100% to 90% county structure

89% to 25% county structure

24% to 1% county structure

295

430 191343

426

550685

166

869

115

40

48

255

299 522

292614

501

215274

17630336166

2416574

176

136118

149 133

252

165

178

53

197

17

977

231 89

1

539

1,031 69

67

87

12655

183

Total school districts by state andthe level of county consolidation

All This Week!

Michigan GrownProduce Sale!

3803516-01

A12 SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2010 THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS

CONTINUED FROM A1

advocacy groups are calling for shared services.

Former state Superintendent Tom Watkins, Flanagan’s predecessor, is a forceful voice for consolidation.

“Maybe the way things are set up now was good public policy and made sense 20 years ago, when the money was there. There’s nothing wrong with paying people a nice wage and having small school districts,” Wat-kins said.

“But that’s as if Ford and GM be-haved as if Honda, Toyota and Hyun-dai didn’t exist. Now there is declining enrollment and choice and charters, yet the infrastructure is operating as if nothing has changed. They need a reason better than ‘We’ve always done it this way.’”

But proponents acknowledge that forcing mergers on reluctant com-munities — or even getting school boards to agree to share services — is a political nightmare.

“School funding isn’t rational. It’s political and emotional. And if you threaten cuts, people will say you’re against the kids,” said Watkins, who led Michigan schools from 2001 to 2005 and consults internationally in business and education.

The MSU research team, led by professor Sharif Shakrani, agreed to predict statewide savings for the two options of shared services or com-plete county-level consolidation into about 57 intermediate districts based largely around the lines of one county or more.

Shakrani said dollars are saved through economies of scale and by eliminating administrative and op-erational redundancies. His work did not include closing any buildings or shifting any students.

“Many people hear ‘consolidation’ and they think about closing schools, but that doesn’t have to be the case,” he said.

Some educators say they know meaningful savings are attainable, but only if lawmakers are willing to be bold and families are open to big changes.

“By my calculation, there are $10 million in administrative redundan-cies in Muskegon County alone,” said Muskegon Superintendent Colin Armstrong, one of 13 school chiefs in that county. He said current efforts to combine services and staff address only about $1 million of the overlap.

“Michigan won’t seriously begin the process of consolidation until the economy hits rock bottom and there are districts that literally cannot af-ford to operate schools,” Armstrong said.

The MSU report discusses the political and practical turmoil that comes with forced mergers and notes many local school leaders “abhor” the idea.

Some pieces in placeBut researchers said Michigan al-

ready has good regional educational networks: the 57 intermediate school districts drawn roughly around county lines. They were created to provide services to member districts that would be too expensive or un-wieldy for local districts to offer on their own.

“In Michigan, the ISD system is greatly underutilized. While some have increased their roles to provide more services, many are passive,” Shakrani said.

“The ISDs can and should provide the mechanism whereby constituent school districts can share services such as purchasing, warehousing and data processing, as well as the coordination of contractual services for transportation, food and building maintenance,” he wrote.

Educational quality is another issue Shakrani addressed. Many districts, urban and rural, have high concentra-tions of students from low-income or impoverished families.

Reducing operating costs could help “improve the quality of educa-tion for all students,” the report said. Researchers also emphasized there is a lack of consensus on whether countywide consolidation itself af-fects student achievement.

School consolidation has been an ongoing march in the country since the early 20th century, as communities moved from one-room schoolhouses to neighborhood schools and commu-nity districts. Michigan dropped from 7,300 districts to 4,900 in the baby boom years following World War II. The number shrank to 600 after the 1964 School District Reorganization Act.

Since 1970, the number has held near 550, leaving Michigan trailing only California, Illinois, New York and Texas in total districts. (Michigan ranks eighth in population and 11th in area.)

Consolidations most benefi t small and rural districts, and more than half of Michigan’s systems are below a 2,000-student threshold considered a fi scally ideal minimum, research-ers said.

Michigan spends more than $12 billion on public education. Within three years of consolidation, savings amount to 8 percent of operating costs, 4 percent of instructional sup-port, 15 percent of administration and 18 percent of transportation spending, the report concluded. It also added that, so far, little research-based evi-dence exists on long-term fi nancial

effects of consolidation. While the shared-services model

saves half as much, it can be more po-litically palatable , researchers said.

Arguments against The study discusses opposing ar-

guments, such as loss of community identity and history, and the fact that consolidations create job losses that can hurt a local economy. Loss of lo-cal school boards is another issue, because they provide an avenue for residents to have a say in what hap-pens in their schools.

Most Michigan school districts

resist any efforts toward consolida-tion, Shakrani said, and even if talks begin, it can take years before districts combine.

Only two mergers have occurred in Michigan in the past 10 years. This month, voters in the Adrian-area dis-tricts of Deerfi eld and Britton over-whelmingly agreed to fully unite their small districts, after testing the waters with a sports team merger. The other recent merger was in the Upper Pen-insula: Gogebic County’s Wakefi eld and Marenisco.

Legislative efforts to nudge schools toward mergers have fallen fl at. State

Rep. Fred Miller, D-Mount Clemens, in October introduced a bill to create a committee to eye potential district mergers, modeled after a federal mili-tary base-closing process. The bill sits in the House Education Committee.

As state superintendent, Flanagan wants to push intermediate districts into taking on more responsibilities, under the shared-services model.

“If I could wave a wand over the state, I’d keep the local districts, but there would be a lot more done at the county level, as you see in Florida,” Flanagan said.

“A countywide system is going to feel so much more impersonal. You have so many places where the school district is the whole identity for the town. When they think of their schools, they have that pride, and they have a voice.”

Tom White, the former chief of the Michigan School Business Offi -cials who consulted with Shakrani on the report, said it’s more realistic for districts to share services on a countywide level over a fi ve- or 10-year period.

“It can all happen in an orderly way, which is not to say there won’t be some bumps in the road since you are dealing with people who will be los-ing their jobs. But if you allow things to happen more naturally, they have a better chance of sticking.”

Economies of scaleBut stopping short of complete con-

solidation has other challenges.A shared-services model has gained

traction in the Flint area after devas-tating losses of 70,000 General Motors jobs and 30,000 students. As a result, the Genesee Intermediate School Dis-trict assumed business services for 12 member districts.

“There comes a point where your economies of scale are diminished,” Superintendent Thomas Svitkovich said.

“You have to manage budgets and conduct public hearings and provide the audits for each of the districts. And each of the districts needs to fi le separate reports with the state and federal governments, especially if you have some districts that rely on more grant funding.”

Districts also need to buy com-patible software for business func-tions, requiring cash at the start for systems and training, said Superin-tendent Kevin Konarska, of the Kent Intermediate School District. The ISD has worked toward cooperation with a shared data warehouse, a private busing contract for special education students, a teachers union contract template and more.

Flanagan said buying compatible equipment isn’t a barrier, because dis-tricts routinely replace systems any-way. But he understands why school boards and communities are reluctant to lay off bookkeepers, a transporta-tion director or secretaries .

“It takes some courage. I under-stand that you don’t want layoffs. But we’re moving toward more layoffs anyway, so you might as well keep them as far away from the classroom as you can.”

Watkins said changes will have to come from Lansing. County and local educators are too close to the situation.

“If you’ve been in the silo all your life, you don’t have the vision to see what else is out there,” he said. “It’s going to take someone with intestinal fortitude. You need to tell people, ‘If you want to keep your Bulldogs, Colts and other things, then you’re going to have to accept some of these other changes.’

“When someone shows you death, you accept serious injury more read-ily. And like the auto industry, unless they totally revamp the way they do business, they’re going to be dead.”

E-mail: localnews@grpress.com

DISTRICT GENERAL SAVINGS FROM SAVINGS(GROUPED BY BUDGET COUNTY-LEVEL FROM SHAREDCOUNTY) EXPENDITURES CONSOLIDATION SERVICESKENT COUNTYBYRON CENTER $31.6 million $1.3 million $672,041 CALEDONIA $36.6 million $1.5 million $749,556 CEDAR SPRINGS $29.9 million $1.3 million $632,586 COMSTOCK PARK $22.5 million $917,577 $413,735 EAST GRAND RAPIDS $27.7 million $964,473 $300,766 FOREST HILLS $98.3 million $3.5 million $1.7 millionGODFREY-LEE $16.6 million $524,356 $166,330 GODWN HEIGHTS $23.3 million $825,552 $383,704 GRAND RAPIDS $216.8 million $9.1 million $4.1 millionGRANDVILLE $53.5 million $1.9 million $967,711 KELLOGGSVILLE $21.7 million $789,566 $292,040 KENOWA HILLS $34.6 million $1.4 million $654,272 KENT CITY $12.4 million $512,765 $253,215 KENTWOOD $84.8 million $2.8 million $1.3 millionLOWELL $33.8 million $1.4 million $785,875 NORTHVIEW $32.6 million $1.1 million $454,994 ROCKFORD $73.1 million $2.8 million $1.3 millionSPARTA $25.3 million $935,354 $426,111 WYOMING $55.1 million $2.0 million $878,050 COUNTY TOTALS $932 million $35.8 million $16.4 million

OTTAWA COUNTYALLENDALE $19.1 million $789,348 $315,909COOPERSVILLE $22.1 million $833,698 $353,255GRAND HAVEN $56.4 million $1.8 million $827,323 HOLLAND $41.6 million $1.4 million $453,912 HUDSONVILLE $47.3 million $1.5 million $671,753 JENISON $44.5 million $1.3 million $559,565 SPRING LAKE $22.0 million $766,882 $355,315 WEST OTTAWA $45.8 million $2.2 million $1.0 millionZEELAND $45.8 million $1.6 million $771,781 COUNTY TOTALS $367 million $12.3 million $5.3 million

ALLEGAN COUNTYALLEGAN $23.1 million $851,737 $395,833 FENNVILLE $12.7 million $520,517 $253,764 GLENN $243,600 $6,606 $1,900 HAMILTON $22.9 million $848,458 $453,136 HOPKINS $12.6 million $563,535 $246,960 MARTIN $6.2 million $269,882 $90,367 OTSEGO $21.0 million $895,506 $358,725 PLAINWELL $22.9 million $763,642 $317,793 SAUGATUCK $8.5 million $340,910 $98,991 WAYLAND $24.3 million $899,435 $375,603 COUNTY TOTALS $154 million $5.9 million $2.6 million

Arkansas: Governor in 2003 tried to consolidate high school districts below 1,500 students. Legislators, influenced by small towns lobby, in 2004 set mandatory consolidation of districts below 350 students.

California: Clarified process for consolidating districts in 2009. Pockets of districts are working toward consolidation.

Illinois: Offers four types of consolidation incentives . Themost popular in the past 10 yearsis a payment of $4,000 percertified staff member todistricts that reorganize.State still has 869 districts.

Indiana: State commission in 2007 proposed consolidation of districts smaller than 2,000 students. Citing school quality, governor in 2008 called for 54 districts below 1,000 students to consolidate, but legislators ignored the recommendation.

Kansas: Passed 2009 consolidation legislation to affect sparsely populated rural districts.

Maine: 2007 law aimed to reduce 290 districts to 80 by requiring districts below 1,200 students to merge with a neighbor. Today, 215 districts remain, despite threats of stiff fines and reduced aid to small districts.

Mississippi: A governor’s commission to study merging a third of the state’s 150 districts is considering forced consolidations when a district has poor academic performance, is below 2,000 students or has administrative costs above $460 a student. State law allows for adjoining districts to share administrations.

Nebraska: Shut down elementary-only districts and merged them with K-12s in 2005, but voters repealed that in 2006. Small schools, however, were not reinstated.

New York: Offers merger incentives. State commission in 2008 recommended that districts below 900 students merge with a neighbor.

Ohio: A 2010 study recommends reducing the state’s 614 districts by at least a third.

Pennsylvania: Governor advocates reducing 501 districts to 100 to save administrative costs .

South Dakota: Districts below 100 students must consolidate or the state will write a reorganization plan. Penalties are possible, but the state Senate won’t grant the Department of Education authority to enforce consolidation.

Wisconsin: Recently offered $10,000 merger study grants to its 426 districts; 25 accepted.

SOURCE: Education Commission of the States

STATES MOVING TOWARD CONSOLIDATION

DISTRICTSSCHOOL FUNDING IS

‘POLITICAL AND EMOTIONAL’

CONSOLIDATION SCENARIOS ADD UP TO MILLIONS

SHARE AND SAVE?MSU STUDY PREDICTS SAVINGS FOR EACH WEST MICHIGAN DISTRICT Researchers: Sharif Shakrani of Michigan State University’s

Education Policy Center is a professor of measurement and quantitative methods. His expertise includes using research in setting educational policy and analyzing how testing and teaching methods affect student achievement.

Scope: The study covers school consolidation history, analyzes Michigan’s political climate, estimates possible savings from county-level consolidation or service sharing, and gives an in-depth fi nancial review of potential savings in 10 sample Michigan counties.

Model: Savings estimated through a formula created at Syracuse University by William Duncombe and John Yinger, longtime experts in the fi eld.

Read the complete study: mlive.com/mi10

Sharif Shakrani

PRO & CON

Consolidation: 2 viewsPOSITIVESCosts: Reduces administration overhead, streamlines operations, preserves classroom spending, and cuts costs of school board electionsEquity: Helps ensure that no school district becomes a pocket of poverty or offers less access to quality instructionLearning: The state and federal governments set curriculum and other school rules, leaving less of a need for local school boards.

NEGATIVESCommunity: Small-town emotion and identity are linked with schoolsPower: School boards, teachers unions and residents are reluctant to cede local powerEconomics: Residential property values and taxes can be affected; teacher wages must be negotiated, some schools might lose grant subsidies, and districts have varying bond-indebtedness levels.

DISTRICT GENERAL SAVINGS FROM SAVINGS(GROUPED BY BUDGET COUNTY-LEVEL FROM SHAREDCOUNTY) EXPENDITURES CONSOLIDATION SERVICES

Many states in recent years have tried to consolidate their school districts to more closely resemble county districts used by Florida (67 districts), Maryland (24 districts), and a few other states. Hawaii has a statewide district. Here are samples of those efforts.

100% to 90% county structure

89% to 25% county structure

24% to 1% county structure

No county structure (or negligible)

295

430 191343

426

550685

166

869

115

40

48

255

299 522

292614

501

215274

17630336166

2416

574

176

136118

149 133

252

165

178

53

197

17

977

231 89

1

539

1,031 69

67

87

12655

183

Total school districts by state andthe level of county consolidation

THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS SUNDAY, AUGUST 15, 2010 A13

BY DAVE MURRAY

THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS

I n Rockford, Ram pride runs deep.

People strolling through town will

soon encounter 4-foot-tall Ram statues proclaiming school loyalty. Ram’s head stickers peer from countless car windows. Several downtown stores sell “Ram Wear,” the orange-and-black attire of choice for the 13,000 people who pack the football stadium on fall Fridays.

But would families still be as loyal to their Rams — or their Red Arrows in Lowell or Rebels in Godfrey-Lee — if their superintendent, buses and lunch supervisor were based across the county instead of across the street?

The most diffi cult animal to kill, it’s been said, is a school mascot.

But Michigan State University re-searchers said there are a variety of substantial organizational changes — many of them invisible to parents — that districts can make that would save millions of dollars without clos-ing a single school or sacrifi cing a Ram.

In Kent County alone, erasing the boundaries separating school dis-tricts and reorganizing under one county district could free up more than $35 million a year, according to MSU researcher Sharif Shakrani. Or$16 million could be saved annually by keeping district lines and reconfi gur-ing services such as transportation, maintenance and business functions through a countywide hub in interme-diate school districts, called ISDs.

But sacrificing what millions in management helps buy — local con-trol and a strong community identity — isn’t an option some want on the table.

Just ask the head Ram, Superinten-dent Michael Shibler.

“A countywide district would be a huge, impersonal bureaucracy,” said Shibler, superintendent for more than 20 years. He has seen Rockford double in size to 8,000 students, with fami-lies drawn by good schools, strong sports teams and growing community spirit.

“If a parent has a problem in a school, what would they do? Call the ISD and wait two weeks for a re-sponse? That’s going to be frustrat-ing,” Shibler said.

“Here, they call me, and we have the problem resolved in an hour. My job is to serve this community, these kids and our families.”

School supportShibler proudly noted that his

community has never rejected a tax increase request for construction. District residents are relatively well off: Only 16 percent of Rockford stu-dents qualify for subsidized lunch, compared with 44 percent in neigh-boring Cedar Springs or 87 percent in Grand Rapids.

But with a cash-strapped state slashing budgets, including school operating funds , most districts have responded with layoffs and other cuts. Many of this area’s large dis-tricts voted this summer on budget cuts topping $2 million.

Rockford’s school board had to cut about $5 million, eliminating about 50 teaching, staff and administrative positions. That followed $2.7 million in midyear cuts, moves that will raise

class sizes by about three students.Classroom cuts often fuel interest

in consolidation, which spares class-room funding while paring manage-ment costs.

Kent County school administration costs alone represent about $15 mil-lion in redundant expense that could be eliminated if the schools were re-grouped under one district, the MSU study found. Part of that comes from pay for 19 superintendents, who pull salaries from $100,000 to $210,000 a year, and assistant administrators who earn six-fi gure wages.

Reorganizing transportation under one department would save $9.2 mil-lion through more effi cient routes and combined maintenance and insurance, according to the study.

Merged maintenance and opera-tions expenses would shave another $7.2 million in costs, while shared instruction oversight would save $4 million, the study found. Maintenance work would be more effi cient as crews could hit fi ve or six schools in a day, cleaning fl oors and making repairs.

In Ottawa County, consolidation would save $12.3 million, the MSU study found.

Educators said cutting costs might

sound good to taxpayers paying the bills — until they are personally affected.

“Anyone can save on transportation by eliminating bus stops,” said Karen McPhee, superintendent of the Ottawa Area Intermediate School District.

“But what happens when you have a kindergartner who now has to walk four blocks and boards a bus with high school students? We have to ask if what we’re doing is in the best in-terests of the little humans we have to take care of.”

Even supporters of consolidation note that mergers rarely happen un-less state lawmakers create a climate for it, either through incentives or mandates. And mandates are unpopu-lar, especially when community iden-tity comes into play.

“Forcing the issue is a kiss of death,” McPhee said.

Shibler, who leads a grass-roots group to influence school legisla-tion, said lawmakers wary of a voter backlash would treat a school consoli-dation bill “like the plague.” But leg-islators could drive a service-sharing plan by spelling out exactly what they want districts to work on together, he added.

Local controlAlso lost in countywide districts

would be a community’s voice on a school board . People making tough decisions for programs that were a part of Kelloggsville could live in Sparta or East Grand Rapids.

Even in a shared-services model, families are one more step removed

from the person planning a student’s school lunch or bus route.

In practical terms, regrouping 19 Kent County districts into one would be a logistical challenge, considering each has a different tax rate to pay for construction bonds and many re-ceive different per-student state aid funds. The move also would mean disbanding 19 school boards, a politi-cal hot button . The savings might not be enough to justify upheaval, many educators believe.

“I worry about the loss of local con-trol. Our local communities value the input they have in their schools,” said Kevin Konarska, superintendent of Kent Intermediate School District, which includes 19 in-county dis-tricts plus neighboring Thornapple Kellogg.

“And I’m just not convinced that you can achieve that level of savings by creating a countywide district.”

Konarska said most educators favor the slower approach of encouraging district partnerships, sharing some positions and allowing intermediate districts to gradually assume common functions — the $16 million savings option, according to the MSU study.

County leaders are making small steps in that direction and formed a superintendents committee to pur-sue more collaboration. Five districts just consolidated some business and technology services under the KISD to save about $430,000, and other dis-tricts could be added.

Area schools also contract with one company to bus special education stu-dents, use a centralized computerized data warehouse and, most recently, began a more unifi ed approach to em-ployee relations. Ten school boards adopted a template labor contract that includes employee contributions to health-care premiums.

Kent County also has one of the rare superintendents shared by two systems. Jon Felske completed his first year at the helm of Wyoming and neighboring Godwin Heights and is used as an example by state Superintendent Michael Flanagan, who strongly backs consolidating services.

Felske recently asked his Wyoming board to close two schools as part of a plan to save $2.9 million, and Godwin Heights approved closing one build-ing to save $2.4 million.

Despite those cuts, the two boards could not agree on a money-saving option that goes to district identity: combining administration buildings. They put off a decision until fall.

But with state budget diffi culties continuing, Felske said more parents eventually will have to decide if they care where their district’s operations are supervised, so long as they keep their school buildings. And, of course, keep those mascots.

“The day is coming,” he said, “where people are going to have to accept some drastic measures.”

E-mail: dmurray@grpress.com

FUNDINGMichigan schools have been funded largely based on enrollment since voters in 1994 approved the landmark school finance overhaul called Proposal A.

State funding: Districts get a minimum of $7,162 per student , though some receive a little more, a holdover from when each district set its own levy.

Most of the money is raised by a 6 percent sales tax and lottery proceeds.

Local funding: Schools still get some funds from property taxes, collected at different levies for primary residences and second homes or commercial property. Kent and Ottawa area districts also get money collected through intermediate school district levies for special education.

Grant funding: Most districts also receive extra state and federal money directed toward special needs, such as “at-risk” programs, or Title 1 grants to help low-income students.

DISTRICTS AND CONSOLIDATIONHistorically, Michigan township officials created schools, dividing the township into “districts” that were commonly a single school.

Baby boom era: Michigan had a wave of school district consolidations in the two decades following World War II, a time of prosperity, increasing urbanization and growing student enrollment. The number of districts declined from about 7,300 to about 4,900.

Next wave: Another round of consolidation occurred around

1970, when inflation was rampant, enrollment was declining overall but suburban populations were growing. The number decreased from about 4,900 to almost 600.

Currently: The total has held at about 550 for 30 years, not counting charter schools. Michigan approved charter school legislation in 1994 and currently has 240 charter schools.

BY DAVE MURRAY

THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS

GRAND RAPIDS — Each of the state’s more than 200 charter schools is smaller than the smallest Kent County school district.

But while the 1,650-student God-frey Lee or 1,400-student Kent City districts get mentioned as consoli-dation candidates, no one in state leadership is calling for eliminat-ing charters. In fact, leaders from President Barack Obama to state Superintendent Michael Flanagan have included expanding the role of charter schools as part of their Race to the Top education reform measures.

About 111,000 Michigan students attend 243 charter schools, including 7,500 students in Kent County and 2,760 students within the Ottawa Area Intermediate School District.

Charter school backers said their operations are effi cient despite their small size.

“When it comes to public charter schools, it is true that each school is a standalone school district,” said Gary G. Naeyaert, a spokesman for

the Michigan Association of Public School Academies.

“What you won’t fi nd, however, in ‘our’ school districts, are a number of six-fi gure-salary deputy superin-tendents and legions of staff that are not located inside a school building actually teaching children.”

Many charter school employees, including teachers, work for man-agement companies such as Nation-al Heritage Academies instead of the charter school’s board.

Naeyaert said traditional school districts only recently have started to outsource noninstructional ser-vices. Districts that contract with a vendor for food service, transporta-tion and other functions save money in part because they do not have to contribute to the state’s retirement system.

“This is already widely practiced within the charter school move-ment, where nearly all noninstruc-tional services are being contracted to outside providers,” he said.

Naeyaert said charter school lead-ers don’t think consolidating dis-tricts would save enough to balance what could be lost academically.

No consolidation for charters?

PRESS PHOTOS/KATY BATDORFF

The home team: Linda Hamilton, owner of Pegasus Sports, 43 E. Bridge St., Rockford, stacks sweatshirts. School spirit is big in Rockford, evidenced by “Ram Wear” seen around town, such as the socks at left.

Nobody messes with the mascotsSchool pride is just one of

the obstacles to consolidation; local control is valued, too

A quick math and history lesson about Michigan education funding and consolidation trends

FACT SHEET

TODAYDo we need all of these districts?

MSU study commissioned by The Press and affiliated newspapers reveals $612 million in possible savings for

Michigan if schools were consolidated at the county level.

MONDAY

How we compare: Kent County has 20 superintendents. Lee County, Fla., has

one. What’s the difference?Reality check: Will consolidation ever

happen? What would it take?

Join the conversation: Live chat online with state Superintendent Mike Flanagan and other education experts:

Go to mlive.com/mi10 at 1 p.m.

TUESDAYHow shared services might look:

A day in the life of Jon Felske, who serves as superintendent of Wyoming

and Godwin Heights districts.What if: A look at what might change

if Grand Rapids merged with East Grand Rapids, for example, or Holland

merged with West Ottawa.

WEDNESDAYLessons from Raleigh: Why are there no bad schools in this North Carolina region? The argument for complete

socioeconomic integration.Keeping it small: In the tiny Allegan County community of Glenn, a K-6 public school has just 45 students. They wouldn’t consolidate even if

another district begged them.

SUNDAYA college try? Should Michigan have

one university system?

ABOUT THIS SERIES

JANUARYHow do we get Michigan working?

FEBRUARYTime to pay the toll for roads?

MARCHShould we sell natural resources?

APRILTax changes could eliminateour deficit, but at what cost?

MAYIs it time to take some

communities off the map?

JUNECan our cities be cool?

JULYDo tax lures bring new jobs?

AUGUSTDo we need 550 school districts?

MISS AN INSTALLMENT?GO TO MLIVE.COM/MI10

SEPTEMBERAre labor unions the problem?

OCTOBERDo we tear up the state Constitution?

STILL AHEAD

THE SERIES SO FAR