Michigan and our schools deserve much better from our leaders
This weekend, Michigan again proved why it is racing toward the bottom of the educational world. In a state where the governor and the Legislature cannot fully fund Michigan’s public schools; in a state where education funding has fallen to its lowest level in decades; in a state where the percentage of college educated professionals is already a structural unemployment problem, Michigan continues to baffle the mind. Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
Why is it that we’re willing to push through 20 years of educational reforms in 72 hours, but we can’t provide the schools with the funding that is needed to make changes? Why is it that we’re willing to jump through federally suggested hoops to secure a chance at school funding, but we cannot impart on our schools the money that is needed to make real changes? Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
Sure, reforms to help struggling learners and schools are needed; sure, getting kids to be strong 21st century learners is needed; but is rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline set by Secretary of Education the smart thing to do for Michigan? Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
The smart thing for Michigan is to create its own dynamics for education; the smart thing for Michigan is to transform our schools and create our own model for 21st century learning. Instead of racing with the rest of the nation to make changes that are temporarily funded, Michigan needs to revolutionize the way that we as a state fund education. If you can’t provide for an adequate tax structure that values the education of our children, how can we honestly compete in the long-run with the rest of the world? Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
To become competitive, our schools need to be the arsenal of learning in our ever growing global economy. Our teachers and school administrators must be empowered to make the changes that are needed to create global citizens. The “Race to the Top” political game disenfranchises school leaders and teachers and takes the education of Michigan’s children away from educators and places it in the hands of politicians. Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
Michigan should be adopting changes that create 21st century learners. Michigan should become the beacon, the lighthouse that other states look to for change. Our public schools, taught by highly-qualified educators are the center for making Michigan a world leader. Our students need to acquire 21st century skills (creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving) to become competitive. Our students must learn how to be innovative learners, and learn to be financially literate and globally competent.
It is what we as a state should be demanding from our leaders. Instead, we get term-limited political hacks that are bent on breaking unions rather than fixing the education system. This is a bottom up change, not a top-down mandate. Michigan deserves more from its leaders.
Investing in education is the best investment that we can possibly make. Improving our human capital will have a greater return than tax cuts and subsidies for existing or emerging markets. In the same breath that they talk about cutting funding for schools, our leaders are touting tax abatements for projects that have no oversight or proof of success.
Michigan needs to create a fair, stable and equitable tax structure to fund our schools. There is an undividable link between investing in education and a healthy economy. Michigan’s children deserve better than we’re getting.
Sure, political leaders will hail the changes that were made in the dark of the night as a step to improve education in Michigan, but at what cost? Sure, improving failing schools is a charge that we need to address, but fixing failing schools takes a concentrated effort by Michigan’s leaders to fully fund our schools. Michigan’s children deserve better than we’re getting.
So as political leaders pat themselves on the back for making tough choices, we must challenge them to make even tougher choices. Stop giving arbitrary tax cuts to special interests and begin paying it forward. Invest in public education, invest in our schools, invest in our colleges, invest in our children, invest in our future, and invest in Michigan.
Dan and Susan Quinn Grosse Pointe Farms
Comments
E
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 9 a.m.
Interesting discussion. Do I dare point out another school of thought? Some would say that reduced funding of public education will drive us toward creative and efficient solutions to better educate our young people. That more money will only provide a bandaid for a system that produces an inferior product. Perhaps employing economic principles such as competition will reduce the cost and improve the product, just as it has done in the our college and university system and the world business community over time immemorial. I point this out from the perspective of a former teacher and administrator in the public school system. I was a first hand witness to the pathetic use of resources employed by teachers and administrators (and school boards) who were never trained to handle large amounts of funds. The evidence is obvious when you see such practices as union contracts being negotiated where custodians are paid as much or more than teachers. Dare I go on?
stunhsif
Fri, Dec 25, 2009 : 10:31 a.m.
@ Steve, Where do you suppose you are going to get increased tax dollars from as you are demanding from us? Spending more on education will not make for smarter kids, it will make the union's able to keep their fat cat benefits and pensions though, at least for a while. As hundreds of folks have said over the past two months on this website, it is time that the public sector begin to pay their fair and reasonable share in these tough times. There is no way we are going to continue to "carry you" Steve. We are "taxed out" and have had our paychecks cut, it is time for you to see the same. Let's not hurt the kids Steve, let's not lay off teachers. If the teachers take reasonable cuts to their pay, healthcare and pensions no one will have to lose their jobs. But no, the MEA would rather throw their new teacher's under the bus. If the MEA won't even take care of and nurture their newest and must vulnerable co-workers, how in the heck are they going to nurture and take care of the kids?
DonBee
Thu, Dec 24, 2009 : 12:13 p.m.
Steve Norton - Thank you for pointing this out. if I assume that the $1600 that has been quoted by you and others as the cost per pupil for benefits is correct and that the rake off of salaries is 12% in 2001 (the OECD data) based on the Michigan.gov table. And that Salaries are 90% of the cost of the schools (per comments posted in other threads). Then I can subtract the 1600 and 756 for retirements - then I come up with....$4344 which is still more than the other countries spend. While the difference is not so great. The scores are very different on international testing. If we can not compare country to country or state to state or.... then I have a hard time understanding how to benchmark what we are getting for our money. I have looked at several books on the topic from teachers, professors, business people and others. Even the academics in the crowd are benchmarking across countries now. So Steve, how should I determine when I am getting good value for my education dollar? What Objective criteria are you suggesting? I do not want a subjective one - I want an objective one - one that we can sit down and look at the numbers and agree where to rank things. So please help me out here. Happy holidays to all.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Thu, Dec 24, 2009 : 12:01 p.m.
@DonBee, The international comparisons you provide are interesting, and I look forward to examining them more closely. But just a few cautions in the meantime for those who read those numbers and conclude (as I suppose you do) that we are getting poor results for a lot of money: 1) The European countries you cite also have strong and comprehensive social insurance systems. Thus, their education spending is not expected to fund the pension and retirement health care benefits for current and past employees, nor it is expected to cover health care costs for current employees. The foundation allowance received by Michigan schools must cover all these costs. So just comparing per pupil spending without adjusting for this is comparing apples to oranges and not very informative. (Except to point out how good health care reform could lower our costs.) 2) Cross-national comparisons of testing are dangerous, as are cross-time comparisons within the US. There are differences in how students may be tracked in the system, what proportion of students are tested on what subjects, not to mention the question of whether the testing is accurately reflecting real knowledge and long-term benefit to children. This is a complex area, and does not lend itself to quick and dirty comparisons if you really want to get at the truth. 3) On a rather technical point: I suspect that the numbers you quote were calculated (by the OECD) based on some sort of annual average exchange rate. But market exchange rates, when they float as the US dollar and European currencies do, primarily reflect differences in demand for export goods and financial deposits in the different countries. Using that to compare spending levels can be hugely misleading. There are alternative measures, such as "purchasing power parity" exchange rates, that help a lot. But they are also subject to error because they try to estimate the cost of the same basket of goods and services in different countries. But that, in turn, is influenced by a whole host of national economic policies (what do prescriptions cost in the US versus Denmark, or a gallon of gasoline, etc). We should be very cautious about making these comparisons without being absolutely certain that they are truly reporting what they appear to report.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Thu, Dec 24, 2009 : 11:43 a.m.
Wow, I'm amazed at the turn of comments on this thread. Not only do they make use of a whole host of planted assumptions which I won't bother to point out one by one (one of them is the "unions ruined everything" assumption), but they show a strange willingness to curl up and die in the face of economic hard times. Assuming that we want Michigan to be a strong and prosperous state again, where do we begin? I would submit that making us a low tax and low wage state is going in precisely the wrong direction. That won't attract the kinds of businesses and jobs we need for long term prosperity in this state. Instead, I would begin by investing in education. Contrary to what many people have been saying, the argument is not about "more" money for schools. The argument is about whether or not we should do something to slow or halt the bleeding of resources from our schools. Our state government has committed a declining share of Michigan's income to schools, in good times and bad, over the last ten years. Overall spending on K-12 education from state and local sources has declined, as a share of Michigan personal income, for the last five years. This is not just a function of the current national recession. It's built into our school funding system and our tax structure. So, should we say our schools and our communities should do with less, and less, until our state disappears in a puff of rust? Or do we scrimp now to invest in a better future for our children, our families and our communities? The idea of shared sacrifice is important, and contrary to many of the reports we have seen here, our school employees have often made sacrifices over the past several years and are willing to make more. Understandably, they don't want to have their pay cut and then have everyone call it good and go back to their lives. We need to be looking at the whole picture, including the state funding system, so that there is a chance that the sacrifices made today will result in better times for everyone tomorrow.
stunhsif
Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 9:02 p.m.
Please tell me that this letter written by Dan and Susan is an early april fool's joke. They could not be serious when they wrote this could they? As most have written in previous email's here, more money is not the solution. With thousands leaving this state every month and people making fewer and fewer dollars where in the heck do these two think the money is going to come from? I can tell you where it will come from. It will come from the union teachers, the union administrators, the union bus drivers, the union groundskeepers and it will come from their paychecks, their pensions and their healthcare benefits just as it has happened to all of us in the private sector that still have jobs in this lousy state.
Rork Kuick
Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.
I don't trust folks within the educational system to be unbiased with regards to altering that system. Perhaps it is those consuming the services rather than providing them that should say how things should work.
DonBee
Wed, Dec 23, 2009 : 8:30 a.m.
I find it interesting that a high school teacher wrote this (Dan Quinn is a teacher in the Grosse Pointe School Systems according to several web sites). If he had left out the union busting comments, I could take it more seriously. As usual the people who are inside the system are putting out their tin cup. I do not see any solution from the Quinns - only the need for more money for schools. We need answers that can work and more taxes are not "THE ANSWER". With way more money then they have ever had before, the Detroit Schools only got worse, not better. Many schools in the state did not make progress that matched the increased money that they received under Proposition A. Many schools in the Upper Peninsula saw their budgets double after Prop A and graduation rates hardly changed. Detroit School rates of graduation actually declined. Denmark spends $6,700 per student - the highest national average reported by OECD (a branch of the UN - 2001 - the last data available). Germany and the Netherlands both are in the 3,500 to 3,700 dollar range. In 2001 Michigan spent almost $7,000 per student. Also according to the OECD all three countries did better than the US did on graduation and testing scores. It is not more money - there are other factors at work. The Netherlands has a higher percentage of non-native born students than the US (and Michigan) but they do better on less money. So Mr. Dan Quinn - What, beyond paying more money in taxes will fix the school's performance? I would like your insight into what will translate into better performance than we see today.
David Briegel
Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 3:30 p.m.
A little disingenuous Top Cat. Once upon a time we had a formula to finance schools. Then we approved a State Lottery that was supposed to help. Then we had a tobacco settlement windfall. These were to have been in addition to the original formula. If the original formula AND the Lottery AND the windfall had been left intact, we would have plenty of money for schools. But the crooks in Lansing got rid of the original formula and NOW we are stuck with the results of their folly. Most of the tax cuts from the original formula were to the benefit of the privileged few and the continued reliance on the property tax is killing the poorer districts. And here we are today throwing stones at one another wondering what to do. No big deal. It's just our kids and all of our future!
Top Cat
Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.
A lot of flowery rhetoric but not much else. The real questions are where exactly is the money to come from and how exactly will the education monopoly be reformed to better serve our children.
YpsiReader
Tue, Dec 22, 2009 : 10:30 a.m.
Well said. We all know that our educational system needs to be restructured, but it needs to be done by those who will be providing the service. It needs to be done in a way that keeps control of MI education within MI. State politicians are so interested in finding an alternate funding source for MI schools that they fail to see the strings that are attached to federal monies. State lawmakers are abdicating their responsibility for advocating for our children because they cannot see beyond the short term dollars that will give them a reprieve while they figure additional ways to manipulate public funds. School districts are being asked to sign contracts that commit them to this new program. All the details of the agreement will not be released until AFTER the signing deadline. School districts must sign and agree to all current and future conditions to receive funding for new state and federal mandates. If a district does not agree to the contract, they will still have to comply with new mandates - unfunded. It is incredible to me that lawmakers think this is a fair and equitable way to conduct any sort of business.