Kalamazoo economist and public school board member Tim Bartik agrees with Michigan Schools Superintendent Mike Flanagan’s desire to prepare globally competitive and talented workers for the 21st Century. But Bartik has an alternative approach to Flanagan’s ideas published in last week’s newsletter.

It’s a healthy debate between two experts who, at the end of the day, want to assure the same thing – production of talented workers to help feed a prosperous state economy.

Here’s Tim Bartik’s explanation…

My colleague Kevin Hollenbeck and I testified in 2006 favor of an alternative to the state graduation requirements that we argued would better meet the needs of all of Michigan's students, as well as better meeting the true skill needs of Michigan's economy. Our
testimony can be found at http://www.upjohn.org/Bartik-Hollenbeck_testimony.pdf

The conceptual basis for Michigan's 2006 graduation requirements is provided by the belief expressed by Superintendent Flanagan in his opinion piece: "The knowledge that students gain with the Michigan Merit Curriculum is needed today whether they go on to a post-secondary program or directly into the workplace after high school." As we argued in our testimony, this statement is not backed up by what we know about skill needs in the labor market.

There are alternatives to the 2006 graduation requirements that would be more flexible and more attuned to student needs, while still considerably increasing expectations of high school graduates. We proposed one such alternative in our testimony. This alternative allows for 2 alternative diploma certifications. Both certifications would be considerably more rigorous than typical high school graduation requirements around the U.S. However, the additional diploma certification would allow for more room for rigorous career education programs that might better meet the learning styles and career interests of some students.

I agree with Superintendent Flanagan's statement that "We want a Michigan high school diploma to mean that every student has received a bona fide high quality education upon which employers can understand and depend. We want a Michigan high school diploma to mean something, and that is globally competitive." I also agree with his statement that "The key to success in this drive to the top is the willingness to accept the need to change. We can’t keep doing what we’ve always done and expect different outcomes." The issue, however, is the details of that change, and what it means to be globally competitive, and what "quality" means in a "high quality education." As always, the devil is in the details. In my view, some modifications to the requirements would still dramatically increase the global competitiveness and quality of our educational system, while better meeting the skill interests of students and the skill needs of employers.

Regards,

Timothy J. Bartik
Senior Economist
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research