special training. A teacher who is ratedineffective may not be retained over a higher ratedteacher.

If a current collective bargaining agreement preventscompliance with this new layoff and recall practice,then the practice will be implemented after the collec-tive bargaining agreement expires.

In 2011, Florida, Nevada, and Utah also ended theuse of seniority as the basis of layoffs.15

In March, 2012, the Southfield Education Associationfiled a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit assert-ing that the state law disallowing the use of seniority

in layoff decisions is unconstitution-al. The suit is based on the conceptthat tenure is a property right.16

Demotion or Dismissal of aTenured Teacher

Under the previous provisions a ten-ured teacher in Michigan could bedismissed only for “reasonable andjust cause.” While a few states havesimilarly vague and broad reasonsfor dismissal (“just cause” in Iowa;“good cause” in Montana; “good andjust cause” in Ohio and Rhode Is-land), most other states’ reasons fortermination are more specific, andinclude incompetence, instructionalineffectiveness, unsatisfactoryteaching performance, insubordina-tion, neglect of duty, unprofession-al conduct or conduct unbecominga teacher, inadequacy of classroomperformance, unsatisfactory perfor-mance, physical or mental disabili-ty, inefficiency, incapacity, excessiveor unreasonable absence from per-

formance of duties, failure to show normal improve-ment and evidence of professional training and growth,dishonesty, habitual or excessive use of alcohol or non-medical use of a controlled substance, providing falseinformation or knowingly omitting a material fact onan application for employment or in response to a pre-employment inquiry.17

The Michigan Federation of Teachers explained to itsmembers that “It is for the school board to prove on abalance of probabilities both that misconduct occurredand that the misconduct was just cause for the penal-ty imposed. Just cause includes incompetence, insub-ordination, unprofessional conduct, absenteeism,

Individual performancemust be the majority factorin layoff and recall decisions.A teacher’s individual perfor-mance must be judged onevidence of student growth,demonstrated pedagogicalskill, classroom manage-ment, attendance and dis-ciplinary record. Other fac-tors include relevantaccomplishments and con-tributions to the overall per-formance of the school, andrelevant special training. Ateacher who is rated ineffec-tive may not be retainedover a higher rated teacher.

CRC Report


crimes against the employer, intoxication and disrup-tive conduct. When incompetence is alleged, the Ten-ure Commission will consider factors such as the ex-istence of clear professional standards, whether thestandards were applied without discrimination, thenumber and quality of evaluations, the skill of the eval-uator, whether specific suggestions and recommen-dations for improvement were made, whether theteacher was afforded the time and assistance to im-prove performance, and negativeadverse effect on the students.”18

Under the new law, a teacher oncontinuing tenure may be dismissedonly for a reason that is not arbi-trary or capricious. Furthermore, atenured teacher who is rated inef-fective on three consecutive annualevaluations must be dismissed.

Demotion is defined as suspensionwithout pay for 15 or more consec-utive days, reduction of compensa-tion for a particular school year bymore than 30 days compensation,or transfer to a position with a low-er salary. Demotion does not include cessation or re-duction of performance based compensation, reduc-tion in work week or work days, or reduction inpersonnel. Demotion may only be for a reason that isnot arbitrary or capricious.

Michigan state law is very specific as to the procedurethat must be followed by a school district seeking todemote or discharge a tenured teacher: charges mustbe made in writing and specify a proposed outcome;the local school board must consider the charges andvote to proceed on the charges. Once charges havebeen filed, a teacher may be suspended with pay untilthe issue is resolved (either because the teacher doesnot contest the charges; because a preliminary order

is issued by the administrative law judge; or if thepreliminary order is to reinstate the teacher, the finalorder is issued by the Tenure Commission). If theteacher does not contest the board’s decision to dis-miss or demote in the time and manner specified inthe law, the board’s decision takes effect.

Appeal to the Tenure Commission

The teacher may appeal the schoolboard’s decision to the state TenureCommission. (The Tenure Commis-sion consists of five members ap-pointed by the governor to stag-gered five-year terms. Twomembers must be classroom teach-ers, one must be a member of a lo-cal school district, one must be asuperintendent of schools, and onemust be neither a member of a lo-cal school board nor a teacher.) Forfiscal year 2008-09, the state Officeof Administrative Hearings and Rulesin the Department of Education re-ported receiving 57 new teacher ten-ure cases, closing 56 cases, and hav-

ing 25 cases remaining as of September 30. In2009-10, there were 45 cases received, 53 casesclosed, and 17 cases pending as of September 30.19

If the teacher does appeal within 20 days of the schoolboard’s decision, the Tenure Commission assigns thecase to an administrative law judge (an attorney em-ployed by the state Department of Education). Eachparty makes its case at the hearing conducted by theadministrative law judge; both the teacher and thelocal board may be represented by legal counsel. Afull record of the proceedings is required. Witnessesand documentary evidence may be subpoenaed at therequest of the teacher or local board. The hearing

Under the new law, a teach-er on continuing tenuremay be dismissed only fora reason that is not arbi-trary or capricious. Further-more, a tenured teacherwho is rated ineffective onthree consecutive annualevaluations must be dis-missed.



may be either public or private, at the option of theteacher. The administrative law judge may grant, deny,or modify the charges; either party may file excep-tions and the other party may file cross-exceptions; ifexceptions are filed, the Tenure Commission will makea determination on those exceptions; the aggrievedparty may appeal to the court of appeals.

The time period is shortened under the new law: thehearing must be scheduled not more than 45 days(reduced from a maximum of 60 days) after service ofthe school board’s answer (the Tenure Commissioncan grant a delay for good cause), and the hearingmust conclude not more than 75 days (down from 90days) after the teacher’s claim of appeal is filed. Theadministrative law judge must make the necessaryorders to ensure the case is submitted for decisionwithin 50 days after the end of the hearing, and he orshe must serve the preliminary decision within 60 daysafter submission of the case for decision. The prelim-inary decision may grant, deny, or modify the dischargeor demotion that was the subject of the charges.

Not more than 20 days are allowed for an aggrievedparty to appeal the administrative law judge’s decisionto the Tenure Commission (to file a statement of ex-ceptions); 10 days are allowed for the other party’sresponse. If exceptions are filed, the Tenure Commis-sion must review the case, and may adopt, modify, orreverse the preliminary decision and order. The Ten-ure Commission has 60 days to issue its final decision.Then, the aggrieved party has 20 days to file an ap-peal with the court of appeals.

An analysis of Tenure Commission cases from 2006through 2010 found that decisions favored the schooldistrict in 37 of the 57 cases, or 65 percent of thetime. In cases where the administrative law judge’sdecision was overturned, teachers were reinstated orwere suspended instead of fired.20

Salary during Proceedings

If criminal charges have been filed against a teacher,the teacher’s salary may be placed in an escrow ac-count during his or her suspension. The school boardhas the option of continuing health and life insurancebenefits during the suspension. If the administrativelaw judge issues a preliminary order for the teacher’sreinstatement or for payment of lost salary, the schoolboard must pay the salary to the teacher. But if theteacher fails to contest the charges or the judge is-sues an order to discharge or demote the teacher, thedistrict is entitled to the money in the escrow account.

If a suspended teacher is convicted of a felony that isnot a listed offense or a misdemeanor that is a listedoffense, the school board may discontinue the teach-er’s salary on the date of the conviction. If a suspend-ed teacher is convicted of a felony that is a listed of-fense, the school board must discontinue the teacher’ssalary on the date of the conviction. A listed offenseis defined in the sex offenders registration act. If theTenure Commission reverses an administrative lawjudge’s order to dismiss a teacher, the Commissionmay order back pay for the teacher.

CRC Report


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17.5 per-cent of Michigan workers were unionized in 2011, downfrom 26.0 percent in 1989.21 Nationally, 11.8 percentof wage and salary workers were union members andover half of all union members work in the public sec-tor, which was 37 percent unionized in 2011; publicsector workers had a union membership rate morethan five times higher than that of private sector work-ers (6.9 percent). The highest rateof unionization is in education andlibrary occupations (36.8 percent);42.3 percent of local governmentemployees are members of unions.The process of collective bargain-ing, the appropriate subjects forbargaining, and the role of strikesand arbitration have different im-plications in the public sector thanin the private sector in general, andin public schools in particular.22

Teachers’ unions can legally requireschool districts to collectively bar-gain in 33 states, including Michi-gan, and the District of Columbia. In contrast to these“mandatory” states where state law requires schooldistricts to bargain with properly recognized unions,“permissive” states allow districts to choose whetherto bargain, and “right to work” states prohibit collec-tive bargaining between districts and unions. Typicalbargaining issues include salaries, grievance and dis-missal procedures, class size, length of school day andyear, the amount of free time teachers have duringthe school day, transfer and layoff procedures.23

Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act

In Michigan, the right of public employees to bargaincollectively is not protected in the state constitution; itis instead contained in a statute that is subject to leg-islative change.

Michigan’s Public Employment Relations Act (PERA),Public Act 336 of 1947, requires that public employ-ers, which include traditional school districts, bargaincollectively with organized representatives of employ-ees. PERA specifies those issues that may not be sub-jects of a school district collective bargaining agree-

ment, and limits the role of the school district andcollective bargaining rights under certain circumstanc-es. The act defines bargaining collectively as “the per-formance of the mutual obligation of the employer andthe representative of the employees to meet at rea-sonable times and confer in good faith with respect towages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-ployment, or the negotiation of an agreement, or any

question arising under the agree-ment, and the execution of a writ-ten contract, ordinance, or resolu-tion incorporating any agreementreached if requested by either par-ty, but this obligation does not com-pel either party to agree to a pro-posal or require the making of aconcession.”

PA 201 of 2009, which amendedPERA, states that a public schoolemployer has the responsibility, au-thority, and right to manage and di-rect on behalf of the public, the op-

erations and activities of the public schools under itscontrol. Employer rights that cannot be bargainedinclude the following:

• Who is or will be the policyholder of an employeegroup insurance benefit. This does not affect theduty to bargain with respect to types and levels ofbenefits and coverages for employee group insur-ance. A change or proposed change in a type or toa level of benefit, policy specification, or coveragefor employee group insurance must be bargainedby the public school employer and the bargainingrepresentative before the change may take effect.

• Establishment of the starting day for the schoolyear and of the amount of pupil contact time re-quired to receive full state school aid.

• The composition of school improvement commit-tees.

• The decision of whether or not to provide or allowinterdistrict or intradistrict open enrollment oppor-tunity in a school district or of which grade levelsor schools in which to allow such an open enroll-ment opportunity.

Collective Bargaining, Teachers Unions, and Negotiated Rights and Benefits

The process of collectivebargaining, the appropriatesubjects for bargaining, andthe role of strikes and arbi-tration have different impli-cations in the public sectorthan in the private sector ingeneral, and in publicschools in particular.



• The decision of whether or not to act as an autho-rizing body to grant a contract to organize andoperate one or more public school academies.

• The decision of whether or not to contract with athird party for one or more noninstructional sup-port services; or the procedures for obtaining thecontract for noninstructional support services oth-er than bidding; or the identity of the third party;or the impact of the contract for noninstructionalsupport services on individual employees or thebargaining unit. This applies only if the bargain-ing unit that is providing the noninstructional sup-port services is given an opportunity to bid on thecontract on an equal basis as other bidders.

• The use of volunteers in providing services at itsschools.

• Decisions concerning use of experimental or pilotprograms and staffing of experimental or pilot pro-grams and decisions concerning use of technolo-gy to deliver educational programs and servicesand staffing to provide the technology, or the im-pact of these decisions on individual employees orthe bargaining unit.

• Any compensation or additional work assignmentintended to reimburse an employee for or allowan employee to recover any monetary penalty im-posed under the act.

In 2011, the following additions were made to the listof subjects that may not be bargained:

• Any decision regarding the placement of teachers,or the impact of that decision on the employee orbargaining unit.

• Decisions about the policies regarding personneldecisions when conducting a reduction in force,elimination of a position, recall, or hiring after areduction in force.

• Decisions about the performance evaluation sys-tem.

• Decisions about a policy regarding discharge ordiscipline of an employee.

• Decisions about classroom observations.

• Decisions about the method of compensation,about how employee performance evaluation is

used to determine performance based compensa-tion, and about the performance-based compen-sation of an individual employee.

• Decisions about the notification to parents of stu-dents assigned to a teacher rated ineffective fortwo consecutive years.

PERA provides that if a public school is placed in thestate school reform/redesign school district (as a re-sult of being among the lowest performing five per-cent of schools) or is placed under a chief executiveofficer (as a result of a finding of financial emergen-cy), then the state school reform/redesign officer orthe chief executive officer is the public employer forthe purpose of collective bargaining.

PA 9 of 2011 amended PERA to require that futurecollective bargaining agreements must include a pro-vision that allows an emergency manager appointedunder the Local Government and School District FiscalAccountability Act (PA 4 of 2011) to reject, modify, orterminate the collective bargaining agreement. Thisprovision cannot be bargained.

Another change made to the act in 2011 specifies thata local government that enters into a consent agree-ment under PA 4 of 2011 is not required to bargaincollectively with employee unions for the term of theconsent agreement. Furthermore, collective bargain-ing agreements may be rejected, modified, or termi-nated pursuant to the Local Government and SchoolDistrict Fiscal Accountability Act (PA 4). According tothis part of the 2011 amendment, there is no right tobargain that would infringe on the exercise of powersunder PA 4 of 2011. (PA 4 of 2011 is the subject ofCRC Memorandum 1106 and Report 368, Local Gov-ernment and School District Fiscal Accountability Act)

Recent changes in PERA (and in the Teacher TenureAct and other statutes) are designed to strengthenmanagement, but it should be noted that both highperforming and low performing districts have beencovered by the same collective bargaining (and other)laws. While PERA helps to define the rights of man-agement, local school districts individually bargain onteacher compensation including longevity pay and stepincreases, seniority rights, group health and other in-surances, and other non-prohibited issues.

CRC Report


In 2012, Public Act 53, signed by the Governor onMarch 15, made a public school employer’s use of publicschool resources to assist a labor organization in col-lecting dues or service fees from wages of public schoolemployees a prohibited contribution to the adminis-tration of a labor union. Thus, school districts will notbe able to implement automatic payroll deductions forunion dues. By appropriating $100,000 to the Michi-gan Employment Relations Commission for the costsof implementing a subsection of the new law requir-ing each exclusive bargaining unitto file an annual independent auditof all expenditures related to thecosts of collective bargaining, con-tract administration, and grievanceadjustment, the legislature made PA53 referendum proof.

Teacher Unions

Teachers unions represent the col-lective voice of their members incollective bargaining. They negoti-ate for salaries, benefits, and work-ing conditions for their members andrepresent members in disputes withmanagement.

The National Scene

Teachers’ unions have exercised ex-traordinarily strong influence onschool organization and management and on publiceducation policy. Just as other unions do, teachers’unions represent and defend their members and fightfor better pay, benefits, and working conditions fortheir members through collectively bargaining contractsat the school district level. And since the 1960s, teach-ers’ unions have been very politically active in advo-cating for state and federal laws that benefit members

and in blocking state and federal laws and regulationsthat they consider detrimental to members. Accord-ing to Terry Moe, a professor of Political Science atStanford University, teachers’ unions nationally repre-sent well over 4 million members, and from 1989through 2009 the NEA and AFT contributed more tofederal elections than any other interest group, mak-ing them among the most powerful interest groups ofany type in any area of public policy.24

Teachers’ unions are being challenged to respond tochanging demands on both the na-tional and local level. One of theunions’ highest priorities has beenteacher accountability and evalua-tion systems. The union position isthat such systems should be devel-oped with the active participationof teachers and their representativeunion. The AFT has stated that stu-dent test scores that are based onvalid assessments should be part ofimproved teacher evaluation,25 andthe NEA recently adopted a policythat calls for indicators of teacherpractice, teacher contribution to theschool and teacher professionalgrowth, and contributions to stu-dent learning and growth to be usedin teacher evaluations. The NEApolicy calls for use of student teststhat are “developmentally appropri-

ate, scientifically valid and reliable for the purpose ofmeasuring both student learning and a teacher’s per-formance.” Any test that does not meet this high stan-dard, according to the NEA policy statement, “maynot be used to support any employment action againsta teacher and may be used only to provide non-evalu-ative formative feedback.”26

Teachers’ unions are beingchallenged to respond tochanging demands on boththe national and local lev-el. One of the unions’ high-est priorities has beenteacher accountability andevaluation systems. Theunion position is that suchsystems should be devel-oped with the active partic-ipation of teachers and theirrepresentative union.



The largest cost in educa-tion is teachers’ salaries,which traditionally in Michi-gan are determined locallythough collective bargainingbetween the employingschool district and the localteachers’ union. Historical-ly, collective bargainingagreements provided thatteachers with the same se-niority and formal educationwere paid the same rate (al-though neither seniority af-ter the first few years norformal education are consis-tently correlated with stu-dent achievement gains).

The Michigan Scene

In Michigan, a teacher hired by a traditional publicschool district or by a public school academy char-tered by a traditional school district (but not thosehired by public school academies chartered by otherentities) becomes a member of the union that repre-sents that district’s teachers. The American Federa-tion of Teachers Michigan (AFT Mich-igan) has 98 locals including Detroit,and 35,000 members. The AFTMichigan’s 2011 Platform identifiesten pillars of a high quality educa-tion system, of which high qualityteaching and learning is one.27

The majority of the state’s teachersare affiliated with the National Edu-cation Association’s Michigan Edu-cation Association which represents157,000 teachers, faculty, and edu-cation support staff. The MEA’sagenda focuses on five areas:

• Realign Michigan’s PreK-12 sys-tem to support students inachieving the goal the state val-ues most: graduating highschool ready to succeed in col-lege or other post-secondary op-portunities.

• Increase accountability for ev-eryone in public education –teachers, administrators, sup-port staff, parents, et al – forthe overall educational success of Michigan’s stu-dents.

• Increase efficiency for all school districts to getthe greatest return on investment for students,communities and the economy.

• Ensure good stewardship of taxpayer dollars byincreasing school district financial stability andaccountability.

• Fix Michigan’s antiquated tax structure that hasled to Michigan’s decade-long budget crisis.28

Within weeks of Governor Snyder taking office, theMEA presented to him a plan that they argued would

increase the graduation rate; increase accountabilityfor school administrators and teachers; simplify schooldistrict consolidation and other changes to increaseefficiency; better use of school money, including re-quiring 85 percent be spent in the classroom; and re-structure how schools are funded. The MEA plan wouldrequire school districts to provide mandatory profes-

sional development classes for ad-ministrators, private contractors,and teachers. The plan wouldstreamline the process to dischargeineffective tenured teachers; requireemployers to grant time off so par-ents can attend parent-teacher con-ferences; and limit the number ofremedial classes students can takeat community colleges. The MEAplan included expanding the salestax to services and adopting a pro-gressive income tax to increasefunding to the School Aid Fund.29

A subsequent Detroit News editori-al argued that the MEA reform planwould maintain the status quo andincrease taxes and that some pro-posals, such as requiring districts toprovide professional developmenttraining for all employees, wouldincrease costs and further isolateindividual teachers from responsibil-ity for results. That editorial alsonoted that “A recent Detroit Newspoll found that 68 percent of voterssupport basing teacher tenure on

student performance rather than years on the job.”30

Teacher Compensation: Salaries

The largest cost in education is teachers’ salaries, whichtraditionally in Michigan are determined locally thoughcollective bargaining between the employing schooldistrict and the local teachers’ union. Historically, col-lective bargaining agreements provided that teacherswith the same seniority and formal education werepaid the same rate (although neither seniority afterthe first few years nor formal education are consis-tently correlated with student achievement gains).

CRC Report


The National Context

According to the Census Bureau, the 15,331 publicschool districts in the U.S spent a total of $517.7 bil-lion in 2009, and $209.0 billion of that was spent oninstructional salaries and wages. “Instructional sala-ries” was the largest expenditure category for publicelementary and secondary schools (instructional em-ployee benefits totaled an additional $70.1 billion).31

Nine states spent more than Michigan on instructionalsalaries (California spent over $24 billion in 2008-09),but the $6 billion this state spent on instructional sal-aries in 2008-09 represents a huge investment. (SeeTable 1.)

Data on all states’ spending on instructional salariesand employee benefits, both in total and on a per pu-pil basis, are included in the appendix.

The total amount spent is one way to compare thecost of teachers’ salaries. A different way to comparethe cost of instructional staff is on a per pupil basis.In 2008-09, the national average amount spent perpupil on instructional salaries and wages was $4,333.In Michigan, the amount per pupil was $3,875; Mich-igan ranked 32nd of the 50 states in the amount spenton instructional salaries on a per pupil basis. The state

with the highest per pupil expenditure for instruction-al salaries and wages was New York, at $8,070.32 Ofthe ten largest spending states, only Florida spent lessthan Michigan on a per pupil basis.

Of the ten states that spent the largest total amountson public elementary and secondary school systems,Michigan spent the smallest proportion of the per pu-pil expenditure on instructional salaries and wages.Michigan also spent a significantly smaller proportionof the per pupil expenditure on instructional salariesand wages compared to the national average.

Although the total amount spent on teachers’ salariesis large, on average teachers’ salaries lag those of othercollege trained professions. The Center on Educationand the Workforce at Georgetown University analyzedthe 2009 American Community Survey data to identifythe economic benefit of various college majors at thebachelors and masters levels, and found that the me-dian earnings of those with only a bachelor’s degreein education was $42,000. For those with graduatedegrees in education, median earnings were $57,000,an increase of $18,000. The proportion of educationmajors who obtained a graduate degree was relativelyhigh at 44 percent, and was exceeded only by those inthe fields of biology and life sciences (54 percent),

Table 1States Spending the Largest Amounts on Salaries and Wages for Instruction Staff by PublicElementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09

Amount for Percent onTotal Instructional Total Instructional

(Dollars in Salaries & Wages Spending Salaries & WagesState Millions) Per Pupil Per Pupil Per PupilCalifornia $24,305 $3,942 $9,657 40.8%New York 21,765 8,070 18,126 44.5Texas 18,536 3,989 8,540 46.7Illinois 9,183 4,338 10,835 40.0New Jersey 8,840 6,504 16,271 40.0Florida 8,805 3,357 8,760 38.3Pennsylvania 8,537 5,035 12,512 40.2Ohio 7,139 4,129 10,560 39.1Georgia 7,129 4,322 9,650 44.8Michigan 6,027 3,875 10,483 37.0U.S. $517,708 $4,333 $10,499 41.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Public Education Finances: 2009,” Tables 6 and 8; CRC Calculations



physical sciences (48 percent), and psychology andsocial work (45 percent).33 In Table 2, median earn-ings are not adjusted for benefits and time off.

According to this analysis, 10.6 percent of all workerswith bachelor’s degrees in the U.S. economy had de-grees in the education category (this was second onlyto business, with 25.0 percent). Education is amongthe majors with the highest concentration of women:85 percent of health majors, 77 percent of educationmajors, and 74 percent of social work majors werewomen.

According to a National Education Association (NEA)survey, the average classroom teacher salary in theU.S. was estimated to be $56,069 for the 2010-11school year. New York had the highest average teach-er salary, at $72,708 followed by Massachusetts, at$71,017. At $35,201, the average salary for class-room teachers in South Dakota was less than half thatin New York. (Average salaries in part reflect differ-ences in the cost of living. Michigan’s cost of livingranked 21st of the 50 states and D.C. in the first quar-ter of 2012 according to the Missouri Economic Re-search and Information Center.) According to the NEA

survey, the 2010-11 average salary for Michigan class-room teachers was estimated at $58,595, about $2,500higher than the national average, and about $850 high-er than the average of Great Lakes states ($57,742;Great Lakes states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,and Wisconsin). According to the NEA, Michigan ranked12th highest among the 50 states and D.C. on averageteacher salaries.34

Over 90 percent of school districts pay teachers ac-cording to salary schedules that typically reward ex-perience and degrees. Washington is among the 21states that have statewide salary schedules, whichgenerally set minimum teacher salaries. Although sal-aries are negotiated at the local level, the State ofWashington uses the statewide schedule to calculatestate salary allocations to districts and thereby effec-tively constrains local salary variation. Districts canexceed the state limitation only on the basis of sepa-rate contracts that pay for additional time, additionalresponsibilities, or incentives, and those contracts mustuse local funds and may not exceed one year in dura-tion. As would be expected, this system has generat-ed policy discussions centered on merit pay and wagedifferentials for designated subjects or schools.35

Table 2Value of College Majors, 2009

Median Earnings PercentWithout a With a Earning aGraduate Graduate Graduate

Major Group Degree Degree DegreeEngineering $75,000 $99,000 37%Computers, Mathematics 70,000 89,000 32Business 60,000 80,000 21Health 60,000 80,000 31Physical Sciences 59,000 90,000 48Social Science 55,000 85,000 40Agriculture, Natural Resources 50,000 70,000 27Communications, Journalism 50,000 62,000 20Industrial Arts, Consumer Services 50,000 65,000 20Law, Public Policy 50,000 70,000 24Biology, Life Science 50,000 85,000 54Humanities, Liberal Arts 47,000 65,000 41Arts 44,000 55,000 23Education 42,000 57,000 44Psychology, Social Work 42,000 60,000 45

Source: Anthony P. Carnevale, Jeff Strohl, and Michelle Melton, “Select Findings from What’s it Worth? TheEconomic Value of College Majors,” The Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University.

CRC Report


Teacher Salaries in Michigan

In 2009, public school districts in Michigan spent over$6.0 billion on instructional salaries.36

Michigan Department of Education reports37 includeaverages of teacher salaries for traditional publicschools and those charter schools that do not contractwith management companies for instructional staff.Each charter school is considered a district; charterschools that employ teachers directly are clustered inthe districts with the smallest membership (member-ship refers to the number of students) counts in Ta-ble 3.

According to the Bulletin, the average public schoolteacher salary in Michigan in 2010-11 was $61,560,down from $63,024 in the previous year. Average sal-aries varied by district size, with teachers in largerdistricts (excepting Detroit) generally having higheraverage salaries than teachers in smaller districts.

The state’s largest school district, the Detroit PublicSchool District reported a decline of 9,943 students,from 84,742 students in 2009-10 to 74,799 in 2010-11. Average teacher salaries in the financially andacademically troubled Detroit District, which is underthe control of a state-appointed emergency manager,were reported to be $35,211 in 2010-11, only 55.4percent of the $63,607 reported in 2009-10 (thoughper pupil expenditures were the highest reported forany membership category: $14,523 compared to thestatewide average of $9,561). Average Detroit teach-er salaries ranked 579th of the 788 districts (a numberof districts failed to report data necessary to computeaverage teacher salaries).

The highest average teacher salary, $94,703, was re-ported for the affluent Birmingham City School Dis-trict, but not all of the communities with very highaverage teacher salaries are affluent (nor do all com-munities with high average teacher pay have high stu-dent achievement38). Districts with the highest aver-

Table 3Michigan Public Schools, 2010-11

Membership of Number of Number of AverageSchool Districts Districts Teachers Teacher Salary50,000 and over 1 3,009 $35,21120,000-49,999 1 1,093 83,64610,000-19,999 21 12,102 68,3805,000-9,999 47 13,077 66,6804,500-4,999 10 1,948 67,3824,000-4,499 9 1,512 65,3253,500-3,999 19 2,995 63,1263,000-3,499 30 4,087 63,3632,500-2,999 43 5,079 61,9402,000-2,499 39 3,730 57,7511,500-1,999 64 4,824 57,2401,000-1,499 102 5,708 56,041500-999 165 5,700 51,565Below 500 237 3,083 45,279

State totals 788 67,950 $61,560

Source: Michigan Department of Education, “2010-11 Bulletin 1014,” April 2012



age teacher salaries have a wide range of pupil-to-teacher ratios: 20 students per teacher in Grosse PointPublic Schools and 32 students per teacher in RiverRouge Public Schools. Table 4 lists the ten schooldistricts that have over 100 students and that havethe highest average teacher salaries (Arvon TownshipSchool District would rank number two based on theaverage teacher salary of $85,108, but it has only sixstudents and so is not included in the list).

Annual adjustments to salary that are also negotiatedinclude step increases, cost of living adjustments, andlongevity payments. Step increases are tied to educa-tional levels and years of experience and are grantedautomatically when designated benchmarks are met.

Cost of living adjustments (COLA) are increases in basepay that are pegged to inflation and designed to main-tain purchasing power. Longevity payments rewardyears of service.

State law now requires that job performance and paybe linked. PA 205 of 2009, which became effectiveJanuary 4, 2010, requires that “A school district, publicschool academy, or intermediate school district shallimplement and maintain a method of compensation forits teachers and school administrators that includes jobperformance and job accomplishments as a significantfactor in determining compensation and additional com-pensation. The assessment of job performance shallincorporate a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation

Table 4Highest Average Teacher Salaries, 2010-11

Pupil/ AverageNumber of Teacher Teacher

Rank District Students Ratio* Salary

1 Birmingham City School District 8,256 25 $94,703 2 Utica Community Schools 29,541 27 83,646 3 Riverview Community School District 2,758 27 82,071 4 Grosse Pointe Public Schools 8,391 20 80,566 5 Center Line Public Schools 2,728 23 80,295 6 Saline Area Schools 5,330 25 79,599 7 Farmington Public School District 11,762 23 78,677 8 Walled Lake Consolidated Schools 15,536 23 78,434 9 Roseville Community Schools 5,424 27 78,327 10 River Rouge School District 1,090 32 78,285

* “Pupil/teacher ratio” is different than “class size,” which reflects the number of students assigned to a classroom.

Source: Michigan Department of Education, 2010-11 Bulletin 1014, April 2012

Payroll Withholding

In the 2009 contract, the fiscally distressed Detroit Public Schools and the Detroit Federation of Teachers nego-tiated a unique plan to assist the district with cash flow. The district deducted $250 from each teacher’s biweeklypaycheck, and the amount withheld is to be paid, without interest, to the teachers at the time each leaves his orher employment with the district. The agreement was the subject of litigation. For 2011-12, the district’sEmergency Manager has imposed a ten percent pay cut and a requirement that employees pay 20 percent ofhealth insurance costs; this would replace the biweekly $250 deduction. The district’s unions filed suit in federalcourt; a settlement reached in February included partial payment of accumulated sick leave for employees whosubmitted an irrevocable notice of retirement by March 19, a one time lump sum payment of 2.5 percent of theemployee’s 2011-12 earnings, and a limited reinstatement of step increases..

CRC Report


system that evaluates a teacher’s or school administra-tor’s performance at least in part based upon data onstudent growth as measured by assessments and otherobjective criteria.” According to the statute, if a currentcollective bargaining agreement prevents compliancewith the requirement, then the re-quirement will become effectivewhen that collective bargainingagreement expires.

Public Act 54 of 2011 freezes sala-ries and benefits for teachers dur-ing collective bargaining. This in-cludes a prohibition on districtpayment of step increases and anyincreases in the cost of insurancebenefits that occur after the expi-ration of the contract. Neither thesubsequent agreement nor an ar-bitration panel will be allowed to or-der retroactive wage or benefitamounts that are greater than thosein effect on the expiration date ofthe collective bargaining agreement.

Comparison with Private SectorPay

Loss of jobs and pay cuts in the pri-vate sector have resulted in greaterscrutiny of public sector pay rates.State officials in Michigan and oth-er states have stated or implied thatteachers and other public employ-ees are overpaid. Assumptions un-derlying statements by state officials arguing that publicemployee compensation must be comparable to that

in the private sector have been tested using data thatcontrolled for education, size of employer, hoursworked, and other factors.

The most important factor in earnings is education.Teachers are required to have atleast a bachelor’s degree; only 31percent of private sector workershave at least a bachelor’s degree.On average, Michigan state and lo-cal governments pay college educat-ed employees 21 percent less in to-tal annual compensation than privateemployers pay to comparably edu-cated workers, and a larger propor-tion of public compensation is paidin benefits, especially health insur-ance and pensions. The EconomicPolicy Institute study found no sig-nificant difference between privateand local public employee compen-sation when relevant factors wereconsidered.39 It should be noted thatthe findings contained in this brief-ing paper are controversial, but theyare consistent with a number of na-tional analyses dating back to the1990s. Those studies have foundthat at the low end of the pay scale,state and local governments gener-ally paid better than the private sec-tor, but the private sector paid morefor white collar workers, and as theduties and responsibilities of whitecollar jobs increased, the private sec-

tor paid increasingly better wages. Furthermore, stateand local government paid far less for professional and

The most important factorin earnings is education.Teachers are required tohave at least a bachelor’sdegree; only 31 percent ofprivate sector workers haveat least a bachelor’s degree.On average, Michigan stateand local governments paycollege educated employees21 percent less in total an-nual compensation than pri-vate employers pay to com-parably educated workers,and a larger proportion ofpublic compensation is paidin benefits, especially healthinsurance and pensions.



administrative occupations.40 A 2010 analysis foundthat wages and salaries of state and local workers arelower than those for private sector workers with thesame educations (11 percent less for state employeesand 12 percent for local employees); benefits com-prise a larger share of public sector total compensa-tion; and state and local employees have lower totalcompensation than their private sector counterparts(6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 per-cent lower for local employees).41

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that employercosts for civilian employee compensation (note thatonly 31 percent of private sector employees have atleast a bachelor’s degree) averaged $30.07 per hourin March, 2011. As can be seen in the following table,wages and salaries plus supplemental pay and paidleave averaged $23.71 and benefits averaged $6.36per hour worked, a total of $30.07. Costs for teachers(all of whom have at least a bachelor’s degree) weremuch higher: $42.35 for all wages and salaries includ-ing supplemental pay and paid leave, and $14.03 forfringe benefits, a total of $56.38. (In Table 5, insur-ance, retirement and savings, and legally requiredbenefits are the components of “total benefits.”)

Teacher salaries are receiving a great deal of attentionfor several reasons. With relatively high rates of un-employment and underemployment in the economy,with widespread pay freezes and benefit reductions,and with public budgets under pressure, all publicemployees’ salaries are receiving attention. As notedpreviously, teachers’ salaries represent a very largepublic investment: over $6 billion was spent in Michi-gan for instructional salaries in 2008-09. Teachers’salaries have a particular burden, however, becausethe quality of education is recognized as key to theeconomic success of individuals, states, and the na-tion. In spite of the billions of dollars being spent oneducation, there is a consensus that much more needsto be accomplished. And while there is nearly univer-sal agreement that American students need more in-struction time, fiscally strapped school districts acrossthe country are shortening the traditional 180-dayschool year and reducing summer school.42 Reducinginstructional salaries, the largest expenditure catego-ry in education, would be one way to maintain or ex-pand K-12 programs without a commensurate increasein costs.

Table 5Employer Costs per Hour Worked for Employee Compensation March 2011

LegallyWages & Total Retirement RequiredSalaries* Benefits Insurance & Savings Benefits

All Workers $23.71 $6.36 $2.67 $1.36 $2.33State and Local Govt 29.91 10.63 4.88 3.32 2.44Teachers** 42.35 14.03 6.48 4.62 2.92

* Includes supplemental pay and paid leave** State and local government workers: primary, secondary and special education teachers

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation”

CRC Report


Teacher Compensation: Benefits

The Census Bureau reports that in 2009, public schooldistricts in Michigan spent almost $2.8 billion on em-ployee benefits for instructional personnel. Six statesspent more than Michigan on employee benefits forinstructional personnel (See Table 6).

Nationally, the average per pupil expenditure for in-structional employee benefits for public elementary-secondary schools in 2008-09 was $1,452. In Michi-gan, the average per pupil expenditure for instructionalfringe benefits was $1,794, which placed this state17th highest of the 50 states. Of the ten states that

spent the largest amounts on employee benefits forinstructional staff, three spent more on a per pupilbasis than Michigan. New York spent the largestamount on a per pupil basis, $3,474, and Alaska wassecond at $3,026. Texas spent only $654 on fringebenefits for instructional personnel, measured on aper pupil basis.

On average, the amount that states spent on employ-ee benefits for instructional personnel was 33.5 per-cent of the amount spent on salaries and wages. Therewere five states where the proportion spent on em-ployee benefits was more than in Michigan (43.3 per-cent of salaries and wages). Michigan was one of 14

Table 6States with the Highest Spending on Employee Benefits for Instruction Staff by PublicElementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09

Percent of TotalTotal Per Pupil Total per Pupil for

Dollars in Amount for Spending EmployeeState Millions Employee Benefits Per Pupil BenefitsNew York $9,370 $3,474 $9,657 19.2%California 7,407 1,201 18,126 12.4Texas 3,041 654 8,540 7.7Illinois 3,009 1,421 10,835 13.1New Jersey 2,980 2,192 16,271 13.5Pennsylvania 2,934 1,730 8,760 13.8Michigan 2,790 1,794 12,512 17.1Florida 2,651 1,011 10,560 11.5Massachusetts 2,547 2,732 9,650 19.4Ohio 2,372 1,372 10,483 13.0

U.S. $70,059 $1,452 $10,499 13.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances: 2009, Tables 6 and 8; CRC calculations



states where the amount spent on employee benefitswas more than 40 percent of the amount spent onsalaries and wages (See Table 7).

As noted in the previous section, average benefit costsfor teachers are high relative to other workers nation-ally, and both of the above approaches indicate that

Table 7Spending on Employee Benefits as a Proportion of Salaries and Wages, Public Elementary andSecondary School Systems, 2008-09 (Dollars in Thousands)

Salaries Employee Benefits as aRank State and Wages Benefits Percent of Salaries 1 Alaska $603,938 $394,058 65.2% 2 Massachusetts 4,680,805 2,547,318 54.4 3 West Virginia 1,084,586 534,774 49.3 4 Wisconsin 3,698,415 1,797,902 48.6 5 Oregon 1,948,926 938,122 48.1 6 Michigan 6,027,815 2,790,185 46.3 7 Delaware 565,689 250,483 44.3 8 Indiana 3,729,754 1,640,315 44.0 9 New York 21,764,757 9,370,029 43.1 10 Minnesota 3,749,532 1,574,355 42.0 11 Utah 1,428,096 590,243 41.3 12 Maine 896,809 369,613 41.2 13 Rhode Island 782,563 322,351 41.2 14 Alabama 2,479,840 995,732 40.2

50 States and D.C. $209,007,145 $70,058,805 33.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Education Finances: 2009, Table 6; CRC calculations

Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Pension Plans

The major pension issue for teachers, as for other public employees, is the debate over defined benefit plansversus defined contribution plans. Benefits under defined benefit plans are based on years of service, averagefinal compensation, and a multiplier. Defined benefit plans are cheaper to operate to provide a given retirementbenefit because funds are pooled, but the employer takes the risk that contributions and investment performancewill be sufficient to pay the guaranteed benefits. Payouts under defined contribution plans are based on theamount the employee and employer have contributed and on investment performance. Employees have morecontrol over investments and take all of the risk. (Jonathan Walters, “Rewriting State Retirement Plans,” Govern-ing, July 2011)

Public school employees who started work before July 1, 2010 are members of the defined benefit pension plan;those who began on or after July 1, 2010 are enrolled in the Pension Plus plan, a blended plan that includes botha defined benefit plan and a tax deferred savings account. Basic full retirement benefits are available at age 60with ten years of service or at age 55 with 30 years of service. The pension benefit for the defined benefit planis final average compensation times 1.5 percent times years of service. Administration of the plan and benefitsare defined in the Public School Employees Retirement Act (PA 300 of 1980). According to the most recentcomprehensive annual financial report, the system was 78.9 percent funded (actuarial value of assets and actu-arial accrued liability were $44.7 billion and $56.7 billion respectively) at September 30, 2009.

CRC Report


the cost of providing pensions and other benefits toteachers and other instructional personnel in Michi-gan is high relative to other states.

Retirement Benefits

Public school teachers’ accrued (already earned) pen-sion benefits are guaranteed by the state constitu-tion. Teachers’ pension plans and otherpostemployment benefits (OPEBs, which includes re-tiree medical, hearing, dental, and vision coverage,are not constitutionally protected) are administeredby the state through the Michigan Public School Em-ployees’ Retirement System (MPSERS). The 724 par-ticipating employers in MPSERS include K-12 publicschool districts, public school academies, district li-braries, community colleges and seven universities.Pension and OPEB costs are born by employees andby the local school district or reporting entity, which isrequired to contribute the full actuarial funding contri-bution amount to fund pension benefits.

MPSERS had a total of 192,435 retirees and beneficia-ries receiving benefits in 2011.

Membership in MPSERS at September 30, 2011

Retirees and beneficiaries receiving benefits:Regular benefits 170,961Survivor benefits 15,654Disability benefits 5,820 Total 192,435

Current employees:

Vested 114,680Not vested 121,980 Total 236,660

Inactive employees entitled to,but not yet receiving, benefits: 15,090

Total all members 444,185

Source: 2011 Michigan Public SchoolEmployees’ Retirement SystemComprehensive Annual Financial Report

Pensions and other postemployment benefits togeth-er equaled 17.26 percent of annual covered payroll.In 2011, total employer contributions to MPSERS forpensions and OPEBs were $1.95 billion, member con-tributions were $717.2 million, and net investmentearnings were 1.46 billion; net assets at year end were$36.13 billion. In 2010, employer contributions were1.68 billion, member contributions were $502.9 mil-lion, and net investment income was 3.71 billion; netassets at year end were $36.85 billion.

The pension plan had assets of $34.67 billion at Sep-tember 30, 2011. Of the $1.16 billion in employercontributions in 2011, $95.9 million was made by “col-leges, universities and federal” and $1.06 billion wasmade by “school districts and other.” (See Table 8.)



Table 8Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System: Pension Plan(Dollars in Millions)

Fiscal Year Employer Contributions Ended Member Percent of Annual Sept. 30 Contributions Dollars Covered Payroll 2001 $371.5 $629.9 6.80% 2002 413.2 603.9 6.22 2003 379.1 697.9 6.95 2004 456.4 697.6 6.70 2005 368.2 774.3 7.59 2006 518.6 995.9 10.15 2007 356.8 835.4 8.48 2008 399.3 999.4 10.04 2009 357.2 1,000.4 10.12 2010 377.7 1,001.3 11.32 2011 332.2 1,156.1 N/A

Source: 2011 Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System Comprehensive Annual FinancialReport

While public employee pension benefits were madecontractual obligations of the employer by the 1963Michigan Constitution, other postemployment bene-fits are not constitutionally protected. OPEBs are es-tablished in state statute, which may be amended. As

of September 30, 2010, if OPEBs were to be prefunded,the actuarial liability would be $28.6 billion. Therewere 142,863 MPSERS participants receiving healthbenefits, and 153,822 receiving dental and vision ben-efits, in 2011. (See Table 9.)

Table 9Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System: OPEB(Dollars in Millions)

Fiscal Year Employer Contributions Ended Member Percent of Annual Sept. 30 Contributions Dollars Covered Payroll 2001 $38.5 $528.3 5.70% 2002 43.2 604.6 6.23 2003 47.4 657.4 6.55 2004 52.8 618.8 5.95 2005 62.5 700.4 6.86 2006 71.8 686.9 7.00 2007 77.2 671.7 6.85 2008 78.1 649.6 6.52 2009 77.0 705.5 7.14 2010 125.2 675.1 7.63 2011 385.0 794.8 N/A

Source: 2011 Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

CRC Report


A 2010 law required that three percent of school em-ployees’ pay be deducted to cover future retiree healthcare costs. This was expected to save about $300million to $400 million annually in school (employercontribution) retirement costs. Teachers’ unions chal-lenged the constitutionality of the law, and the Courtof Claims struck it down in April of 2011. The statehas appealed this decision.

In 2009, the combined employer cost for pensions andOPEB was 17.26 percent of payroll. In 2010, the com-bined employer cost of retirementbenefits was 18.95 percent of pay-roll. At the same time that schoolfunding has been cut, the cost ofretirement benefits is expected toincrease dramatically: for employ-ees hired before July 1, 2010, theretirement benefit contribution rateincreases to 24.46 percent of pay-roll in 2011-12 and 27.37 percentof payroll in 2012-13; for employ-ees hired on or after July 1, 2010,the contribution rate is 23.23 per-cent of payroll in 2011-12 and 26.14percent of payroll in 2012-13. The 2011-12 state bud-get includes an appropriation of $133 million from theestimated 2010-11 year-end balance to the MPSERSreserve for retirement obligation reform. The legisla-ture is currently examining potential reforms. Suchreforms could include instituting a defined contribu-tion plan, which is the form of pension plan offered tonew state employees.43

Defined benefit pension plans (as well as otherpostemployment benefits) are increasingly rare in theprivate sector, and there is a growing sense that pub-lic sector defined benefit plans are unsustainable.Increasingly, public plans (including the State of Michi-gan plan for state employees) offer only defined con-tribution plans to new employees. Losses in the stockmarket in 2008 and 2009 resulted in reductions in as-set values in all pension plans. Those losses will haveto be made up over time, by some combination ofinvestment earnings, member contributions, and em-ployer contributions. In the first half of 2011, eightstates passed legislation requiring government employ-ees to contribute more to their pensions and ten otherstates proposed public pension changes, a responseto the estimated $1 trillion funding gap in governmentworkers’ retirement benefits.44 Some of these chang-

es include anti-spiking measures and tightening upvesting and length of service requirements.45

It remains to be seen if and how pension costs willrelate to separation decisions. Defined benefit plansmake it more difficult for an employee to leave on hisor her own because benefits are not portable, andbecause longer service with that employer results inlarger retirement benefits. It is likely, however, that inthe near term an unusually high number of teacherswill be separated from service due to constraints in

state funding, and increasing retire-ment system contribution require-ments increase the difference in dis-trict costs between new teachersand those with many years of ser-vice. Legislated changes in tenureand seniority protection may contrib-ute to the issue.

As previously noted, funding for pen-sions is calculated and paid intoMPSERS as a percent of payroll. Oneof the effects of having fewer publicschool teachers employed is that the

cost of pensions (including payments necessary to re-place pension fund stock market and real estate invest-ment losses) is spread over fewer active employees,which increases the contribution rate. All things beingequal, as the number of active employees declines, thecontribution rate increases.

Health and Other Insurances for Active Employees

Health and other insurance benefits are negotiatedlocally, costs are substantial, and those costs vary de-pending on family status and applicable policy. Schooldistrict employers may self insure, obtain insurancecoverage directly from a carrier, or join a pool to spreadrisk.

In 1960, the Michigan Education Association formedMESSA, a nonprofit, voluntary employee benefit asso-ciation (VEBA), which now has about 300 employeesand a payroll of more than $20 million. MESSA doesnot share profits with the MEA, but it does pay a $3.3million marketing fee to the union.46 MESSA offersgroup medical, dental, vision, prescription, and lifeinsurances for school employees. According to the2009 MESSA Programs Brief, MESSA insures over80,000 members (200,000 insured lives) and 85 per-cent of MESSA members are MEA members. Cover-

The legislature is currentlyexamining potential pen-sion reforms. Such reformscould include instituting adefined contribution plan,which is the form of pen-sion plan offered to newstate employees.



age under MESSA is negotiated by local bargainingunits. The MESSA strategy pooled members into largecommunity rating areas to spread risk, provided veryhigh quality services, and contracted with individualinsurance carriers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield ofMichigan, Delta Dental, and the Life Insurance Com-pany of North America (LINA) for insurance coverage.

PA 106 of 2007, the Public Employees Health BenefitAct, requires that a public employer or pooled planthat procures coverage or benefits from one or morecarriers is required to solicit four or more bids, includ-ing at least one from a VEBA; when renewing or con-tinuing a medical plan, a public employer or pooledplan must solicit four or more bids every three years.(The 2011-12 state budget includes a new require-ment that school districts post health care bids re-quired under the Public Employees’ Health Benefit Actto their websites. Bills signed by the Governor on July30, 2011 require school districts to get health carebids from four separate entities when pricing cover-age, rather than getting four different packages of-fered by MESSA.)47

In addition to requiring public employers to solicit bidsevery three years, PA 106 of 2007 was intended toprovide greater transparency in health services by re-quiring plans to supply public employers with claimsutilization and cost information, including aggregatedclaims amounts and types, administrative costs, andfees paid. Those requirements were to enable publicemployers to make more informed choices, to allowemployers to seek competitive bids based on cost andperformance, and to obtain the lowest cost for insur-ance. The act also provided a more straightforwardprocess for employers to form and join pooled plans(in 2005, the Ottawa Area Intermediate School Dis-trict and other school districts formed the West Mich-

igan Insurance Pool, a multiple employer welfare ar-rangement (MEWA), intended to reduce insurancecosts) which were expected to spend less for adminis-tration and risk management. The state Office of Fi-nancial and Insurance Services (OFIS) in the Depart-ment of Labor and Economic Growth was to examineand regulate pooled plans, and those plans could berequired to pay 0.25 percent of annual self-funded con-tributions to the self insured medical benefit plan toOFIS.48

Prior to December 1, 2007, MESSA did not compileclaims data on an individual group basis, but PA 106required that all health plans serving public employerswith more than 100 employees report claims experi-ence data to the employer. According to its website,MESSA complied with the legislative requirement andadjusted its strategy for pooling and claims reporting.Legislation passed in 2011 tightens the requirementfor district access to health data.

As noted previously, PERA specifically states that apublic school employer has the responsibility, author-ity, and right to manage and direct on behalf of thepublic, the operations and activities of the publicschools under its control. Employer rights that cannotbe bargained now include the following:

Who is or will be the policyholder of an employ-ee group insurance benefit. This does not affectthe duty to bargain with respect to types andlevels of benefits and coverages for employeegroup insurance. A change or proposed changein a type or to a level of benefit, policy specifica-tion, or coverage for employee group insurancemust be bargained by the public school employ-er and the bargaining representative before thechange may take effect. (Section 15 (3)(a))

MESSA Coverage

Costs for MESSA coverage continue to be relatively high: when Otsego Public Schools and the Otsego EducationAssociation agreed to switch carriers for comparable coverage from MESSA to Priority Health in 2011-12, costs forhealth care were expected to decline from $12,600 per insured employee (scheduled to increase to $13,780 percovered employee in 2011-12) to $8,400 per insured employee. The cost savings resulting from the change inhealth insurance carriers will fund a two percent pay increase.*

* Julie Mack, “Otsego’s move from MESSA will save district about $4,200 per teacher,” Mlive.com, July 28, 2011.

CRC Report


Governor Snyder has proposed “that in fiscal year 2013a portion of the state foundation allowance be allocat-ed to school districts that pay no more than 80% ofemployee health care premiums or control costs inother ways.”49 The 2011-12 state budget includes $154million for best practices incentive grants to provide$100 per pupil one-time grants to districts meetingfour of five criteria, two of which are charging employ-ees at least ten percent of health care costs and hold-ing the policy for medical benefit plans if directly em-ploying staff.

The high cost of health insurance, the perception of“Cadillac” coverage under the union-affiliated MESSA,and school funding cuts led the state legislature toadopt PA 152 in September, 2011. Effective January1, 2012, the Act established a maximum spendingthreshold for employee health insurance for all localgovernments including school districts (local govern-ments other than school districts can opt out of therequirements). The Act does not affect current collec-tive bargaining agreements unless they are modifiedor expire. School districts will be allowed to spend nomore than the “hard cap” amounts specified in the act($5,500 for single person coverage, $11,000 for anemployee and spouse, $12,500 for single parent em-ployees, and $15,000 for families; the amounts will beadjusted based on the medical care component of theConsumer Price Index) or districts may chose to split

health costs with the employer paying 80 percent andthe employee paying 20 percent. The state is autho-rized to withhold ten percent of School Aid paymentsto districts that do not comply with the Act. Argu-ments against the bill noted the potential loss of cre-ativity and flexibility of local collective bargaining.Supporters noted the cost savings that would accrueto local school districts, which could offset the effectsof funding reductions.

The percentage of health insurance costs borne byemployees is determined during collective bargaining,and the 80-20 split proposed by the Governor and in-corporated in the Act would closely mirror the propor-tions in the private sector. According to the KaiserFamily Foundation, in Michigan in 2010, average costsfor private sector, employer-based health insurancewere as shown in Table 10.

At least one Michigan teachers’ union has adopted anew approach to employee health care expenses. The1,230-member Dearborn Federation of Teachers andthe Dearborn school board in May, 2011 approved afour-year contract that shifts responsibility for provid-ing health insurance to the union. The district’s costper employee is limited in the contract (just under$12,000 per employee this year), and the union willcontract with the Michigan State AFL-CIO Public Em-ployee Trust to provide the service.

Table 10Average Costs for Employer-Based Health Insurance, Michigan, 2010

Employee Contribution Employer Contribution

Percent Dollars Percent Dollars

Single Employee 20% $951 80% $3,762

Employee Plus One 21 2,012 80 7,821

Family 22 2,879 78 10,269

Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, statehealthcarefacts.org.



Assignment

The rights and benefits associated with seniority areamong the issues traditionally enshrined in collectivebargaining agreements. In Michigan, a series of stat-utes passed in 2011 effectively demolish seniorityrights: layoffs are to be based on teacher effective-ness, and teacher assignment will no longer be a sub-ject of collective bargaining. Thesechanges are intended to improve thequality of teaching by ensuring thatlayoffs and recalls preserve the jobsof effective teachers and to requirethat teacher placement is based onthe mutual consent of the teacherand principal.

Traditionally, increased seniority gen-erally gave teachers more controlover where and whom they teach,allowing the most experienced teach-ers to migrate to the most support-ive and resource rich schools, withstudents who were the easiest toteach. This resulted in the most in-experienced teachers being concen-trated in schools with students whowere the most challenging.50

An example of the dysfunctional ef-fect of seniority based assignmentwas described in a November, 2010,analysis of the IMPACT teacher evaluation system re-sults in Washington DC. That report revealed that thedistrict’s most affluent ward had more than four timesas many highly effective teachers as the poorest ward.The unfortunate effect of the mismatch of the bestteachers and the most needy students is highlightedby research suggesting “that low achieving childrenwho have three highly effective teachers in successiveyears can make dramatic achievement gains.” Whileone way to correct the mismatch is elimination of per-sonnel practices that include traditional salary sched-ules and seniority rules that encourage veteran teach-ers to transfer to less challenging schools, an article inThe Washington Post recommended doubling perfor-mance bonuses for teachers who excel in high pover-ty schools.51 Another approach (one that has beenadopted in Michigan) empowers school principals withincreased authority to accept or reject teachers seek-ing to be placed in their schools.

The effects of the concentration of less experiencedteachers in more challenging schools are magnifiedwhen layoffs occur on a seniority basis. In that cir-cumstance, new teachers are laid off first, and theschools with the most challenging students are themost disrupted.

While the more experienced, and therefore more highlypaid, teachers are more likely to se-lect better school assignments if theycan, they recognize the challengesfaced by their less experiencedpeers. Merit pay for teachers whosestudents perform well on standard-ized tests is generally opposed byteachers, but 70 percent of teach-ers in one survey supported “com-bat pay” for teachers in tough neigh-borhoods with low performingschools.52

In Michigan, PA 103 of 2011 amend-ed the Public Employment RelationsAct to remove any decision regard-ing the placement of teachers fromcollective bargaining. Changes totenure rules are intended to make iteasier to dismiss ineffective teach-ers, rather than encouraging princi-pals to pressure those teachers torequest a change in school assign-ment. And school districts will be

required to adopt policies for teacher placement thatrequire the mutual consent of the teacher and theprincipal, and that place teachers who cannot be as-signed within 30 days on unpaid leave.

Layoffs

The School Aid Fund is scheduled to decline from $13.1billion in FY 2011 to $12.2 billion in FY 2012. As fed-eral stimulus money disappears, state and local reve-nues continue to reflect the weak economy, the SchoolAid Fund is stretched to cover state payments to com-munity colleges and universities, and fund balancesare exhausted, school districts are increasingly facedwith the necessity of laying off teachers. PA 102 of2011 prevents seniority based layoffs: in the future,layoffs will have to be based on retaining effectiveteachers.

Traditionally, increased se-niority generally gaveteachers more control overwhere and whom theyteach, allowing the most ex-perienced teachers to mi-grate to the most support-ive and resource richschools, with students whowere the easiest to teach.This resulted in the mostinexperienced teachers be-ing concentrated in schoolswith students who were themost challenging.

CRC Report


Under union contracts, seniority was the traditionalbasis of layoffs, with the most recent hires being thefirst to be laid off. Neither the effectiveness of theindividual teacher, nor the relative cost of the teacher,was considered: under seniority rules, more effectiveteachers could be laid off while less effective teacherswere retained, and a larger number of less senior teach-ers would be laid off than would be the case if higher-paid, more senior teachers were laid off. In an era ofshrinking revenues and layoffs, re-formers in Michigan successfullyargued that teacher effectiveness,not seniority, should determine theorder of layoffs.

Problems associated with senioritybased layoffs have affected schooldistricts across the nation, andMichigan is not the only state thatis addressing the issue. In his No-vember, 2010 budget address, NewYork City Mayor Michael Bloombergpredicted that 6,100 NYC publicschool teachers would have to belaid off. He confirmed union fearswhen noting that the most recenthires are also the cheapest, and thatseniority based layoffs will result ina larger number of teachers beinglost than if a merit based systemwere used.

In January, 2011, both Mayor Bloomberg and then-New York City Schools Chancellor Cathleen Black calledfor an overhaul of state law that mandates that sys-tem-wide teacher layoffs must occur in reverse se-niority order. In arguing for personnel decisions to bemade on the basis of merit, Ms. Black also noted thedisproportionate effect seniority based layoffs wouldhave on the poorest and most disadvantaged commu-nities, where high turnover rates result in high con-centrations of the least senior teachers. While ac-knowledging that the district had neither adopted nordeveloped a comprehensive teacher evaluation sys-tem, Ms. Black suggested that teachers in the AbsentReserve Pool (“a group of more than 1,200 teacherswho lack permanent teaching positions yet still drawfull salary and benefits indefinitely, at a cost of morethan $100 million a year”)53 and the 1,300 teacherswho received an unsatisfactory rating on their latestannual review should be the first to be laid off.54

In February, 2011 the New York City Department ofEducation published a list of the number of teachersat each school who would be laid off if the state failedto restore the $1.4 billion proposed to be cut from cityschools and if seniority rules were not changed. Onecity school, which employed a large percentage of newteachers, would have lost 14 of its 20 teachers (70percent). Many schools would have to replace laid offyounger teachers with more senior teachers from else-

where in the system. Whether ornot as a result of that tactic, a bud-get deal was reached that avoidedlayoffs but would not replace teach-ers who retired or quit during theyear.

In 2010, the Center for EducationData Research at the University ofWashington attempted to comparethe effects of seniority based layoffswith the assumed effects of layoffsbased on teacher effectiveness. Thestudy used a dataset of student,teacher, school, and district variablesand compared 1,717 teachers whoreceived layoff notices (nearly all ul-timately kept their jobs) with a listof teachers who would have beenlaid off based on value added evalu-ations using their students’ perfor-mance on standardized tests. “Us-ing teachers’ past performance, the

researchers predicted the performance of two hypo-thetical school systems: one in which the teachersreceiving notices had actually lost their jobs and onein which more than 1,300 of the lowest performingteachers had been fired instead.” (275 teachers wereon both the least senior and the lowest performinglists.) The study “projected that student achieve-ment would drop by an estimated 2.5 to 3.5 monthsof learning per student, when compared to laying offthe least effective teachers.”55

Eliminating seniority as the basis of layoffs increasesthe probability that more senior, older teachers will belaid off because they cost more. The use of seniorityas the basis for layoffs offers some protection againstage discrimination; loss of seniority protection and dis-parities in compensation (exacerbated by pension fund-ing as a percent of payroll) between new and moreexperienced teachers could well result in the system-

In his November, 2010 bud-get address, New York CityMayor Michael Bloombergpredicted that 6,100 NYCpublic school teacherswould have to be laid off.He confirmed union fearswhen noting that the mostrecent hires are also thecheapest, and that seniori-ty based layoffs will resultin a larger number of teach-ers being lost than if a meritbased system were used.



atic loss of older teachers. Not only would this beunfair to those older teachers, but it could also de-prive inexperienced teachers of the most seasonedmentors.

For reformers, the question is notwhether teacher layoff and retentiondecisions should be formally linkedto student achievement, but howstudent achievement and teacher ef-fectiveness should be measured andwhether there are other measurablefactors that should be considered inteacher retention and layoff. Forteachers, seniority provided securi-ty, protection from suspected favor-itism or bias, and assurance that theywould not be laid off in favor of lesssenior, and therefore less highly com-pensated, employees.

Class Size

Teacher’s unions are among thosewho have advocated for smaller classsizes as an important method to im-prove student learning. Smallerclasses have been considered par-ticularly important in kindergartenthrough third grade. A recent studyby Michigan State University associ-ate professor of education SpyrosKonstantopoulos found that havingconsistently good teachers in elementary school is asimportant for student achievement as the cumulativeeffects of small class size.56

Impact of Collective Bargaining on StudentAchievement

A recent effort to assess the impact of teacher collec-tive bargaining on student achievement recognizes theinfluence that teachers’ unions and contracts exert onpublic school policy and school management, and thestrong emotions that surround teachers’ unions. Thisanalysis examined the unique experience of New Mex-ico, where the 1992 law that made it a mandatorybargaining state sunset in 1999, making it a permis-sive state until a new law in 2003 again made it amandatory state. By comparing the experience of NewMexico from 1993 through 2007 with that of the other

49 states and D.C. (where essential union bargaininglaws remained stable), Lindy found “that mandatorycollective bargaining laws lead to an increase in SAT

scores and a decrease in high schoolgraduation rates while having noeffect on per-pupil expenditures.These impacts are large, with mon-etized values in the hundreds of mil-lions of dollars.”57 The author hy-pothesized that bargained transferrights led more experienced teach-ers to transfer to higher income,higher performing schools, and theSAT scores of students in thoseschools increased. Less experi-enced teachers were concentratedin higher poverty, poorer perform-ing schools, leaving those studentsfurther behind and more likely todrop out. When teachers lost col-lective bargaining rights, theachievement of higher performingstudents fell, and that of low per-forming students improved.58

Challenges toCollective Bargaining

According to the Governor’s SpecialMessage on Education Reform, thereform proposals contained in thatmessage can all be achieved withinthe present system of collective

bargaining. Nonetheless, a number of statutes adopt-ed in the first half of 2011 further restrict the subjectsthat can be bargained; allow the unilateral modifica-tion or termination of a collective bargaining agree-ment under certain circumstances; and impose otherstatewide rules. New laws are designed to pressurequick settlements of collective bargaining: PA 54 of2011 freezes teacher pay and benefits during contractnegotiations. Supporters explain the new statutes asefforts to help local school districts improve the qual-ity of teaching and reduce costs. Opponents definethe bills as efforts to weaken collective bargaining,teachers’ unions, and traditional public schools.

In Michigan, two state acts change the entity that isthe public employer in collective bargaining.

The author hypothesizedthat bargained transferrights led more experiencedteachers to transfer to high-er income, higher perform-ing schools, and the SATscores of students in thoseschools increased. Less ex-perienced teachers wereconcentrated in higher pov-erty, poorer performingschools, leaving those stu-dents further behind andmore likely to drop out.When teachers lost collec-tive bargaining rights, theachievement of higher per-forming students fell, andthat of low performing stu-dents improved.

CRC Report


PA 204 of 2009

This act authorized a new statewide schoolreform/redesign district headed by a stateschool reform/redesign officer, to be ap-pointed by the Superintendent of Public In-struction. One of the tasks assigned to theSchool Reform/Redesign Office is identifi-cation of the Persistently Lowest Achieving(PLA) schools. A list of the 98 PLA schoolspublished on September 29, 2011 includes39 schools in the Detroit City School Dis-trict (Detroit Public Schools are in the WayneIntermediate School District, Wayne RESA).The list includes nine charter schools and89 traditional schools in 17 intermediateschool districts (See Table 11).

Public schools in the lowest performing fivepercent of schools in the state were to beplaced under the supervision of the stateschool reform/redesign officer, who reportsto the state superintendent of public instruc-tion. If the officer did not approve a rede-sign plan crafted by the local school boardwith input from the local teacher bargain-ing unit, or determined that the redesignplan was not working, the plan required theofficer to place the school in the state schoolreform/redesign district and to impose anaddendum to each applicable collective bar-gaining agreement as necessary to implement theschool intervention model the officer selected for theschool. (The four models were defined in the Race tothe Top grant program and are the turnaround model,restart model, school closure, and transformationmodel.) The addendum would include provisions thatwere necessary to allow the applicable school inter-vention model to be implemented, including provisionsthat any contractual or other seniority system thatwould otherwise be applicable would not apply at thatpublic school and that any contractual or other workrules that were impediments to implementing the re-design plan would not apply at that public school. Nei-ther of those provisions would allow unilateral chang-es in pay scales or benefits. The addendum wouldprovide that the state school reform/redesign officerwould direct the expenditure of all funds attributableto pupils at the public school and the principal or oth-

er school leader designated by the state school re-form/redesign officer would have full autonomy andcontrol over curriculum and discretionary spending atthe public school.

If the officer determined to use the restart model,“There shall be considered to be no collective bargain-ing agreement in effect that applies to employeesworking at the public school or schools under this modelat the time of imposition of the model.”

If the turnaround model were adopted, “A collectivebargaining agreement that applies to employees work-ing at the public school or schools…continues to applywith respect to pay scales and benefits.” Subject toany addendum to the collective bargaining agreement,an employee would continue to accrue seniority rightsaccording to the agreement.

Table 11Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools in ISDs

Intermediate Number of PersistentlySchool District Lowest Achieving SchoolsWayne RESA 52 (includes 6 charter schools)Macomb ISD 7 (includes 1 charter school)Oakland Schools 7Genesee ISD 6Saginaw ISD 4Berrien 3 (includes 1 charter school)Kalamazoo RESA 3Washtenaw ISD 3Calhoun ISD 2Hillsdale ISD 2Ingham ISD 2Muskegon Area ISD 2 (includes 1 charter school)Bay Arenac ISD 1Kent ISD 1Menominee ISD 1St. Claire County RESA 1Van Buren ISD 1

Source: Michigan Department of Education, 2011Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools, September 29,2011



PA 4 of 2011

The Local Government and School District Fiscal Ac-countability Act (PA 4 of 2011) provides that consentagreements may be negotiated between the state andlocal governments found to be in severe financial stress.Thirty days after a consent agreement is entered, alocal government, including a school district, becomesexempt from the requirement in PERA to bargain col-lectively and to enter collective bargaining agreements.If a financial emergency is found to exist in a schooldistrict and other governmental unit, the state appointsan emergency manager who has operational and aca-demic powers as well as financial powers. PA 4 of2011 empowers state-appointed emergency manag-ers to act as the sole agent of the school district incollective bargaining with employees and to approveany contract or agreement. A state-appointed emer-gency manager may also abrogate collective bargain-ing agreements under certain conditions.

After meeting and conferring with the appropriatebargaining representative and, if in the emergencymanager’s sole discretion and judgment, a prompt andsatisfactory resolution is unlikely to be obtained, theemergency manager may reject, modify, or terminateone or more terms and conditions of an existing col-lective bargaining agreement. The rejection, modifi-cation, or termination of one or more terms and con-ditions of an existing collective bargaining agreementis, according to the act, a legitimate exercise of thestate’s sovereign powers if the emergency managerand state treasurer determine that all of the followingconditions are satisfied:

• The financial emergency in the local governmenthas created a circumstance in which it is reason-able and necessary for the state to intercede toserve a significant and legitimate public purpose.

• Any plan involving the rejection, modification, ortermination of 1 or more terms and conditions ofan existing collective bargaining agreement is rea-sonable and necessary to deal with a broad, gen-eralized economic problem.

• Any plan involving the rejection, modification, ortermination of 1 or more terms and conditions ofan existing collective bargaining agreement is di-rectly related to and designed to address the fi-nancial emergency for the benefit of the public asa whole.

• Any plan involving the rejection, modification, ortermination of 1 or more terms and conditions ofan existing collective bargaining agreement is tem-porary and does not target specific classes of em-ployees.

In late June, 2011, Roy Roberts, the emergency man-ager of Detroit Public Schools, unilaterally imposed astate-approved ten percent wage reduction for districtemployees beginning with the August 23 paycheck,imposed a requirement that employees contribute 20percent of their health benefit costs starting Septem-ber 1, and eliminated any payout for sick days at re-tirement. The actions were taken to address a $327million deficit. The Detroit Federation of Teachers andtwo other DPS unions immediately sued Mr. Robertsand State Treasurer Andy Dillon, alleging a violation ofthe state constitution. The lawsuit was settled on Feb-ruary 29, 2012; key terms included partial payment ofaccumulated sick leave for employees who submittedan irrevocable notice of retirement by March 19, 2012;a one-time lump sum payment of 2.5 percent of em-ployees’ 2011-2012 earnings; and limited reinstate-ment of step increases.

The Education Achievement System (EAS)

The concepts embodied in PA 204 and PA 4 have beenmerged in the Education Achievement Authority, whichwas established through an interlocal agreement be-tween Eastern Michigan University (EMU) and theDetroit Public Schools (DPS) in June, 2011. DPS iscurrently under the control of an emergency manager.

The new authority is charged with reforming publiceducation in the lowest performing five percent ofpublic schools in the state. It will create the statewideEducation Achievement System that will assume op-eration of those lowest performing schools (includingcharter schools) that are not achieving success undera redesign plan or that are in a district under the con-trol of an emergency manager. The 11 member boardof the Authority was named in August: seven mem-bers were appointed by the Governor, two appointedby EMU, and two by DPS. One of the DPS appointees,the district’s state-appointed emergency manager, RoyRoberts, will chair the five-member Executive Com-mittee during the new system’s incubation period. TheExecutive Committee has selected John Covington,former superintendent of schools in Kansas City, Mis-souri, as chancellor for the system.

CRC Report


This system will replace the school reform/school re-design office created under Race to the Top. Although92 schools were placed in the reform office in August2010, some have closed or merged and there are cur-rently 36 Detroit schools and 49 other schools in thereform office.

Governor Snyder announced thatthe EAS will begin operating its firstschools in September, 2012, andthose schools will be selected fromDPS, which includes 39 of the state’slowest performing schools. (Mr.Roberts will determine the criteriato be used to select DPS schools forinclusion in the new system.) EAScould eventually expand to includeall of the approximately 200 lowperforming schools throughout thestate, although the state Superin-tendent of Education has indicatedthat schools that show improvementwill not be placed in the EAS.

EAS will be empowered to hire prin-cipals who will then make hiring de-cisions about school staff includingteachers (existing staff will be al-lowed to apply for positions), facili-tated by a central office human re-sources system. The mandate of theEAS will be to allocate 95 percent ofresources to the school level (in DPS,only 55 percent of resources reachthe school level). The practical ef-fect of this would seem to be thatthe original district would continueto fund overhead costs for schoolsthat were transferred to the EAS,leaving fewer resources for theschools remaining in the original district.

According to the plan announced by the State of Mich-igan, teachers in the EAS will have the right to orga-nize; contracts for the employees of the new systemwill be negotiated with the chairman of the system’sExecutive Committee rather than the Chancellor.

Teachers will have the right to organize and willenjoy job protections, including protection fromarbitrary dismissal. Unlike the existing system,

the EAS is designed to empower teachers to suc-ceed by giving them a professional work envi-ronment under which they will have the autono-my, support and empowerment they need todramatically raise student achievement and close

income and socio-economicachievement gaps. Teachers willhave access to: timely and mean-ingful student data, access to bestinstructional practices, time tocollaborate with others, mentors,time to teach and re-teach untilstudents master content andskills, an institutional structure ofcontinuous improvement thatsupports teacher growth, multi-ple pathways to teacher certifi-cation, timely meaningful profes-sional development tied tostudent needs as shown by data,and pay incentives.59

Schools that are placed in the EASwill remain in the statewide districtfor at least five years. After fiveyears, if an evaluation determinessufficient progress, the school willbe allowed to choose to remain inEAS, transfer back to DPS, or seeka charter to become a public schoolacademy.

A Parent Advisory Council (PAC) willbe formed for each school in thesystem and will assume additionalresponsibility for the school as itprogresses in its improvement plan.At the point that the school mustdecide its future governance, thePAC and the principal will make thedetermination.60

The Department of Education has also proposed newaccreditation standards that would result in the low-est performing five percent of schools (those destinedto be part of the Education Achievement System) los-ing their accreditation and the next lowest performing15 percent being labeled “interim accredited.” Thiswould shift the basis for accreditation from a school’scompliance in areas related to administration andschool organization to educational results includingstandardized test scores and adequate yearly progress.

EAS will be empowered tohire principals who will thenmake hiring decisions aboutschool staff including teach-ers (existing staff will be al-lowed to apply for posi-tions), facilitated by acentral office human re-sources system. The man-date of the EAS will be toallocate 95 percent of re-sources to the school level(in DPS, only 55 percent ofresources reach the schoollevel). The practical effectof this would seem to bethat the original districtwould continue to fundoverhead costs for schoolsthat were transferred to theEAS, leaving fewer resourc-es for the schools remain-ing in the original district.



Challenges to Collective Bargaining in Other States

States change their collective bargaining rules for publicemployees using either legislation or executive orders.An executive order by Indiana Governor Evan Bayhgave state employees collective bargaining rights in1989; an executive order issued by Governor MitchDaniels rescinded those rights in 2005 (Indiana teach-ers retained their collective bargaining rights). Thegovernors of Colorado and Kentuckyissued executive orders in 2007 and2008 that were intended to give stateemployees a voice in state policies,but those orders did not establishcollective bargaining rights. Wash-ington State adopted collective bar-gaining for public workers in 2002.61

Michigan is not alone in introducingand adopting new laws that restrictpublic sector collective bargaining.Budget challenges, the job losses andfrustration of private sector workers,and the perception of unsustainablygenerous pay and benefits for publicsector workers, as well as a desireon the part of state officials to givelocal government and school districtleaders increased ability to managetheir workforce, are fueling challeng-es in other states as well.

Newly elected governors in severalstates have sought to reduce thepower of public employee unions, in-cluding teacher unions. Public em-ployee unions are politically veryactive, and critics claim that this political activity hasgiven public sector unions an unfair advantage in bar-gaining with officials whom the unions helped to getelected. Defenders interpret efforts to reduce thepower of public sector unions as an attack on theirlegitimate fund raising and voter activation activities.

Wisconsin was the first state to give public sectorworkers the right to unionize. In March, 2011, Wis-consin lawmakers adopted legislation that limits pub-lic employee bargaining rights to matters of wagesand limits raises to changes in the Consumer PriceIndex unless the public approves higher raises in areferendum, increases health care and pension costs

to public employees, requires most unions to hold votesannually to determine whether members want to re-tain the union, and ends the state collection of publicunion dues (exceptions to coverage under the newrules are firefighters, police, and state troopers unionswhich, coincidentally, endorsed Governor Scott Walk-er’s candidacy).62 Recall efforts began in February,2011, after the restrictions on public employee collec-tive bargaining were adopted. Nine votes on state

senators were held in July and Au-gust (two lost their seats); recallvotes on four other state senatorswill be held June 5, 2012. In Janu-ary, 2012, 931,000 petition signa-tures were filed seeking a vote onremoval of Governor Walker;540,208 signatures were requiredand the Governor did not file a chal-lenge to the petitions. (Only twoU.S. governors have ever been re-called: Lynn Frazier of North Dako-ta in 1921 and Gray Davis of Cali-fornia in 2003.) Another 842,860signatures were filed to recall theLieutenant Governor, RebeccaKleefisch.63

An act adopted in Ohio would havereduced the bargaining power oflocal public workers including teach-ers, prohibited teachers from bar-gaining on class sizes and otherworking conditions, establishedmerit pay, and barred protection ofteachers from layoff on the basis ofseniority.64 At a November 8, 2011referendum, voters repealed the law

by a 61 percent to 39 percent margin.65

In Idaho, a 2011 law limits the length of teacher con-tracts, limits bargaining to wages and benefits, phas-es out teacher tenure, and ends the last-in-first-outlayoff policy. Districts must base at least 50 percentof teacher and administrator evaluations on studentachievement; teachers’ salaries can be increased basedon improving student achievement and working inhard-to-staff assignments.66

Indiana now also limits collective bargaining to wagesand benefits, excludes education policy issues frombargaining (some policy issues, including class size,

Michigan is not alone in in-troducing and adopting newlaws that restrict public sec-tor collective bargaining.Budget challenges, the joblosses and frustration ofprivate sector workers, andthe perception ofunsustainably generous payand benefits for public sec-tor workers, as well as adesire on the part of stateofficials to give local gov-ernment and school districtleaders increased ability tomanage their workforce,are fueling challenges inother states as well.

CRC Report


must be discussed with teachers outside of bargain-ing), requires school districts to develop teacher eval-uation measures that include student achievement, andinclude performance in pay raise decisions.67

In 2010, Illinois tied teacher and administrator evalu-ations to student performance. In 2011, Illinois legis-lation supported by the Illinois Federation of Teachersand the Illinois Education Association tied teacher ten-ure, advancement, and layoffs to evaluation.68

Florida and Nevada modified teacher tenure rules,69

and Florida is implementing merit pay for teachers andprincipals.70

Tennessee lawmakers approved a bill that abolished

teachers’ ability to bargain collectively. The new lawestablished new procedures for choosing teacher rep-resentatives (instead of selecting one group to negoti-ate, teachers would pick a committee of representa-tives through secret ballot elections) who would meetwith the school board in “collaborative conferencing”meetings guided by a legal framework that is differentfrom the one that applies to negotiations. Instead ofa contract, the talks would result in a memorandum ofunderstanding, which is often less enforceable than acontract. The act limits the topics of agreements, al-lowing compensation, insurance, and benefits, butprohibiting job assignment, bonuses, and other is-sues.71

Many of these new laws are being challenged in court.



Research has demonstrated the critical importance ofteachers: teachers are arguably the most importantcomponent in the formal education delivery system.Because teachers are so important and because teach-ers’ unions have been so effective in protecting theirmembers, many of the recent efforts to improve thequality of public education have focused on teachers,tenure, and collective bargaining.

State and national government officials are amongthose who have criticized teacher tenure and job pro-tection; seniority benefits; criteria for wage increases;pensions; health care coverage; and other benefits.Among the reasons for this criticism is an increasingawareness of how far the public education system inthe U.S has fallen behind systems in other countries.Also important are budget problems at all levels ofgovernment; increased unfunded accrued liabilities inteacher pension funds battered by the recession; andreductions in wages and benefits in the private sector.

Policy changes in response to budgetary pressures in-clude restrictions on the subjects of collective bargain-ing and tenure reform, both of which increase man-agement control. It is alleged that some reformproposals have political motivations. A change in po-litical control of state houses and governorships is as-

sociated with challenges to teachers’ unions (as wellas other public employee unions), which are majordonors of money and other support in elections (near-ly all of that support goes to Democrats). Critics ofholding teachers individually accountable note themany other factors that affect student learning, in-cluding socioeconomic factors over which teachers haveno control, and the imperfection of some evaluationmeasures. Teachers’ union spokespersons assert thatteachers are being unfairly blamed for problems theydid not create and that they are not being given theresources required to be effective.

The many changes that are taking place in public ed-ucation include imposition of new core curricula; chang-es in performance evaluation of teachers; changes inthe relationship of teachers and school administrations;reduction of traditional teacher protections; competi-tion between charter schools and traditional schools;state takeover of underperforming school districts and,soon, individual schools. These are profound chang-es, and supporters believe that they will improve thequality of public education. Because the burden ofmany of these changes fall on teachers, implementa-tion will require providing the resources teachers needto be successful.

Conclusion

CRC Report


There is a general sense that the public education sys-tem is broken. Many of the proposals for fixing thesystem have focused on teachers, and that focus hasoccurred for several reasons: their importance; theirnumbers; their status as public employees; the abilityof legislatures to exercise control over them; the pub-lic’s desire for someone to hold accountable. Manypolicy makers and parents demand increased account-ability in language that often sounds accusatory, whileat the same, resources for schools are being reduced.

The research on the importance of teachers to educa-tion outcomes illustrates the immense added value that

a successful teacher can have, and the detrimentaleffects that a poorly performing teacher can have.Policies that focus exclusively on addressing poorlyperforming teachers, but that ignore the benefits thathighly successful teachers can bring, risk driving goodteachers from the system. Teachers often deal with avariety of challenges including unmotivated or unpre-pared students, large classes, poorly equipped class-rooms, shabby schools, and dangerous neighborhoods.Teachers are now also facing increased risk of layoff,larger class sizes, and reduced pay and benefits. Poli-cy makers should be very sensitive to not driving thebest teachers from the system.

Postscript



Table 12State Spending on Salaries and Wages for Instruction Staff by Public Elementary-SecondarySchool Systems, 2008-09 (Dollars in Millions)

Total Salaries and Wages Employee BenefitsUnited States $311,891.1 $209,007.1 $70,058.8Alabama 3,836.4 2,479.8 995.7Alaska 1,129.8 603.9 394.1Arizona 4,296.5 3,047.8 863.8Arkansas 2,418.0 1,668.2 437.1California 35,618.0 24,304.9 7,407.5Colorado 4,108.3 2,957.9 683.3Connecticut 5,054.4 3,290.6 1,273.5Delaware 877.7 565.7 250.5District of Columbia 330.7 280.2 30.3Florida 13,884.3 8,805.1 2,651.1Georgia 10,063.9 7,129.5 2,041.5Hawaii 1,402.3 868.4 342.9Idaho 1,157.6 808.8 262.9Illinois 13,520.1 9,193.4 3,009.0Indiana 3,729.8 1,640.3 3,681.8Iowa 2,914.2 2,085.5 624.6Kansas 2,883.1 1,901.2 495.8Kentucky 3,468.2 2,498.4 789.6Louisiana 4,052.0 2,772.4 925.6Maine 1,383.7 896.8 369.6Maryland 6,899.3 4,715.5 1,787.3Massachusetts 8,885.9 4,680.8 2,547.3Michigan 9,422.7 6,027.8 2,790.2Minnesota 5,816.0 3,749.5 1,574.4Mississippi 2,317.7 1,592.8 486.1Missouri 5,175.1 3,668.3 983.4Montana 855.8 568.3 161.9Nebraska 1,887.4 1,238.9 403.3Nevada 2,145.8 1,423.2 523.5New Hampshire 1,546.3 1,001.6 383.6New Jersey 13,800.3 8,839.7 2,979.6New Mexico 1,807.5 1,244.5 386.7New York 35,195.4 21,764.8 9,370.0North Carolina 7,943.5 5,773.6 1,413.5North Dakota 579.8 412.4 120.8Ohio 10,734.3 7,139.0 2,371.7Oklahoma 2,836.9 1,926.8 584.8Oregon 3,291.3 1,948.9 938.1Pennsylvania 12,803.8 8,537.5 2,933.9Rhode Island 1,224.2 782.6 322.4South Carolina 3,854.2 2,736.7 783.2South Dakota 645.9 443.1 119.1Tennessee 4,809.8 3,321.8 957.0Texas 23,895.9 18,535.8 3,041.2Utah 2,169.4 1,428.1 590.2Vermont 859.4 545.3 191.9Virginia 8,194.2 5,737.1 1,973.7Washington 5,984.1 4,056.7 1,342.0West Virginia 1,759.4 1,084.6 534.8Wisconsin 5,857.3 3,698.4 1,797.9Wyoming 744.8 504.3 176.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances – School Systems, “Public EducationFinances” Table 6

CRC Report


Table 13Per Pupil Amounts of State Spending on Salaries and Wages for Instruction Staff by PublicElementary-Secondary School Systems, 2008-09

Total Salaries and Wages Employee BenefitsUnited States $6,369 $4,333 $1,452Alabama 5,142 3,326 1,335Alaska 8,675 4,637 3,026Arizona 4,376 3,105 880Arkansas 5,089 3,516 921California 5,776 3,942 1,201Colorado 5,047 3,641 841Connecticut 8,872 6,017 2,328Delaware 7,475 4,843 2,144District of Columbia 7,460 6,321 685Florida 5,293 3,357 1,011Georgia 6,052 4,322 1,238Hawaii 7,813 4,839 1,911Idaho 4,320 3,018 981Illinois 6,330 4,338 1,421Indiana 5,389 3,627 1,595Iowa 5,977 4,278 1,281Kansas 6,128 4,044 1,055Kentucky 5,178 3,730 1,179Louisiana 6,114 4,183 1,397Maine 7,059 4,802 1,979Maryland 8,177 5,589 2,118Massachusetts 8,737 5,020 2,732Michigan 6,057 3,875 1,794Minnesota 7,242 4,669 1,960Mississippi 4,719 3,243 990Missouri 5,759 4,082 1,094Montana 6,043 4,013 1,143Nebraska 6,460 4,240 1,380Nevada 4,979 3,302 1,215New Hampshire 7,434 5,060 1,938New Jersey 9,337 6,504 2,192New Mexico 5,498 3,786 1,176New York 12,524 8,070 3,474North Carolina 5,470 3,976 973North Dakota 6,126 4,357 1,276Ohio 5,940 4,129 1,372Oklahoma 4,401 2,989 907Oregon 5,690 3,468 1,669Pennsylvania 7,516 5,035 1,730Rhode Island 7,906 5,530 2,278South Carolina 5,330 3,831 1,096South Dakota 5,097 3,499 940Tennessee 4,954 3,421 986Texas 5,142 3,989 654Utah 4,075 2,682 1,109Vermont 9,184 6,190 2,179Virginia 6,630 4,645 1,598Washington 5,775 3,915 1,295West Virginia 6,241 3,847 1,897Wisconsin 6,756 4,266 2,074Wyoming 8,565 5,799 2,033

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 Annual Survey of Local Government Finances – School Systems, “Public EducationFinances” Table 8.



Endnotes

1 C. Emily Feistritzer, “Profile of Teachers in the U.S. 2011,”National Center for Education Information, (NCEI) 2011.2 AlanGreeblatt, “Pink Slips Affect the Future of the Teaching Profes-sion,” Governing online, June 2011.

3 Leslie Eaton and Kris Maher, “Higher Taxes Yield to BudgetCuts in States,” The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com, July 7, 2011.

4 Contributing to the problem in New Jersey is the fact that thestate has failed to fully meet its public employee pension obli-gations for 17 years - in many years, the state paid nothinginto its pension funds - and has accrued no assets to pay forretiree health care, resulting in an unfunded liability for pen-sions and health care of over $120 billion. Matt Bai, “HowChris Christie Did His Homework,” The New York Times, Febru-ary 24, 2011.

5 Melissa Maynard, “State Workers to Pay More for Health Ben-efits,” Stateline, May 25, 2011.

6 State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Pen-sions and Benefits, “Pension and Health Benefit Reforms un-der Chapter 78, P.L. 2011”.

7 Trip Gabriel and Sam Dillon, “G.O.P. Governors Take Aim atTeacher Tenure,” The New York Times, January 31, 2011.

8 Claudio Sanchez, “N.J. Governor Puts Teacher Tenure in HotSeat,” NPR, January 17, 2011.

9 Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Person-nel, “What every member should know about…Your TenureAct Rights,” at http://aftmichigan.org/members/handbook/tenure.html.

10 Dave Murray, “State teachers union says it will consider ten-ure reform after Gov.-elect Rick Snyder takes office,” The GrandRapids Press, Mlive.com, November 11, 2010.

11 Lori Higgens, Detroit Free Press, Lawmakers seek tenurereforms, say firing bad teachers too costly, May 20, 2011.

12 Iris Salters, “There’s a right way to reform teacher tenure,”The Detroit News, June 29, 2011.

13 The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness is chargedwith recommending a student growth and assessment tool, astate evaluation tool for teachers, a state evaluation tool forschool administrators, changes to the requirements for a pro-fessional teaching certificate, and a process for evaluating andapproving local evaluation tools for teachers and administra-tors that are consistent with the state evaluation tools and theact.

14 Michigan Education Association, “Scores of Districts RequestTeacher Evaluation Waiver,” January 30, 2012.

15 Liana Heitin, “States Continue Push to Toughen Teacher Pol-icies,” Education Week, July 13, 2011.

16 “Teachers Union Files Lawsuit over Michigan Teacher TenureAct,” Detroit Free Press, March 12, 2012.

17 Dinah Frey, “State Teacher Tenure/Continuing Contract Laws,”Education Commission of the States, Updated September 2010.

18 Michigan Federation of Teachers and School Related Person-nel, “What every member should know about…Your TenureAct Rights,” at http://aftmichigan.org/members/handbook/tenure.html.

19 State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules, TeacherTenure Cases.

20 Lori Higgins, “Teachers fired, then rehired fuel tenure reformdebate,” Detroit Free Press, June 30, 2011.

21 New York had the highest rate of union membership (24.1percent) and North Carolina had the lowest (2.9 percent).

22 John T. Dunlop, “The Bargaining Table,” U.S. Department ofLabor, www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/amworkerconclusion.htm.

23 Benjamin A. Lindy, “The Impact of Teacher Collective Bar-gaining Laws on Student Achievement: Evidence from a NewMexico Natural Experiment,” The Yale Law Journal, 2011, 1130-1183.

24 Terry M. Moe, Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools,Brookings Institution Press, 2011, pg 8.

25 Sharon Otterman, “Union Shifts Position on Teacher Evalua-tions,” The New York Times, July 4, 2011.

26 “Amendments to the Existing NEA Policy Statements,” NEA,at www.nea.org/grants/amendments-existing-pol icy-statements.html.

27 AFT Michigan, “Fighting for Michigan’s Future. It’s Dollarsand Sense.” Pre K-12 Public Education A Michigan Platform,2011.

28 MEA website, www.mea.org/about-mea.

29 Karen Bouffard, “MEA gives Gov. Snyder union’s plan to ‘re-invent’ Education,” The Detroit News, January 18, 2011.

30 Detroit News Editorial, “Where’s the MEA reform?” January28, 2011.

31 U.S. Census Bureau, “Public Education Finances: 2009,” May2011.

32 New Jersey was second at $6,504); the state with the lowestwas Utah, at $2,682. (U.S. Census Bureau, “Public EducationFinances: 2009,” Table 8.

33 Anthony P Carnevale, Jeff Strohl, and Michelle Melton, “Se-lect Findings from What’s it Worth? The Economic Value ofCollege Majors,” The Center on Education and the Workforceat Georgetown University.

34 Summary Table G, Estimated Average Annual Salaries of TotalInstructional Staff and of Classroom Teachers “Rankings andEstimates: Rankings of the States 2010 and Estimates of SchoolStatistics 2011,” NEA Research, December 2010.

CRC Report


35 Dan Goldhaber, Michael DeArmond, and Scott DeBurgomaster,“Teacher Attitudes about Compensation Reform: Implicationsfor Reform Implementation,” National Center for Analysis ofLongitudinal Data in Education Research, June 2010.

36 U.S. Census Bureau, “Public Education Finances: 2009,” May2011.

37 Michigan Department of Education, 2010-11 Bulletin 1014.

38 According to 2011 School Report Cards by district, the GrossePointe and Saline high schools did not make average yearlyprogress (AYP) in math, the Farmington high school did notmake AYP in reading, Roseville high school did not make AYPin reading or math, and River Rouge elementary and highschools did not make AYP in reading or math.

39 Jeffery H. Keefe, “Are Michigan Public Employees Over-Com-pensated?” Briefing Paper #293, Economic Policy Institute,February, 2011.

40 Michael A. Miller, “The public-private pay debate: what dothe data show?” Monthly Labor Review, May 1996.

41 Keith A Bender and John S. Heywood, “Out of Balance? Com-paring Public and Private Sector Compensation over 20 Years,”National Institute on Retirement Security, April, 2010.

42 Sam Dillon, “As Budgets are Trimmed, Time in Class is Short-ened,” The New York Times, July 5, 2011.

43 Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, “FY 2011-12 School Aid Bud-get”.

44 Steven Greenhouse, “States Want More In Pension Contribu-tions,” The New York Times, June 15, 2011.

45 Jonathan Walters, “Rewriting State Retirement Plans,” Gov-erning, July 2011.

46 Julie Mack, “Otsego’s move from MESSA will save districtabout $4,200 per teacher,” Mlive.com, July 28, 2011.

47 “MESSA Bills Going to Gov.,” MIRS Capital Capsule, July 30,2011.

48 Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, Bill Analysis, Public Acts 106-109 of 2007.

49 Rick Snyder, “A Special Message from Governor Rick Snyder:Education Reform,” April 27, 2011.

50 George Clowes, “Teachers Like Tenure But Admit its Flaws,”School Reform News, The Heartland Institute, July 2003.

51 Bill Turque, “’Highly Effective’ Teachers Are Spread Unevenlyacross District,” The Washington Post, November 19, 2010.

52 George Clowes, “Teachers Like Tenure But Admit its Flaws,”School Reform News, The Heartland Institute, July 2003.

53 Cathleen P. Black, New York Post, Keeping the teachers NYCkids need, January 21, 2011.

54 Cathleen P. Black, “Keeping the teachers NYC kids need,”New York Post, January 21, 2011.

55 Dan Goldhaber and Roddy Theobald, “Assessing the Deter-minants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs,” CEDR WorkingPaper Center for Education Data and Research, University ofWashington Bothell, 2010-07.

56 “Teacher Influence Persists in Early Grades,” Michigan StateUniversity News, July 27, 2011.

57 Benjamin A. Lindy, “The Impact of Teacher Collective Bar-gaining Laws on Student Achievement: Evidence from a NewMexico Natural Experiment,” The Yale Law Journal, 2011, 1130-1183.

58 Tom Jacobs, “Collective Bargaining and the Student Achieve-ment Gap,” Miller-McCune, March 7, 2011.

59 State of Michigan, “Frequently Asked Questions About theEducation Achievement System”.

60 State of Michigan, “Frequently Asked Questions About theEducation Achievement System”.

61 Melissa Maynard and Josh Goodman, “Behind Collective Bar-gaining Debate, Mixed Experiences in the States,” Stateline,February 24, 2011.

62 “New Ohio, Wis., Labor Laws Besieged,” Education Weekonline, April 11, 2011. Sean Cavanagh, “State LegislaturesNotch Major K-12 Policy Changes,” Education Week, May 25,2011.

63 Tim Jones, “Polarized Wisconsin Digging in for Official Startof Walker War,” Bloomberg Businessweek, March 28, 2012.

64 Sean Cavanagh, “State Legislatures Notch Major K-12 PolicyChanges,” Education Week, May 25, 2011.

65 Reginald Fields, “Ohio voters overwhelmingly reject Issue 2,dealing a blow to Gov. John Kasich,” The Plain Dealer, Novem-ber 9, 2011.

66 Liana Heitin, “States Continue Push to Toughen Teacher Pol-icies” Education Week, July 13, 2011.

67 Stephen Sawchu, “States Aim to Curb Collective Bargaining,”Education Week, February 7, 2011.


69 John Gramlich, Stateline, In an era of one-party rule, Repub-licans pass a sweeping state agenda, June 13, 2011.


71 Chas Sisk, “Bill limiting teachers union’s role heads to Haslam,”Tennessean.com, May 21, 2011.

pre and post employment teacher trainingcrcmich.org/publicat/2010s/2012/rpt380.pdf · • spikes in...

Documents