After a year of studying Michigan’s K-12 education system — reviewing the academic literature, analyzing data, interviewing and surveying stakeholders, and examining state practices nationwide — one thing is clear: The current system of state-level educational governance in Michigan is broken.

Brian Jacob is the Walter H. Annenberg Professor of Education Policy and a professor of economics at the University of Michigan. Jacob was the lead researcher on a year-long study of K-12 educational governance in Michigan commissioned by the Michigan Department of Education.

In a recently released independent study commissioned by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), my University of Michigan colleagues and I highlight many of the challenges with education governance in the state and propose strategic paths forward.

Key academic indicators reveal Michigan’s schools are increasingly falling short compared to their peers nationwide. Yet in the face of poor educational outcomes, state education entities work at cross-purposes. Coordination between state and local leaders often falls short. Despite some recent progress, schools do not have adequate funding, and substantial inequities persist across districts. 

Compounding these challenges, we found the state has failed to execute a coherent vision for educational improvement. As one respondent told us, “We have fits and starts with different programs and ideas… that don’t really get any traction or maybe exist for a year or two, and then we jump to something else.” This inconsistency stems from a fundamental governance problem: “There doesn’t seem to be coherence between what the Governor wants, what Legislature wants, and what the State School Board wants to do.”

The MDE and the State Board of Education (SBE) issued a critical statement in response to our report. We recognize they are unhappy and dismissive of some of our findings. Our recommendations ask for authority shifts and new ways of doing business that threaten the status quo. Our report calls out systemic problems and damaged relationships between the state’s educational entities. We found these realities upsetting and difficult to write about and we understand they are difficult to hear.

We did not come to this project with preconceived opinions; we based our conclusions on rigorous research and analysis. We conducted over 40 interviews and received over 250 survey responses, reviewed dozens of quantitative and qualitative studies of educational governance and conducted extensive quantitative analysis. By synthesizing the results of this comprehensive research and incorporating the perspectives of many educational stakeholders, we developed our recommendations with a primary focus on improving educational outcomes for Michigan’s children.

A careful read of the MDE statement about our report reveals we are actually in agreement regarding the majority of our recommendations.  We agree MDE should have more resources and staffing. We agree a more centralized approach to early literacy and numeracy is a first step to drive better outcomes. We agree that Intermediate School Districts play a critical role in consolidating services for schools, while noting there are more opportunities to improve efficiency through shared services. We agree on the recommendations of the School Finance Research Collaborative. We agree on the need for greater investment in teachers.

Despite our common perspectives, we differed on several key points. Most significantly, MDE and SBE took great exception to our recommendation that the governor be given more authority to shape the direction of education in Michigan. This came directly from not only prior research on educational governance but, more importantly, from our conversations with stakeholders across the state. The most consistent theme that emerged in our interviews and surveys was that there is considerable discord between state actors, and a lack of alignment between the governor, MDE, and SBE — all of which is hindering educational progress. 

After carefully reviewing the evidence, we concluded the best way to begin addressing these problems would be to provide the governor with more authority.  We recognized that this is only a first step, and acknowledged this approach entails some risk. We emphasized that guardrails should be put in place to avoid partisan interests from undermining what is best for children. 

The reforms we outline are ambitious and require current models, authority structures and ways of doing business to change.  This is intentional. The status quo is failing Michigan’s children. We shouldn’t stand for Michigan 4th graders ranking 44th nationally in reading. Now is the time for stakeholders across the political spectrum to come together around meaningful education reform.

Our children can’t wait any longer for adults to get this right.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com