Survey says: CFM report details public education agenda

Observing the course of education reform in Michigan – and the mounting information that many of Michigan’s children were not being properly prepared for a 21st century world, leaders at the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, nonpartisan “think-and-do tank” in Ann Arbor struck on a simple idea:

Find out what the public – the actual consumers of the state’s public educational system – thinks about Michigan’s current school system and, most importantly, what actions to take to improve.

So, in 2012, CFM embarked on its most ambitious public engagement campaign yet: Community Conversations on the Future of Education & Student Learning.

This project was focused on current shortfalls and potential future improvements to pre-K-12 achievement and student learning in Michigan schools. CFM ultimately hosted 264 Community Conversations in every region of Michigan, involving 5,823 state residents, the demography closely mirroring the diversity of our state. To ensure accuracy and statistical rigor, these data were combined with two rounds of phone polling, reaching approximately 1,900 additional state residents.

The result: “The Public’s Agenda on Public Education,” a 40-page report detailing the public input on the current situation and a variety of potential reform initiatives, from bolstered teacher preparation to greater investment in early childhood classes to changes in the school calendar. COMPLETE COVERAGE.

Public Opinion Snapshots from the Report

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.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Jim
Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:01am
The elephant in the room is poverty. IMHO what the Center is discussing (while well intentioned) is misguided. For schools that have few poor kids, they are doing just fine without school choice, extended calenders, etc. You can explain 70% of the variance in school tests scores with the single variable of the % of poor kids in the school. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/reardon-achievement-gap-0213...http://gfbrandenburg.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wisconsin-school-overal...http://gfbrandenburg.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wisconsin-school-readin...http://gfbrandenburg.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wisconsin-school-povert...