By Peter B. Ruddell/Wiener Associates

School funding is becoming a more complicated issue, according to a recent University of Colorado study done for the Boulder-based National Education Policy Center.

This line of thought is likely to manifest itself throughout this year in Lansing as the state considers a variety of reform proposals involving charter and cyber schools of choice.

The most common way of thinking about school funding has been per-pupil spending.

“On the face, a ‘neutral’ policy would simply allot the same amount of money per student to a school of choice as it would to a conventional public school,” states the study entitled “Public Funding of School Choice” authored by William Mathis. This has pretty much been the practice in Michigan.

“But … the issue is far more complicated,” the study continues. “For example, student populations may vary. Schools that serve autistic children will have different cost requirements than a school with a high population of economically deprived children. Further, while cyber schools require technology-related resources, they require only minimal resources for facilities, maintenance expenses and transportation. Should these schools receive the same amount of money as a school that must pay these expenses? There are no easy or value-free answers to these issues.”

A proposal by the Oxford Foundation (oxfordfoundationmi.com) that is widely thought to reflect the thinking of Gov. Rick Snyder would allow Michigan students to split their annual funding allocation among multiple providers. They would be able to pick and choose programs  offered by any public district, though their amount would still be determined by their district of residence.

Per-pupil allocations vary by district. There is a minimum per-pupil state foundation allowance — it is $6,996 for the current school year — but the actual allowance varies by district,  depending on property tax revenue and other factors. For example, the 2012-13 figures in Oakland County range from $6,996 in Madison, South Lyon, Brandon, Holly and Huron Valley districts  to a high of $11,854 for Bloomfield Hills.

Many districts remain above the state average because they were labeled “hold harmless” entities so as to prevent reductions when the current school funding system was devised in the 1990s.

The Oxford Foundation proposal would reform Michigan’s school finance system, but Oakland Intermediate School officials say the funding issue should be the subject of a comprehensive study first. No such study has been carried out in 43 years, they say.

Among variables that can make the average costs irrelevant are numbers of at-risk students per district, special education, cost-of-living and size of district. Also, it is less costly to serve elementary students than students in higher grades.

“The risk with the rewrite is that you price things incorrectly and potentially let providers skim off low-cost opportunities (sort of like an insurer just insuring healthy people), putting a lot of fiscal pressure on traditional districts,” Guilfoyle said.

Disputing the notion that simply giving charter schools the foundation allowance for their students unfairly benefits such entities,  James N. Goenner, president and chief executive officer of the Mt. Pleasant-based National Charter Schools Institute points out that charters must derive both operating and facility costs from their funding. Unlike traditional public districts, they have no taxing authority to raise money for buildings.

“You can’t leave the capital side off” in determining a fair method of funding, Goenner said.

Clearly the state is in for a full debate on the subject, probably this year.

It is long overdue.

By Tom Watkins

The Center for Michigan has one. So does the Governor and the Legislature. Even the Oxford Foundation has one (http://oxfordfoundationmi.com/). It seems that everyone—with the exception of the educational community—has one. What is it? A plan for educational reform.

Gathering last week in Lansing—the home of our State Capitol—was yet another conference on educational reform, this one hosted by The Center for Michigan (thecenterformichigan.net). The Center is to be commended for putting ideas on the table via their new report on education reform, and for hosting The PUBLIC’S Agenda for Public Education. However, “education reform” is beginning to feel like the peace process in the Middle East.

Certainly educators are part of the mix in the various reports, but where is the road map from the educational community showing us their way? Shouldn’t the education community—which includes teachers, principals, parents, superintendents and school board members—be developing a shared vision and common agenda for ensuring that our children receive the education they need and deserve? At the end of the day, providing quality educators with the right tools and support to do their job—educating our children for the hyper-competitive, technologically-driven, knowledge economy –is what really matters. NOT rhetoric from the State Capitol!

So, where are the educators amidst all of the educational reform buzz in Lansing? Shouldn’t they have a leading role? I am not talking about lobbying efforts against Governor Snyder’s reform agenda or the legislation he introduced. It is easy to be against something. The more difficult task lies in creating a comprehensive agenda that addresses the issue. Quite simply, the educators’ plan is missing from the debate. Complaints from the traditional education community center on the direction Governor Snyder wants to take — with no comprehensive counter plan that addresses the shortcomings of our schools (traditional and charter). Educators have left a void that others are rushing to fill.

While the Center for Michigan’s latest report captures a segment of the public’s voice on education reform, we need more visionary leadership. Direction that does not tether change and progress to what the public wants or is ready to accept. We would still be working on how to improve the horse and buggy if we adhered to that philosophy. The voices of those in the classroom—teachers and their students—are as yet too anemic in this vital debate. We need to ask, “What if the impossible isn’t impossible?” We need pioneers—not settlers—who are willing to innovate to educate, and not be held back by public opinion. We need to think about how our system of education should prepare our children for their future rather than our past.

In 2004, I pointed out that we had a structural funding problem facing our public education system (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/michiganschoolfunding_110803_7.pdf) that would bankrupt our schools if not addressed. Unfortunately, that has proven to be accurate over time.

In 2005 I wrote, The New Educational (R)evolution; e-learning for Michigan (http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/e-learningreport.pdf) setting forth policy recommendations to facilitate technology uses that would help personalize learning. Unfortunately, they have yet to be fully implemented.

I am not advocating reckless change without progress, but instead the change that puts TLC (Teaching, Learning and Children) above the political fray that far too often favors PCPA (Power, Control, Politics and Adults). When asked what made him so great, Wayne Gretzky often replied, “I skate to where the puck will be – not to where the puck is!” I am reminded of this quote as I watch policy wonks flock once again to the State Capitol Education Reform watering hole, even as hard-working teachers and principals toil in schools and classrooms.

Governor Snyder spelled out his educational policy initiative in April 2011, identifying the problems he saw in our educational system and the solutions to address them: www.michigan.gov/documents/snyder/SpecialMessageonEducationReform_351586_7.pdf

If neither the Governor’s nor the Center for Michigan’s plan is the answer, then what? Doing nothing is not an option. There are a slew of Lansing-based educational organizations: The State Board of Education, the Parent, Teacher Association, the Michigan Association of School Administrators, the Michigan Association of School Boards, The Principals’ Association, the Michigan Education Association and The Michigan Federation of Teachers…the list goes on and on even as they group themselves into an, “Educational Alliance.” But, where is their plan? I have heard from many of these groups that they dislike what the Governor is, “doing” to public education. However, I have yet to see their alternative solution.

The voice of the educator needs to become louder, more productive and more forceful in the reform debate. Opposition is not a plan. Our schools remain a vital link to the future prosperity of Michigan and our country. The debate is critical but it must be larger than shooting the messenger while asking for more money…or simply complaining about what the messenger is proposing. Sadly, great educators know we need real change to produce real progress. Yet, their voices remain mostly silent. Isn’t it about time that education’s Rip Van Winkle wake up?

Leadership does matter. But with leadership missing from the education community, others are rightfully filling the void. Educators, our students await your ideas and action!

LSJ.com

For much of the past decade, some person or group at the Capitol has been pressing the cause for school finance reform.

It’s been clear for some time that the 1990s Proposal A package voters OK’d to reform education funding is not an enduring solution. Funding is more evenly distributed among school districts with disparate income. But there are shortcomings, such as the wildly differing ability of local districts to address their long-term building costs.

The LSJ Editorial Board has long encouraged deep, broad look at reforms, using this space to call for a legislative special session on school finance reform several times during Jennifer Granholm’s tenure as governor.

Now, Gov. Rick Snyder faces with a dual problem. Rapidly advancing technology has the potential to reshape the learning process, even as the state still wrestles with the shortcomings of Proposal A. Addressing one without the other would be foolish.

Just months into his governorship, Snyder offered a special message on education to the Legislature, calling for K-12 programs that promote learning “any time, any place, any way, any pace.” Translation: To achieve its full potential, Michigan must innovate a public education program that can be tailor-made for each student’s learning needs and paid for efficiently.

It’s a big bite from the apple. To get it done, the governor turned to Richard McLellan, a Lansing attorney with extraordinary experience in public policy, to lead the Michigan Education Finance Project. McLellan, working with a small team, has been meeting with state education officials and others to consider options. A draft bill, the subject of today’s Greater Lansing Outlook, is at www.pefaproject.wordpress.com. Also there are position statements from a long list of interested groups.

The objective is formal legislation to create a better approach to public education. There’s little doubt the final bill will provoke debate over sweeping changes. The breadth will be staggering to many. It is not too soon to get informed.

Once again, the suggestion of a special legislative session seems appropriate. Such a session would allow both lawmakers and the public to focus fully on the issues. There is growing momentum to address both the weaknesses in the traditional school structure and the way Michigan pays for education. Both must be done carefully and effectively. Let’s not waste the opportunity.

An LSJ editorial

Written by
Michael Horn is education executive director and Meg Evans is education program associate at the Innosight Institute, a think-tank that focuses on inn

Gov. Rick Snyder surprised the education world a year-and-a-half ago when he announced his intention to change Michigan’s schools into ones where students could learn “any time, any place, any way, [and] any pace.” Realizing this goal is critical to bolstering Michigan’s public schools and lifting the futures of all students.

The Oxford Foundation’s draft rewrite of the School Aid Act of 1979 moves toward realizing those aspirations.

Today’s schools were built to standardize the way they teach and test. The model, in which we batch students by age and teach them the same thing in the same way, is ineffective for the 21st century. As parents know, each child has different learning needs at different times. If we hope to have all children succeed in school and life, then we need a system that is just as personalized.

Today’s education system mandates the amount of time students spend in class, but does not expect each child to master learning. The result is that students don’t receive the support they need to master each subject before they move on to the next one.

The Oxford Foundation’s plan would move Michigan’s schools away from this anachronistic model toward a student-centric one by doing away with strict seat-time requirements, embracing meaningful assessments of growth, and allowing students and families to choose what education option is best for their student.

Public funding would follow students down to the course level — including online courses — thereby allowing each student to have access to the best option to succeed. Online courses allow for self-paced learning and ensure a student moves on only after mastering the subject.

Michigan blogs and opinion pages have been abuzz lamenting the danger of public school districts working with for-profit online course providers. This suspicion isn’t new. Having outside providers serving public education isn’t new either. The major textbook companies that serve public schools are for-profit firms, for example.

The rewrite levels the playing field for districts with charter public schools, as it enables them to enroll students statewide so that students would not have antiquated geographic boundaries standing in their way of a great education. The guiding question must be: What will it take for each student to achieve their greatest potential? The answer is likely a combination of great teachers, access to strong curriculum and a pathway tied to college and career readiness all made equitably available by public funding.

The focus must shift from inputs like time to outcomes of student learning and growth. Not all online courses are good, in the same way that not all classroom courses are good. The Oxford Foundation rewrite, however, does more to ensure accountability for online classes, proposing to pay online providers for performance. Providers would receive half of the course money upfront and the rest only when the student successfully completes the course.

The rewrite will present students and families with quality choices for their education and transform public education in the process. Discussion of details, definitions and logistics will help in the coming months. Ideological browbeating will not.

Flipped learning. It’s a new approach for teachers and students, where lectures become homework.

Science students at Bethany High School are finishing up their first year of “flipped learning.” Chemistry and physics teachers Adam Forester and Jon Arthur are the pair behind the program.

They’ve spent this school year giving ten minute recorded lectures they normally would give in class for students to watch online as homework.

Classroom time then becomes homework time for kids to work from packets, do labs, and if they want, ask for help.

“That frees up class time for me to walk around and talk to every student pretty much every day,” says Forester.

The teachers say the non-traditional way of learning opens doors for kids who may be too shy to ask questions, and helps prevent them from falling behind.

“The students can rewind me, in class they can’t rewind,” says Forester.

They say it’s still too early to see if the change has affected grades, but they are able to cover more material. And with a new technology-driven generation, the style can be used in any classroom to some extent.

Students say the style takes some getting used to, but overall they say the new style will better prepare them for college.

By Peter B. Ruddell/Wiener Associates

The recent series of articles and the report “The Public’s Agenda for Public Education” confirm the policy direction being advanced by the Michigan Public Education Finance Project (“the Project”). Contrary to simplistic analysis portrayed in the article “Online ed expansion, school choice plan murky in 2013”, the Project has far greater policy concerns.

Additional choice and online learning options are just a couple of tactics to a new, fresh approach to school funding that the Center for Michigan research shows parents are looking for. Our project team has been working since July 2012 to draft legislation accomplishing two primary goals, as outlined by Gov. Rick Snyder’s Special Message on Education, issued April 27, 2011:

• Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace public education system — i.e. or ensuring each student is learning in the manner that best fits that particular student.
• Performance-based funding public education system — i.e. bringing more accountability to K-12 funding.

Obviously, within each of these major topic areas are countless public policy and education policy issues.

The most frequent comments in numerous categories of the Center for Michigan’s report reinforce the public’s desire to enact these two policy changes:

• “Adapt teaching to individual student needs” – top comment in “Areas in need of More Investment.”
• “More accountability and efficiency in K-12 funding is needed” – top comment in “Areas in need of Financial Reform” and top comment among all topics.
• “Get creative; more teaching models; curriculum choices, individualized learning and critical think” – top comment in “Regarding Student Learning.”

It is clear from the Center for Michigan’s report and the numerous conversations I personally had with school administrators, teachers, parents, work force development agencies, businesses and others, there is a growing desire to improve our public education system by instilling more personalized education for each student and to create greater accountability for the nearly $14 billion of taxpayer funds supporting Michigan’s public education system. The unresolved question is the best public policy for Michigan in accomplishing these goals.

In the coming weeks, we will be releasing the final report and bill draft of the proposed Michigan Public Education Finance Act. This will be a thoughtful and diligent attempt to provide the public answers to the best public policy changes necessary to personalize education and bring greater accountability to the K-12 funding system.

Michigan charter school students are outperforming their public school counterparts, according to a new Stanford University study that panned charter schools in 2009. Cindy Schumacher, executive director, of Central Michigan University’s Center for Charter Schools talks about the significance of the new report.

Click here to listen to the podcast.

Stanford, CA – A new report released today by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that the typical student in a Michigan charter school gains more learning in a year than his or her district
school peer, amounting to about an additional two months of learning in reading and math.

The results for the typical student in a Detroit charter school (27% of the state’s charter students) were even more pronounced, on average gaining nearly three months achievement for each year they attend charter schools.

“These findings show that Michigan has set policies and practices for charter schools and their authorizers to produce consistent high quality across the state. The findings are especially welcome for students in communities that face significant education challenges.” said CREDO at Stanford University’s Director Dr. Margaret Raymond.

CREDO at Stanford University is the nation’s foremost independent analyst of charter school effectiveness. This report provides CREDO’s first in-depth examination of the results for charter schools in Michigan. For this analysis, a total of
85,650 charter school students (with 170,862 observations across 5 periods) from 273 charter schools are followed for as many years as data are available.

The CREDO at Stanford University Michigan analysis found that at the school level, on average, thirty-five percent of the charter schools have significantly more positive learning gains than their district school counterparts in reading, while two percent of charter schools have significantly lower learning gains. In math, forty-two percent of the charter schools studied outperform their district school peers peers and six percent perform worse.

Fourteen percent of Michigan charter schools have below- average growth and below-average achievement, and the same is true for twenty five percent of the charter schools in math.

“Students in these schools do not have the progress each year to help them overcome their currently low level of achievement. Worse, they will fall further behind their peers in the state over time. The share of underperforming charter schools is offset, however, by the proportion of charter schools that are either already achieving at high levels or posting above average growth to position them to reach those levels.” said Devora Davis, Research Manager and co-author of the Michigan report.

In both reading and math, a majority of charter schools have positive academic growth. For reading, the proportion is 82 percent and for math it exceeds 72 percent.

“Should these trends continue, the share of schools which currently lag the state average for absolute achievement would be expected to decline. These absolute improvements are within sight in Michigan.” said Devora Davis.

Click here to download a copy of the state report.

About CREDO at Stanford University

CREDO at Stanford University was established to improve empirical evidence about education reform and student performance at the primary and secondary levels. CREDO at Stanford University supports education organizations and policymakers in using reliable research and program evaluation to assess the performance of education initiatives. CREDO’s valuable insight helps educators and policymakers strengthen their focus on the results from innovative programs, curricula, policies or accountability practices. http://credo.stanford.edu