1. U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 2001 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2002), Table 169.

  2. Anonymous, “Michigan Teachers Get Smallest Slice of Personnel Pie: Michigan Teachers are Outnumbered by Non-Teachers” Michigan Education Report, Winter 1999 at http://www.educationreport. org/pubs/mer/1574.

  3. La Rae G. Monk, “Collective Bargaining: Bringing Education to the Table” Mackinac Center for Public Policy Report, August 1998 at http://www.mackinac.org/1376.

  4. For more on this issue, see Anonymous, “Michigan administrative expenses top $1.4 billion: School administration costs rise over two-times faster than instructional expenses” Michigan Education Report, Spring 2002 at http://www.mackinac.org/4366.

  5. See Anonymous, “Detroit Teachers Not Receiving Paychecks: Privatization of Payroll Service Could Fix Problem, Say Observers” Michigan Education Report, Winter 2000 at http://www.mackinac.org/2708 and Michael LaFaive, “Payroll Privatization May Come to Detroit” Michigan Privatization Report, Winter 1999 at http://www.mackinac.org/2563.

  6. A list of the schools reviewed may be found at http://www.window.state.tx.us/m26edu.html.

  7. For more on this, see Brennan Brown, “Minneapolis Public Schools Teach a Lesson in Privatization” Michigan Privatization Report, Winter 1998 at http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=794.

  8. Anonymous, “Minneapolis Schools’ Chief Hutchinson Brought Stability, Change” St. Paul Pioneer Press, Monday, June 2, 1997, pg. 6A.

  9. Duchesne Paul Drew, “33 Minneapolis schools lauded for efforts to improve quality” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Oct. 29, 1996, p. 1B.

  10. Joe Argon “Changing the Guard” American School & University, Sept. 1, 1997 at http://asumag.com/mag/university_changing_guard/index.html.

  11. Joseph Lehman, “Privatization Can Teach New Detroit School Board a Lesson.” Audio commentary transcript from June 7, 1999, available at http://www.mackinac.org/1847.

  12. Anonymous, “Detroit schools privatize maintenance department” Michigan Privatization Report, Spring 2002 at http://www.mackinac.org/4167.

  13. Brian Harmon, “Plow Plan a Success for Detroit Schools” Detroit News, Dec. 13, 2000, at http://www.detnews.com/2000/metro/0012/13/d01-161606.htm and Anonymous, “Detroit Schools Clear Path for Efficient Snow Removal” Michigan Privatization Report, Spring 2001 at http://www.mackinac.org/3371.

  14. Anonymous, “Privatization Paint-by-Numbers” Michigan Privatization Report Fall 2000 at http://www.mackinac.org/3019.

  15. Anonymous, “Will Detroit’s Reform School Board Learn Its Lesson?” Michigan Privatization Report, Fall 1999 at http://www.mackinac.org/2137.

  16. Ibid.

  17. Michael LaFaive, “Mt. Pleasant Schools Taste Success with Cafeteria Privatization” Michigan Privatization Report, Summer 2001 at http://www.mackinac.org/3514.

  18. Elizabeth H. Moser, “Computing the Savings: Detroit Schools Privatize Information Technology” Michigan Privatization Report, Spring 2001 at http://www.mackinac.org/3357.

  19. See Brian Harmon, “Compuware wins $90 million school deal in Detroit: Contract is second in cash-saving privatization drive” Detroit News, Aug. 16, 2000 at http://www.detnews.com/2000/schools/0008/16/a01-106406.htm.

  20. Mackinac Center for Public Policy telephone survey of school districts, Summer 2001. See Michael LaFaive, “Survey Says: Privatization Works in Michigan Schools” Michigan Privatization Report, Fall 2001 at http://www.mackinac.org/3721.

  21. Some of these deal directly with school employee collective bargaining, which will be discussed below under Habit 6.

  22. For more on MESSA, see Andrew Bockelman and Joseph P. Overton, “Michigan Education Special Services Association: The MEA’s Money Machine” Mackinac Center for Public Policy study, January 1993 at http://www.mackinac.org/8.

  23. Frank Webster, “Teachers Deserve Good Benefits; Schools Deserve to Know What They Cost,” Viewpoint on Public Issues No. 98-20, July 6, 1998, Mackinac Center for Public Policy at http://www.mackinac.org/366.

  24. Tom Watkins, “Has Michigan spent enough on school buildings? No: State must repair savage inequities in infrastructure to protect kids” Detroit News, Sept. 15, 2002 at http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0209/15/a19-587298.htm.

  25. Patrick Anderson, “Has Michigan spent enough on school buildings? Yes: Investment in structures explodes, so don’t break word on limiting taxes” Detroit News, Sept. 15, 2002 at http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0209/15/a19-587325.htm.

  26. Michael Arens, “The Need for Debt Policy in Michigan Public Schools” Mackinac Center for Public Policy Report, March 1998, at http://www.mackinac.org/478.

  27. See for example, Ben Hayllar, “Preparing a Municipal Debt Policy,” Government Finance Review, June 1994, pp. 34-35, Municipal Treasurers’ Association of the United States and Canada, Debt Policy Handbook, 2nd edition, (Washington, D.C.: Government Finance Officers Association, 1994), Debt Management Recommended Practices, cited Apr. 27, 1998, available at http://www.gfoa.org/practice/rp_debt.htm, and Lennox L. Moak and Albert M. Hillhouse, Concepts and Practices in Local Government Finance, (Chicago, IL: Municipal Finance Officers Association, 1975).

  28. For a longer report on these recommendations, see Michael Arens, “The Need for Debt Policy in Michigan Public Schools” Mackinac Center for Public Policy study, March 1998, at http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/debtpol3.doc.

  29. MCL 380.1351.(3).

  30. J. Flanigan, M. Richardson, D. Stollar, Managing School Indebtedness: A Complete Guide to School Bonding, 2nd edition (Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co., 1995), p. 83.

  31. A standard amortized debt repayment schedule (as one might find in a mortgage loan), would retire just over half the principal at the end of the 10th year if the note were amortized over 16.5 years. A shorter term bond would, naturally, retire more principal faster.

  32. Arguments in favor of certificates of participation may be found in Michael DeArmond, Sara Taggart and Paul Hill, The Future of School Facilities: Getting Ahead of the Curve (Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, May 2002), pp. 20-23 at http://www.crpe.org/pubs/pdf/report_facilitiesweb.pdf.

  33. James C. Joseph, Debt Issuance and Management (Washington, D.C.: Government Finance Officers Association, 1994), pp. 33-35.

  34. See Lynn Stevens Hume, “ABA Task Force to Finish Pay-to-Play Report by Early June,” The Bond Buyer Online, April 21, 1998.

  35. For more on leasing school buildings, see Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., “New Tax Law Boosts School Construction with Public-Private Partnerships” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1463, Aug. 8, 2001 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1463.cfm and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., “Is There a Better Way to Finance and Build New Schools?” Michigan Education Report, Spring 1999 at http://www.mackinac.org/pubs/mer/1693, and Matthew J. Brouillette and Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., “Partnerships in School Construction” Michigan Privatization Report, Summer 1999 at http://www.mackinac.org/1782.

  36. Email Correspondence with Ralph Crosslin, CEO of Morey Charter School, Oct. 9, 2002.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Section 422 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 extended the privilege of using tax-exempt private activity bonds to qualified public education facilities. See Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., “New Tax Law Boosts School Construction with Public-Private Partnerships” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1463, Aug. 8, 2001 at http://www.heritage.org/Research /Taxes/BG1463.cfm.

  39. Earlier this year, passage of Virginia Senate Bill 681, the “Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act” authorized these kinds of bonds. For a description of this legislation, see http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?021+sum+sb681.

  40. For more on this enrollment issue, see Anonymous, “Don’t Overbuild School Districts” Detroit News, Oct. 6, 2002 at http://www.detnews.com/2002/editorial/0210/08/a16-605041.htm.

  41. Much of this section is adapted from “Thousands of students switch public schools under choice law,” Michigan Education Report, Fall 2001 at http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.aspx?ID=3747.

  42. Email Correspondence from Michigan Department of Education. Jan. 11, 2002.

  43. Matthew J. Brouillette and Dr. Matthew Ladner, “The Impact of Limited School Choice on Public School Districts,” Mackinac Center for Public Policy, July 2000, pp. 15.

  44. Jodi S. Cohen, “Student Exodus Drains Detroit,” Detroit News, Mar. 11, 2001 at http://www.detnews.com/2001/schools/0103/11/a01-198077.htm.

  45. Much of this section is adapted from La Rae G. Monk, “Collective Bargaining: Bringing Education to the Table” Mackinac Center for Public Policy Report, August 1998.

  46. Ibid, pp. 23-24.

  47. MCL 423.211.

  48. Grief Brothers Cooperage Corp, 42 LA 555 (1964).

  49. Bob Chase, “Running on Empty: Why Our New Unions Must Put Teacher Quality First,” Education Week, Jan. 21, 1998, p 14.

  50. MCL 38.101, et. seq.; MSA 15.2001 et seq.

  51. Saginaw Public School Master Agreement, 1995-1998, Appendix A, p 70.

  52. 1995 PA 289, MCL 380.1250.

  53. See, for example, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., “Do Small Classes Influence Academic Achievement? What the National Assessment of Educational Progress Shows” The Heritage Foundation CDA Report #00-07, June 9, 2000 at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/CDA00-07.cfm and Eric Hanushek, “Some Findings from an Independent Investigation of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and from Other Investigations of Class Size Effects,” Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, Vol. 21 (1999), p. 144.