Now some good news, for a change: The Michigan Legislature and Gov. Jennifer Granholm have actually cooperated in taking a significant step toward promoting a better educated workforce and a brighter economic future for us all.

Last week, the legislature adopted much tougher high school graduation standards, and the governor promptly signed them into law. This all came with relatively little of the watering-down and endless delaying tactics that were feared and widely expected.

Lots of people deserve plenty of credit for this one: State Superintendent of Instruction Mike Flanagan, who designed and pushed the new curriculum. Gov. Granholm deserves praise for convening the Cherry Commission two years ago, which called for improving higher education in the state - and raising standards for the public school standards to be raised.

Republican-led lawmakers get applause for realizing how important it is that new high school graduates have the education they'll need to compete in the modern world. Until now, we have only required our graduates to have one semester of civics. But starting with the high school graduating class of 2011, students will need to complete at least three and a half years of math, four years of English, three years of science and social studies and two years of a foreign language to graduate.

The new high school diploma actually now will be a document demonstrating educational attainment. There is also talk that the legislature may finally take the sensible next step and raise the age when students are allowed to legally drop out of school from 16 to 18.

But raising the standards themselves is a terrific accomplishment. It even gives us a sliver of hope that our long-gridlocked political system may just be capable of doing something meaningful in the face of our present economic crisis.

Yet amid all the backslapping, here's a note of caution.

Talk to most high school graduates about what remains in their heads from the required civics course. You'll find the answer is basically ... nothing.

Separation of powers? "What's to separate?"

The Bill of Rights? "I know my rights. I gotta pay a bill for them?"

Judicial review? "Sounds like the review session I took to pass civics."

I exaggerate, of course, but not much. And you get the idea.

The sorry fact - well known to any civics teacher and to many anguished parents, not to mention many employers - is that in order to get little Johnny through the required civics class and on to his high school diploma, the content, over the years has been watered down to the point where Ben Franklin would blush.

How did that happen? Easy.

When little Johnny failed civics the first time, his parents went tearing in to the principal's office whining about how tough the course was and about how unfair it was to require their little darling to learn the material. When little Johnny failed the second time, his parents screamed off to the local school board meeting and raised holy hell. How could they impose such a difficult course on their little darling, who needed desperately to graduate so he could get on to a relatively mindless career in automobile manufacturing?

And if little Johnny was a minority, charges of racism were thrown in for good measure. What does the education system do when confronted by hordes of angry parents? Cave in, of course. The required civics course was gradually watered down so much even little Johnny could be assured of passing.

That's the downside of local control of our schools, folks.

So beware! Now we have not only civics, but math, English, science, even foreign languages. All of which are prime targets for legions of little Johnny's and little Sally's parents. If you think civics was watered down, just wait till you see the pressure on teachers, principals and school boards when the curriculum is actually tough. But when I talked with Mike Flanagan, he seemed reasonably confident that this time, the curriculum won't be watered down.

"First of all," he explained, "every required course will have a detailed set of course expectations up front. We'll have that ready by August, and every school - and every parent who wants to find out - will have a clear and detailed road map of what's expected from the required courses."

"Second," Flanagan continued, "each required course will have a required end-of-course exam. If the kid doesn't pass the exam, he or she will have to take the course again or some acceptable variation. If the kid fails Algebra, for example, he'll have to master the same material, but perhaps in a vocational education setting."

So what's the education system going to do with parents who come in yelling their heads off about how unfair you're being to little Johnny? "Simple," Flanagan says, "cite the law."

The law, that is, which "requires us to teach to the content standards and demonstrate success by way of passing the exam."

I admire Flanagan's cool toughness. But all I can say is that I sure hope the school system is as determined and tough in standing up to the intense pressure that is sure to come. Pressure, that is, to water the new standards down. This, after a rare moment of lucidity in which the political class realized that without stern standards, Michigan may never be able to compete.

For in a sense, what has just been done was easy.

The tough part is about to begin.

Phil Power, the former chairman of Hometown Communications Network, is a longtime observer of Michigan politics, public policy and economics. He is the founder of The Center for Michigan, which co-sponsored the conference in Ann Arbor. For more information on The Center, go to www.thecenterformichigan. net.