LANSING – Addressing poverty and increasing
funding for at-risk students as well as creating a more cohesive K-12 education
system were among numerous suggestions by various interests provided to the
State Board of Education on Tuesday regarding how to make Michigan a top 10
education performing state.
Kevin Hollenbeck, vice president of
the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, said a study done by his group
found low-income students fell behind (as has widely been discussed), but
non-low income students fell even further behind. Higher levels of poverty in a
district seem to dampen low-income student achievement beyond just the
characteristics of that student, he said.
And, using a metric based on average
score levels for low-income and non-low income students in 2013 and changes in
average score levels for those two groups between 2003 and 2013, Michigan ranks
46th out of 51 states (which includes the District of Columbia).
Michigan student achievement is
lagging considerably further than expected, Hollenbeck said, and the most
probable cause is because taxable resources have shrunk. Another possible cause
is that data suggests expenditures have not been directed specifically to
instruction, though that was not considered the primary cause.
He suggested the state consider a
four-year competitive grant program for districts to offer
services/interventions that have been shown to be highly effective at
increasing student achievement, as well as the use of local district
enhancement millages. He also suggested:
- An adequacy study should include a specific analysis of
cost data and qualitative data on best practice;
- Increasing funding levels and instituting a progressive
funding structure for aid for at-risk students;
- For districts that decline in enrollment by more than 2
percent, provide declining enrollment support; and
- Adjusting the per student foundation grant by grade
level, and specifically providing higher support in grades 1-3 and 9-12
Hollenbeck’s point on at-risk
funding was also raised by Ray Telman with the Middle Cities Education
Association, as well as Gilda Jacobs with the Michigan League for Public
Policy.
Telman said 12 percent of
Michigan’s children live in extreme poverty, meaning their family income is
half of the federal poverty rate. He also said Michigan needs to focus more on
a coherent K-12 system, that it’s not “here today and (there) tomorrow,”
as Superintendent of Public Instruction Brian Whistondescribed with reporters after the meeting.
Cohesion was also raised by a
representative with the Michigan Parents for Schools, who suggested – among
other things – that Michigan and its policymakers must not set or change policy
arbitrarily or hastily.
“We must shape long-term
policy, guided by research and expertise, that provides a stable foundation for
our schools and can also meet the changing needs and uncertainties of the
future,” a document outlining Michigan Parents for Schools’
recommendations noted.
Among the ways to reduce disparities
in student achievement, Jacobs said in her presentation, is to target
resources to high-poverty districts and communities of color, as well as
investing in early care and education, with a stronger focus on child care and
services for families with infants and toddlers.
Two of every three young children in
Michigan live in families where both parents work, she said, and the average
amount spent on child care per year is about $18,000. That represents 23
percent of the average Michigan family’s budget and 47 percent of the budget
for low-income households.
The Michigan Association of
Secondary School Principals agreed Michigan needs to stop the constant shifts
that have put its education system in a state of flux. The state also Michigan
needs to establish a clear vision for the types of students it wants its
education system to produce, and it needs to align its curriculum to that end
goal, with the rest of the system aligning to that curriculum, officials with
the group said.
To that end, Dan Hurley, CEO of the
Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan, and Tim Sowton with the
Business Leaders for Michigan encouraged setting high expectations for all of
Michigan’s students though high curricular standards.
“I encourage you to always
choose the path of greater academic rigor,” Hurley told the panel.
Whiston also welcomed this
point.
“We’re looking at setting the
cut scores for M-STEP and we are going to increase rigor around the state, what
it takes to be successful on these tests,” he said after the meeting.
“It’s good to hear that call was coming from people, because when we
announce it, people will be a little surprised by it.”
Gary Naeyaert with the Great Lakes
Education Project also agreed on the need for Michigan to maintain high
standards and rigorous expectations for all students with a focus on early
literacy and college-and-career readiness. Naeyaert also encouraged
expanding school of choice, expanding quality schools and improving or closing
chronically failing schools, and improving teacher quality through an
evaluation system recognizing student academic growth first.
He also suggested Michigan adopt a
parent-friendly school accountability system that provides A-F letter grades to
individual schools based on student proficiency and growth, as well as ensuring
the future sustainability of the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement
System.
Tuesday’s meeting was just the first
of more to come, Whiston said, with another 15 or so groups scheduled for
the board’s next meeting on September 8.
“I think it was a very good
first meeting,” Whiston said, noting that he heard similar things at
the meeting Tuesday as he has in trips around the state with other interests.
“I think we’ll be able to come up with some good recommendations that will
unify the education community moving forward on where we need to go. I think
this could be very positive.”
Whiston expected public comment
on how to make Michigan a top 10 education state would wrap by the end of
September and the board would meet throughout October to digest the
information. Ideally, by November, a draft report on recommendations would be
made and given time for public comment, and a final report would come in
December.
“Anyone who wants to give
input, we’re giving them a variety of ways of doing that. We’ll go to them,
they can submit it in writing, and so forth,” he said. “We’d like to
be able to start the New Year moving forward.”
