"The Public's Agenda for Public Education (The Center for Michigan)

WE SHOULD TALK

How Lansing can get in step with the people’s agenda for public education

   
The Center for Michigan, which describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan citizenship company,” spent more than a year polling and interviewing Michiganders about their attitudes toward public schools. This week, the center published its findings in a 38-page report entitled “The Public’s Agenda for Public Education.”

   Free Press Deputy Editorial Page Editor Brian Dickerson asked Center for Michigan Chairman Phil Power and President John Bebow what Michigan’s elected leaders should know about John Q. Citizen’s druthers for Michigan schools:

   DICKERSON: You had in-depth discussions about public education with a representative sample of almost 8,000 Michiganders. What are the headlines of that conversation? What are citizens worried about? BEBOW: They are all over the board, but several main themes emerged.

   They are concerned about beefing up preschool education. They are concerned about the quality of educators. They think it should be tougher for people to become teachers. And they think teachers should be held more accountable for what happens in the classroom. But they also believe that teachers need and deserve a lot more support than they’re getting.

   DICKERSON: The consensus among residents you spoke with is that the state’s public educators deserve a C grade overall. Do they grade schools in their own neighborhood as harshly? BEBOW: Somewhat consistent with other public surveys you might find out there around the country, there’s some difference between the level of concern about the statewide system and local schools.

   DICKERSON: They have more confidence in their neighborhood schools? BEBOW: Yes. And that may be a function of familiarity, or a problem with denial.

   POWER: I think it’s important to recognize that the people who were the most critical of the schools — poor families, minority families — are exactly the people who are in the greatest need of good schools. They’re the harshest critics of the system.

   DICKERSON: Is there a sense out there that teaching has become an impossible job? That expecting one person to teach math or science, being a social worker, being afirst-responder on any number of levels is asking too much? BEBOW: Well, one of the areas where we heard a lot of concern was this issue of family involvement, and what a conundrum it is. We put so much pressure on schools to help students succeed. But what about accountability on the part of families, and on the part of students themselves?

   DICKERSON: Do parents understand what they’re being asked to do when they’re encouraged to participate more in their children’s education? BEBOW: Well, we heard a lot of ideas for improvement on that front:

   “Boy, we need more outreach from the schools.”

   “They ought to cut public assistance to low-income parents who are demonstrably uninvolved in their children’s school lives.”

   “Boy, my school provides child care for parent-teacher conferences, and more schools should do that.”

   There was agreement that families need to be more accountable, but we did not find a great consensus about how to do that.

   DICKERSON: How is what you heard from citizens different than what we hear from the governor or state legislators? POWER: There’s quite a gap between what ordinary folks talked about in these community conversations and the kind of rhetoric you here in the Lansing hothouse.

   It seems as though the people who are engaged in the disputing in Lansing are all representative of one interest or another; they tend to denominate things in terms of cut and thrust.

   And the people we talked to — students, families and employers — aren’t interested in cutting or thrusting. They’re interested in learning, in what they can do to get careers and be successful in their lives.

   BEBOW: And then there are some issues that seem to be merging, that are urgent both in the public’s mind and in the policymakers’ — the importance of investing in early childhood education being the prime example of that.

   DICKERSON: If legislators aren’t responding to the voices of their constituents, whose voices are they listening to? BEBOW: Well, think of it this way: Wouldn’t it be interesting if we had statewide TV campaigns about class sizes and whether we’re devoting enough resources to preschool education? There’s political warfare in Lansing, but it’s about power. It’s not about what’s happening to Johnny and Janie in the classroom.

   DICKERSON: When legislators talk about making teachers more accountable, they’re usually talking about holding them responsible for scores on standardized tests. What do ordinary citizens mean when they talk about teacher accountability? BEBOW: I don’t think we heard a tremendous amount of resistance to some of the steps that have been taken in the last couple of years. I think people see the need for tenure reform and things like that.

   But the other part is that if we’re going to get better educators, then we better give them better feedback and help them improve.

   DICKERSON: A significant majority of the citizens you spoke with talked about wanting to provide teachers with more support. What do they mean? Higher salaries? BEBOW: We did not focus on educator pay, or administrator pay, or deep budget questions for fear that it would have overshadowed everything else. What we really sought was public feedback on classroom issues that really affect student learning.

   DICKERSON: And so when we talk about supporting teachers, we’re talking about … ? BEBOW: There were three factors that people focused on: One was mentoring. Another was ongoing, in-depth training, with lots of feedback and evaluation, as we just talked about. The third thing was the development of more master teachers.

   POWER: Lurking behind this topic of support for teachers, there is a sense in parents and students and others that teachers are being disrespected or demonized in order to make political points. And the feeling that we need to raise the bar on people in teaching, need to raise the bar on training, and on the kind of support we give good teaching — these reflect the public’s hope that the teaching profession gets greater respect and greater standing.

   DICKERSON: Compensation, of course, is an important index of that. POWER: Take Finland, which I think scores the best in international tests. Finnish teachers come out of the very highest graduate ranks in Finnish universities. They’re well compensated, and they’re very highly respected in the society. And I think there is lurking in the emotional reaction to these issues both by the critics and the supporters of schools the feeling that we need to find ways to establish and improve the reputation and standing of teachers as professionals.

   DICKERSON: Normally, when people are dissatisfied with a product, they’re reflex is to switch to another brand. So what accounts for the citizens’ relatively low lack of interest in school choice? POWER: When you get into political discussions about complicated subjects, there’s this idea that politicians are always searching for the latest silver bullet.

   And what’s striking to me about the muted reaction that participants had to school choice and online learning is that, in their minds, there are other things that are more important, such as early childhood education and raising the bar for entry into the teaching profession.

   That isn’t to say that choice isn’t important, or that online learning isn’t a really good adjunct to traditional schools. But when those two ideas are compared with some other concerns that people have, they just have less purchase.

   DICKERSON: I don’t sense a lot of hostility toward the people whose product is being criticized. I mean, when people are dissatisfied with their cable company, they hate the cable company. But it doesn’t seem as though the parents and employers you talked to see educators as their adversaries. POWER: The people who participated in our conversations are by and large critical. But being critical does not mean they are necessarily hostile. The hostility comes into the conversation when it gets into the political cockpit.

   BEBOW: If there was hostility, I would look to the choice issue. If you look at the strong views on both sides, it’s beginning to shape up as an intractable issue like guns and abortion.

   DICKERSON: But your report suggests that if legislators can’t settle this argument, it may be an argument they could afford to put on the back burner for a while while they attend to more urgent priorities. BEBOW: Yes, and I think you’re seeing a real consensus developing, and some movement on the part of policy-makers, on the issue of preschool education.

   But I think the message of our conversations is, “Yeah, you’re working on some important stuff up there in Lansing, but there are a couple issues that you’re not paying attention to that we think are a little more important.”

The Center for Michigan President John Bebow, left, and center Chairman Phil Power.

For schools, Snyder should focus on families

   
There are two important conclusions about Gov. Rick Snyder’s approach to education to draw from the Center for Michigan’s exhaustive report about what Michigan residents want for their schools.

   The first is how much Snyder has gotten right, from a citizen perspective, in his first two years in office.

   The other? It’s how much he’s getting wrong.

   The governor has a lot of things in common with Michigan families — namely his focus on the importance of education accountability and early childhood programs.

   But he’s at least a little crosswise with the public (and, yes, they’re the voters) on some issues, including funding and his strong pursuit of market-oriented reforms like school choice and more competition for public schools.

   Snyder’s agenda scores big, according the center’s report (compiled after two years of town hall discussions involving thousands from Kalamazoo to Marquette) on issues such as better teacher evaluation and his emphasis on improving early childhood education.

   How best to evaluate teachers?

   The report shows Michiganders are deeply concerned about teachers. They want better measurements of their performance. They want more support and training for teachers who aren’t at the top of their game. And they want chronic underperformers weeded out.

   One of the first big pushes from the Snyder administration, in 2011, was reform of the state’s tenure system for teachers. It’s harder now for teachers to obtain tenure, and their success is tied to performance. And teacher evaluations , based on student outcomes, will be part of the system for reviewing teachers’ tenure even after they have it.

   The process of creating and implementing the evaluations has been rocky, and slow. A blue-ribbon panel of educators was empanelled to come up with a fair and accurate way to tie teacher evaluation to student performance, and a pilot program is in place this school year.

   But to accurately reflect what citizens told the Center for Michigan, Snyder and the Legislature will have to be sure to back up the evaluation system with appropriate support for teachers.

   While more than 60% said they believe it’s crucial or very important for teachers to be held more accountable for their performance, nearly 90% told the Center for Michigan that they think it’s crucial or very important to support teachers better. “More support is crucial,” one person said. “Teachers are now asked to be nurses, housemaids and more.”

   Snyder’s emphasis on early childhood education is also in line with what Michigan residents want. The governor has promised to expand pre-K availability (some 30,000 eligible 4-year-olds don’t have slots right now) and legislative leaders, refreshingly, are also on board.

   The importance of class size

   But some of the governor’s other ideas run counter to what Michigan residents told the Center for Michigan. The center’s report offers an opportunity for the governor to redirect his efforts to reflect better what people who voted for him actually want.

   Residents weren’t asked directly about funding, but they were asked about class size, which is tied very closely to funding.

   More than 70% of participants in the center’s discussions said reducing class size was crucial or very important.

   “I’d like for my daughter to be able to learn without feeling lost in a large group of kids,” one person said.

   Snyder’s first two budgets included reductions in the foundation grant for schools — reductions he said were necessary to help balance the budget. The governor has also tied some school funding to efficiencies and consolidations. The more school districts try to save money, the more he’ll try to give them.

   But even if those are noble financial goals (and I think they are), the overwhelming support for reducing class sizes suggests Michigan families are more concerned about classroom outcomes. The governor might do well to consider whether he’s striking the proper balance between the two.

   Families know best

   Snyder has also pushed hard on expanding competition in the marketplace for public schools and online learning. He has said public education needs to work for students anytime, anywhere and at any speed.

   But only about a third of those in the center’s discussions said expanding marketplace choice or online learning was important.

   Those numbers also have implications for Snyder’s plan to nearly completely reorder the way schools are funded or structured in Michigan. Last year, he asked lawyer Richard McLellan, a longtime charter advocate with an abiding ideological and financial stake in the success of charters, to lead that effort. McLellan’s report, which surfaced in late December, is expected to find its way into bills sometime during 2013. Snyder has insisted, though, that he just asked McLellan for ideas.

   The Center for Michigan’s report suggests Snyder might have been better off focusing on Michigan families — talking to them, finding out what they want, and shaping policy around the answers.

   It’s not too late. The report is on the governor’s desk, just like McLellan’s, awaiting his attention.