News Story

State Education Spending Still Increasing While Serving Fewer Students

Second in a series on education

The constant drum beat by many involved with Michigan’s public schools is that the state isn’t spending enough money on education

Yet, a report by the Senate Fiscal Agency shows that the School Aid Fund will increase by $454 million from 2012-13 to 2013-14 even though the state is projected to have 6,100 fewer students.

State tax dollars will account for $391 million of that $454 million increase. The rest are federal dollars. State and fedearl dollars account for $13.4 billion in the school aid fund for 2013-2014, with $11.4 billion of that coming from the state.

"These people have been complaining for so long and so thoroughly, they refuse to acknowledge they are the winners in the state budget," said James Hohman, a fiscal policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

In June, the Michigan Department of Education stated the number of districts in deficit increased to a record 55 from 49. However, the state added 10 districts that were projected to emerge from deficit by the end of June. MDE officials said they won't have an official count until November.

The complaints about needing more money are illustrated across the state. For example, in the Ann Arbor Public Schools, some teachers got raises while the district approved charging students for taking certain classes and increased a pay-for-play charge for sports.

The district said a lack of state funding created fiscal havoc throughout Michigan.

"Every employee is contributing to make up the ongoing deficit that plagues not only AAPS (Ann Arbor Public Schools) but every public school district in the state due to the inadequate funding policies of public education in Michigan," Ann Arbor Public School Spokeswoman Liz Margolis said in an email.

Ann Arbor’s per-pupil state foundation allowance is projected to increase from $9,020 in 2012-13 to $9,050, which is the highest in Washtenaw County and 16 percent higher than the nearest school district. 

Others affiliated with public schools also have pointed to a lack of funding for many district’s financial woes.

Michigan Association of School Boards Executive Director Kathy Hayes questioned earlier this year in an article published on the MASB website whether there was a steady disinvestment in public education in Michigan. 

"They are getting more money, there are fewer students and they are complaining about money," Hohman said.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Commentary

In Defense of Liberty: Unions, Right-to-Work and Majority Rule

"We are a democracy, we operate by majority rule. Therefore we can force you to give us your money." Such is the message from unions justifying forced dues and opposing laws that protect worker freedom.

It is liberty, not democracy that is the highest form of society.

Make no mistake, democracies, direct or representational, are better than any other form of government. However, they are only as good as the extent to which they protect the liberty that individuals enjoy. These liberties exist in spite, rather than because, of government institutions. 

Many opponents of right-to-work laws justify their ability to force workers to financially support unions because those workers are within a group whose members at one time voted to force everyone in the group to pay.

This is different than voluntarily joining an organization that requires all members to pay dues for the use of their facilities, such as a golf club or a gym. Joining or being associated with a union is not voluntary or a matter of choice. In most cases it is a condition of employment.

Workers do not take a job at Ford because they want to join the UAW. They join the UAW because they took a job at Ford.

The union defense of "we can do anything we want because we have majority rule and we are a democracy like the government" fails on many fronts.

The first and most glaring inaccurate comparison is that the United States is a direct democracy. With the exception of some very small towns and state and local ballot measures, our government is a republic.

Furthermore, we are not just a republic that elects representatives to make our laws, but rather we are a constitutional republic in which certain rights of the individual are protected against laws made by the "majority."

Pure majority rule in our country has its necessary limits.

The Founding Fathers correctly worried about tyranny of the majority and created several protections against it. James Madison warned against taking liberty out of a democracy. In the Federalist Papers No. 10 he wrote, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."

That is where defenders of forced unionism fail. When liberty is taken out of democracy and the majority is given the ability to steal from the minority, that no longer is a good and noble form of government or representation. Thankfully that is not, for the most part, the case in America.

Even if the majority of a small community in the United States with a town hall style democracy or a state with voter initiatives and referendum voted for a law that banned people from going to church, it would not stand because of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

It would not matter if a majority of the voters supported the law, majority rule would not be allowed to infringe on the rights and liberties of the minority protected by our Constitution.

Finally unions are not government. The First Amendment's freedom of association itself protects workers' rights to ban together and join unions.

The special privileges granted unions include acting as the monopoly exclusive representative for workers, compelling an employer to negotiate with them, and other collective bargaining abilities that come from the laws government made such as the National Labor Relations Act, National Railway Act, and various state labor laws among others.

Unions, on the other hand, do not provide for government. If someone breaks one of the government's laws or threatens to harm its citizens, the government, because it has a judicial system, has the ability to arrest and even, incarcerate that person.

While unions in non-right-to-work states can get a worker fired for not paying them (again a privilege granted to them by government) they do not have the ability to create their own jail and incarcerate that worker.

The reason for these limitations is simple — unions are not government. They cannot have a police force, they cannot have jails, and most of all they were never formed to govern citizens.

As unions try to use the majority rule argument to justify their ability to compel others to pay them, they must be reminded that there are rights more fundamental than giving the many carte blanche authority over the few. 

Purveyors of this argument must be reminded: When there is a conflict between liberty and democracy, we must always err on the side of liberty.

F. Vincent Vernuccio is director of labor policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.