It’s high time we started thinking seriously — very seriously — about what we’re going to do with Michigan schools. That is, if we want to have a serious hope for a better future.
The utter foolishness and dabbling of which our leaders have been guilty in recent years will not be enough to hack it.
In the past two months, two powerful reports have provided clinical details behind Michigan’s ongoing school performance debacle. It is clear that if things are not corrected, we will condemn too many of our children to a crippled life, and our condition to economic mediocrity or worse.
The Education Trust-Midwest, a nonpartisan education research and policy leader, reported this spring that Michigan schools are falling further and further behind other states. Unless things change, Michigan will rank 48th in the nation by 2030. Importantly, this applies to both schools serving poor, mostly minority students, and those with middle class children.
Michigan is already in the bottom 10 states for fourth-grade literacy and math and one of the few states with learning losses in overall student performance in fourth-grade reading.
Then last week, a report by the US Department of Education found that over the past three decades, Michigan has increased spending on prisons more than five times faster than on public education. The report shows that between 1979 and 2013, Michigan increased its spending on schools by 18%, while the state increased its spending on corrections by 219%.
Only six other states – all small and largely rural – have seen the same kind of increase in prisons at the expense of education. Most humiliating of all: Michigan has also increased its education spending less than any other state in the country.
There’s nothing new in the general thrust of these reports — though the details should scare state policymakers.
It’s also no coincidence that Michigan’s educational outcomes continue to dip relative to other states as we continue to reduce our resources for learning and teaching.
So what went so wrong? These terrifying statistics prompted me to take a look at the grassroots organization of Michigan’s apparatus for governing our schools. What emerges is truly shocking.
Michigan’s “system,” if you can call it that, is a chaotic, disorganized structure that virtually guarantees a lack of accountability for consistently poor results.
It’s almost as if those who designed Michigan’s school governance system intentionally set things up to create an irresponsible, inconsistent, and rigidly unchanging structure that ensures the same poor results decade after decade. other.
Consider these facts:
The Michigan Constitution designates the governor as chief executive of the state, charged with providing a system of public education on the grounds that “religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary for good government and the happiness of mankind, the schools and means of education will always be encouraged. (Article VIII, sect. 1).
The governor prepares and submits the public school budget for the approval of the legislature; successive budgets established by various governors indicate how the money should be spent on the schools. Governors come and go, and each occupant of the office is free to adopt their own priorities. In recent years, we have had Democratic and Republican governors, each bringing their particular mix of preferences, priorities and biases to office. Basic education policy over the years is captive to the governor’s personality and circumstances.
The Constitution (Article VIII, sect. 3) also establishes an eight-member State Board of Education, which has “the general direction and supervision of all public education.” … It will serve as the general planning and co-ordinating body for all public education.
Candidates for the board of directors are elected statewide by partisan ballot, nominated by political parties at their conventions. In recent years, the state board has had a Democratic majority, which may or may not agree with the governor or legislature on matters of educational policy or practice.
From time to time, the council issues statements on education policy, which, however, are often largely ignored.
The Council of State also appoints “a superintendent of public instruction” who “shall be responsible for the execution of its policies”. He will be the senior executive director of the state Department of Education. There is, however, no constitutional requirement that the superintendent agree on policy or policy with the governor, with individual members of the Council of State, or with chairmen of legislative committees or powerful legislators.
Often, in fact, they did not. The Legislature conducts its business through a system of committees within the State Senate and the House of Representatives. Some of these committees deal with state education policy issues, and others (“appropriation committees” or subcommittees) determine the details of state spending on schools. These committees review and act on the Governor’s recommendations regarding the level of public funding per pupil.
Again, it is not necessary for the chairs or members of these committees to agree with each other, or with the governor, or with the state board of education or superintendent of instruction. public.
Yet they have a great influence on a huge student population. As of last year, 1,507,743 traditional public school students were enrolled in Michigan. Our 540 local school districts (plus 57 “intermediate” districts) are each governed by a locally elected, non-partisan school board. These school boards determine education policy, practice, and detailed budgets for their particular districts.
Remarkably, there is no constitutional requirement that a local school board agree with any other state official on educational policy.
According to the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, there are also approximately 300 “public school academies” (charter schools) serving 145,000 students in Michigan.
Each of them also receives an annual “base grant” from the state, about the same as the $7,511 each student in traditional public schools will receive next year.
But many charter schools are owned and controlled by for-profit corporations, which are often private and not subject to public scrutiny. The legislature has determined that the number of students and location of charter schools is solely the business of charter school corporations.
In some districts (Detroit, for example), there are now probably more students in charter schools than in traditional public schools.
There is no central body to determine the best balance between location and enrollment of charter and public schools, and the legislature this year killed off a sensible attempt to establish one for Detroit. Proponents of charters argue that everything should depend on the free market. Critics of the charters say they select the easiest students to teach and the best subject areas and divert scarce public resources from public schools.
Policy is also affected by a number of interest groups with a vested interest in Michigan schools, some of which are quite powerful. This group includes teachers’ unions, associations of various types of school officials, charter and public school advocates.
Political ideologies also affect – often in very substantial ways – the political debate on school issues. Democrats are generally supportive of traditional public schools and increased funding for schools, while Republicans are generally hostile to teachers’ unions.
So what should we do about this terrible situation?
Step One: If my description wasn’t clear enough, try writing the organizational chart outlining Michigan’s structure for school governance. On one page, please.
Step Two: Interested readers should phone people they know and ask them simple questions: “Are you personally responsible for the underperformance of our schools?” If not, who is it? Who should be held personally responsible for this terrible situation?
The point is simple: one of the main reasons why our children don’t learn very well is that the very structure of our education system blurs responsibilities and eliminates accountability.
Common sense says that organizations whose basic structure defuses authority, blurs responsibilities, and ignores accountability are virtually certain to produce poor results.
Sound like what we have here in Michigan? Yeah.
Do you expect a significant change in the near future? Nope.
Governor Rick Snyder announced last month the appointment of his 21st Century Education Commission to build an education system that positions Michigan as a national leader in developing talent to weather the economy. of today.
But unfortunately, I don’t expect any particular outcome from this commission or any other commission on education, other than just one more report gathering dust on a state library shelf. No one I’ve spoken to expects anything different either.
Now ask yourself — is what we have now really the way we want our schools to be run?
(7).JPG)
