Center will make your voice heard on schools

I know I’m not alone when I say I’m disgusted with the way our political system is (not) working these days.

What seems to be happening all over the country is that a mixture of highly partisan activists from both parties, passionate ideologues and special interest groups are succeeding in mostly closing off the political process from the views of ordinary citizens. If you’re not part of the Republican or Democratic base, or if you’re not a Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street ideologue, your voice simply won’t be heard.

One way of attacking this system is to pull ordinary people together and actually ask them what they’re thinking. Then you listen hard, take careful notes, amplify their views and bring them into the halls of power. In contrast to what we have now, most political science textbooks call this subversive approach, well, “democracy." Hmm. 

That’s the work of the Center for Michigan, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group trying to help reform our political system by holding citizen community conversations inMichigan. (Disclosure: I’m the founder of the Center and serve as its president.) Designed to pull together small groups of people who, in age, gender, race, and residence, look like the face of Michigan, these conversations offer citizens a relaxed, anonymous setting in which to voice their opinions. 

The first community conversations, called “Michigan’s Defining Moment," took place 2007-10. They asked participants what kind of state they hoped to have and invited them to develop an action plan for achieving that vision. The effort involved more than 10,000 Michiganders in 580 community conversations all around the state – the largest public engagement campaign in Michigan history.

The result was an agenda for Michigan’s transformation. It wound up setting much of the agenda for the 2010 election debate and formed much of the core of Gov. Rick Snyder’s campaign platform and subsequent legislative program. 

The Center kicked off a new round of community conversations last week at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn branch campus. The subject this time around is how best to improve student learning in our schools, focusing on the customers of the education industry – students, parents/families, employers – who are not usually included in the fierce debates about education now taking place. Contrary to present political practice, the idea is not to demonize anybody, but to conduct an exploration of how citizens feel we can best improve student learning.

I sat quietly in the back row of Professor Dale Thomson’s course in Michigan politics, where the conversation took place. The most impressive thing about this class of 32 was the degree of diversity. There were Arab-American women, some wearing head scarves, some not. There were African Americans, some bulky in football team shirts and others more civilian. There were young undergraduates, older men and women with children in school, a few teachers and substitute teachers, a white suburban policeman and an elderly gentlemen who spoke with a charming French accent. 

Participants were given an issue guide that, in 20 pages, presents what every citizen needs to know about schools in Michigan and the various ideas at play to improve them. Participants were also given “clickers” – “your tool for democracy” said one of the discussion leaders – and asked to vote on various topics. Votes are tallied and a database at Public Sector Consultants, a research firm in Lansing, will form the core of a report on student learning that the Center will issue next year.

What we are learning so far is that people are not happy about the quality of schools in out state. Seventy-two percent graded them either “C” or “D."  Opinions were better when it came to local schools, with 50 percent rating them either “A” or “B."

How best to improve school quality? By raising the bar for teacher preparation? By increasing support for teachers? By holding teachers accountable? Seventy-seven percent said raising the bar for teachers was “crucial” or “important." Holding teachers accountable for student learning got high grades: 62 percent rated accountability crucial or important. 

Other questions included various ideas on how to increase student learning: Reducing class size; improving the school calendar; focusing on online learning; working with pre-kindergarten early education. How important is parental involvement and how best to achieve it? 

Votes were taken. Discussion flourished. The policeman said, “Sure teachers are important, but parents are the key. They institute discipline and values needed for success in school.” Another woman, a substitute teacher, said “There are 500 kids in the school where I teach, but you see just the same 10 parents at every parent-teacher conference you hold.”

The range of ideas was breathtaking. The concern of nearly everybody in the room was real and urgent. Opinions were offered and discussed civilly. Heads nodded when a teacher and mother of two said, “Learning is a problem for our whole society, not just the teachers or the schools.”

What’s important about these community conversations is that they offer a way to push past the hyper-partisanship of our current politics to focus on the views of ordinary citizens. “This is not just idle chatter,” said one of the moderators. “Citizen views can cut through the noise of partisan conflict in a powerful way.”

If you are interested in participating or convening a community conversation in your own area, shoot an email to: And get prepared for an inspiring and illuminating experience.

Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture. He is also on the board of the Center’s Business Leaders for Early Education. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thomas W. Donnelly
Tue, 12/13/2011 - 10:25am
I applaud your efforts in creating dialogue among citizens.Would it serve any purpose to invite lawmakers to attend?Talk is powerful, can lead to change, if those in power are able to hear and appreciate the sentiments expressed.However, I would suggest that the lawmakers remain silent, rather than overtake the fora (forums?)with political rhetoric or excuse making. I agree with you that polarized agendas have hijacked most of the legislation coming out of Lansing. At the national level,the obstructionists appear to prefer gridlock to any progress that might improve our lot. That gridlock is sinful.Citizens are paying lawmakers in DC to play "gotcha"? Not on my dime! I am really trying to overcome my negative wariness in the face of what Lansing has done this year. Raw chicanery took the place of real problem solving, or the meat axe was used to strip citizens of all their dignity. We can do better!
Tue, 12/13/2011 - 8:37pm
"I know I’m not alone when I say I’m disgusted with the way our political system is (not) working these days" It is fortunate that Mr. Power was not around 230 odd years ago, we wouldn't have a system that allowed for the bumps and bruses, missteps, and other things that happen what we allow the pblic to select who represents them. I surely get frustrated, mostly because the politicians are still appealing the people who put them in office years ago rahter than looking what needs to be done for the future. But, I always temper that frustration that it beats the alternative. Any dictatorial government will be more efficient while it disregards the input of the public. The struggles we see in the politicians is simply a reflection of the struggles our society is having with the change from the unlimited grow and the spend for there will be more tomorrow to an economy that requires choices, accuontablity, and frugality. "pull ordinary people together and actually ask them " the falicy hear is that asking isn;t the issue it is all about listening, and then engaging those who are talking. Mr. Power is a good example that when he offers his position and others challenges it he simply ignores their points and moves on. People are talking every chance they get but until others learn to listen to what is being said rather than simply listening for what he wants to hear nothing will change. I have particpated in these 'focus group' type session sponsored by state wide not for profit groups, the facilitor reminded me of the little dog statue in the back windows fo cars when they hit a bump and head starts bobbing. No matter what you say at one of those sessions the facilitor nods their head, say how good it is that your spoke up, writes a note (maybe) and then moves on to the next particpant. The never try to explore the idea, never try to draw why the person thinks it will work, what might some barriers be, how would it be measured. They simply bob their head and move to the next town The only way such 'listening' session will work is if the there are metrics established for them before they start which will measure what is done with the ideas, hwo effective the facilitators are, and if there is a mechanism to select and explore some of the ideas. I suspect Mr. Power has already thought I prove the sessino work because "It wound up setting much of the agenda for the 2010 ". Unless he can identify specific items and how they progressed from those listening sessino into the agenda, that is not a metric, it is not something credible, is nothing different than what the politician say and don;t do. I am a jaded skeptic that is being asked to trust when my trust every other time has been broken. Have your listening session and use them as the will fit what you are listening for but don't dilute yourself that simply because you have good intentions you have instant credibility. Thank for the opportunity to speak, now you decide it you really know how to listen.
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 12:35pm
I would like to comment on a couple of points raised in this article: 1) It is absolutely critical that teachers' voices are heard during these community conversations. Teachers need to be central players in any education reform. 2) The community came to the conclusion that schools are broken and must be fixed. Everyone focuses on that point. However, was there any discussion on how the schools became broken in the first place? I spend a lot of time in a lot of schools. I see a lot of good things happening out there. However, policies like NCLB and RTTT, depreciating public discourse about teachers, and inequalities in school funding make it more difficult to provide rich learning experiences for students. Without an understanding of how schools have become broken, it is unlikely that any effective solutions will emerge from these conversations. 3) In regards to the community's opinions about accountability, I wonder whether the respondents had a complete understanding of the ramifications of current "accountability" reforms--namely, those that rest on high-stakes testing for the purpose of rewards and punishment. "Accountability" seems like a no-brainer...but the effects of the current definition/connotation of accountability are likely hidden to those who work outside of schools.