Legislators missed chance to have eyes opened on K-12 reform

In my experience, there are two basic types of conferences:

* The rehash, where you see/meet new people but don’t learn much new.

* The eye-opener, where you hear something quite new that shoves your thinking in new directions.

Tuesday’s gathering in Lansing, sponsored by the Center for Michigan to consider expert response to the report, “The Public’s Agenda for Public Education”, was one of the latter sort.

Here’s a quick run-down of some comments that forced rethinking on how best to train and evaluate teachers and why increased support for early childhood education programs is so important.

* “We don’t let medical students practice surgery on live patients before they’ve been carefully trained. … Imagine if pilots learned to fly on their own” – Deborah Ball, dean of the University of Michigan’s School of Education and chairwoman of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness.

Ball, whose much-anticipated report on teacher evaluation is due later this spring, is a passionate advocate for much more intensive and much more individualized training for teachers. Schools today are entirely different than they were when most teachers were initially certified: “Classrooms are now half students of color and one quarter do not speak English as their first language,” Ball explained. This requires an enormous change in the ways teachers are trained, yet the work they do is simply essential to the workings of our society, she added.

* “Teacher evaluation is, at heart, a civil rights issue” -- Amber Arellano, executive director of the Education Trust-Midwest.

The people who need great teaching the most – poor people, minorities, those at the bottom of the social heap – are the ones who all too often don’t get it, she pointed out. An evaluation system that encourages great teaching and discourages bad teachers is a fundamental way to provide the full rights of citizenship for those most in need of it.

* Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a powerful force in budget policy decisions, signaled his long-term dedication to sharply increasing state support for early childhood programs. 

Last year, Kahn proposed spending $140 million more on the state’s pre-K program for low- and moderate-income four-year-olds, the Great Start Readiness Program. The state now spends a little more than $100 million annually to support GSRP, which leaves 30,000 eligible children out in the cold, for lack of slots.

Kahn promised, “If the governor’s budget (which will be released on Feb. 7) falls short of that, I will advocate for more in the Legislature. If that falls short, there is the May revenue enhancement (which could come if state tax collections increase more than predicted). If not then, there are budget supplementals. If we fall short to some degree, we have next year.”

* “We’ve been talking about early childhood ever since 1972, nearly 40 years,” said Vickie Markavitch, superintendent of Oakland County Schools.

Until this year, we’re not much farther down the road to serious early childhood programs in Michigan.

* Paul Hillegonds, senior vice president for corporate affairs at DTE Energy, pointed to enormous returns gained from investments in early childhood: “We want every child to enter kindergarten ready to succeed. And so many are coming to the starting line and they’re 50 or 100 yards back when the gun goes off for kindergarten. Catching up is very difficult.

“So schools spend a lot of time and energy trying to bring them up to speed. If we invest on the front end and they are ready to succeed when they come in for kindergarten, we save those costs down the road.” 

In addition to being thought-expanding, the conference provided an unusual and valuable experience for those used to the standard high-conflict discussions about education in Michigan: An adult conversation, conducted by people who actually know something.

Nearly 500 people attended Tuesday’s conference in Lansing. The 147 current members of the Legislature could have walked just a few hundred yards down Michigan Avenue to the Lansing Center and had many eyes opened.

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 chairman of the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think–and–do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture; the Center also publishes Bridge Magazine. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of the Center. He welcomes your comments via email.

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.


Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:12am
An article I read years ago, and I cannot find my copy, detailed the intensive measures and supervised training that judges for dog shows and judges for swimming/diving competitions must go through before they are "certified" to judge dogs or swimmers. The article then compared that with the almost nonexistence of requirements of demonstrated ability before being able to judge teachers.
Chuck Fellows
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 9:41am
A necessary conversation that must be sustained - Thank you Center for Michigan! Mentions of trusting teachers and granting them autonomy in the classroom were noticeably absent except for one comment - from a teacher (Brit Satchwell) - who brought up the "F" word, "Finland." There was a lot of discussion about early childhood education, beginning at age four. Mention of the F word incorporates the fundamental components of success in learning which are equal access for all beginning at the prenatal stage and the trust in teachers, granting them the authority, responsibility and autonomy to do what they trained to do. One participant asked classroom teachers to raise their hands - out of the 500 attending there were only a handful. Students, the children and the focus of this effort, were not represented. Pretty clear that a lot of things need fixin - I believe the first fix is to more thoroughly engage the people that do the actual work, the teachers and the students. They are the best resources for clearly identifying the issues and proposing solutions. The rest of us must put a lot of pressure on the legislature to fund early childhood education, infant's health care - and it would be nice if we made sure they were fed too - its really hard to learn when you are sick and hungry.
Mike R
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 4:53pm
Well stated, Charles.
Thu, 01/31/2013 - 8:26pm
Doesn't read like there was any discussion about actually changing the effectiveness of learning. If no ones knows what success (what kids should be learning and staying in school to learn) looks like then no one can know if the system (money, teachers, administrators, legislators) is working. Should the students be able to read at some minimum level, should there be a minimum math knowledge, should there be some basic knowledge of day to day skills (understanding personal spending, budgeting, credit cards, personal health care, etc.), undersatnding aobut what working for a paycheck means and entails, personal responsibility, citizenship, etc., what are the expectations of a K-12 education? If we don't know what those expectations there is no way anyone can know what needs to be done.
Sun, 02/03/2013 - 8:56am
I am surprised that none of the articles and comments have mentioned the comment by the lawyer who is one of the primary authors of the Oxford report. He didn't contribute much to the discussion, but what he did say was very mean spirited and inflammatory. He likened people who work in the education to the tobacco industry. He also tried to argue that public schools are much like for profit companies because schools by things from companies that profit from the sales. The Governors chief stategist was much more engaged in the conversation, sparring often with the Oakland ISD superintendent, but he also had a "don't try to confuse me with the facts attitude" for most of the issues discussed during his panel. It is scary to know that these to gentlemen are likely to have more impact on the education policy and funding that comes out of Lansing that all of the other panelists and attendees combined.
Tue, 02/05/2013 - 8:07am
In response to Duane's comments about what is expected for student learning, he can refer to the Michigan Dept. of Education's website where all of the Grade Level Content Expectations are listed. As teachers create their lesson plans and schools/dept. heads create their curriculum requirements, they follow the State's expectations for their grade level and subject area. There are numerous meetings within the schools, the school districts, and the ISD to keep abreast of changes and align grade level curriculum for the best interests of student learning. Plenty of collaboration and planning goes into a teacher's lessons; they are not out there in a vacuum following their own personal whims.