Here’s a prime example of how a well-intentioned reform gets watered down in Lansing…
In March, the Center published “School Daze: Michigan’s Shrinking School Year.” The study used comprehensive state data to illustrate that nearly every school district in the state had fallen below the informal national standard of 180 days of student instruction per year. More troubling, the report showed that 40 percent of Michigan districts were below 170 days of instruction per year — or more than two full weeks below the informal national standard. All this at a time when students elsewhere in this global economy are going to school as many as 225 days a year.
Reaction was heated and immediate. State Schools Superintendent Mike Flanagan called the shrinking school year “outrageous.” His predecessor, Tom Watkins, warned Michigan to “wake up.” Booth Newspapers’ political guru Peter Luke said “children are being absolutely shortchanged.”
The Michigan House of Representatives quickly swung into action. In early April, the House passed several reforms in reaction to the School Daze findings. The House decreed that beginning in the 2009-10 school year, no district could offer fewer than 170 days of instruction without forfeiting part of its state funding. That reform would have forced more than 300 school districts to lengthen their school years or face financial penalties. For example, if a district went only 165 days and had $10 million in state aid, the penalty would be about $58,000.
Education reformers celebrated. The State Board of Education, for example, quickly commended the House action while also insisting the Legislature really needed to force districts to offer 180 days of instruction.
The Senate apparently didn’t get that message — or at least didn’t agree with it.
In June, the Senate passed a very much watered down version of the House reforms. The Senate said school districts could not further shrink their school years, but had until the 2010-11 school year to get back to 165 days of instruction and until 2012-13 to get back to 170 days. And, the Senate dropped the House definition of a school day as five hours of teacher-student contact.
This month, the would-be reforms eroded further. Representatives and senators on the education budget conference committee, agreed that districts could delay implementation of the 165-day requirement if that requirement was in conflict with existing labor contracts.
End result… By the Legislature’s standards, it’s now perfectly fine for Michigan school kids to go to school three weeks fewer than their nationwide counterparts, and months less than kids in nations with more aggressive school calendars.
So where did all that early spring outrage go come fall?
And what do legislators say to taxpaying parents who want to know why their kids are getting a “shortchanged” education?
We hope you ask those questions.
Below are the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of those who wrote the original school days reform language in April and then allowed it to be watered down…
THE DECISION MAKERS…
- HOUSE SCHOOL AID/EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Terry Brown (chair), 517-373-0476, terrybrown@house.mi.gov
Hammel (vice chair), 517-373-7557, richardhammel@house.mi.gov
Dudley Spade, 517-373-1706, dspade@house.mi.gov
Rashida Tlaib, 517-373-0823, rashidatlaib@house.mi.gov
Richard LeBlanc, 517-373-2576, richardleblanc@house.mi.gov
Tim Melton, 517-373-0475, timmelton@house.mi.gov
Gail Haines (minority vice chair), 517-373-0615, gailhaines@house.mi.gov
Chuck Moss, 517-373-8670, chuckmoss@house.mi.gov
- SENATE K-12, SCHOOL AID & EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
Ron Jelinek (chair), 517-373-6960, senrjelinek@senate.michigan.gov
Cameron Brown (vice chair), 517-373-5932, sencbrown@senate.michigan.gov
Valde Garcia, 517-373-2420, senvgarcia@senate.michigan.gov
Mickey Switalski (min. vice chair), 517-373-7315, senmswitalski@senate.michigan.gov
Irma Clark-Coleman, 517-373-0990, senIclarkcoleman@senate.michigan.gov
- CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Terry Brown 517-373-0476, terrybrown@house.mi.gov
George Cushingberry, 517-373-2276, georgecushingberry@house.mi.gov
Chuck Moss, 517-373-8670, chuckmoss@house.mi.gov
Ron Jelinek, 517-373-6960, senrjelinek@senate.michigan.gov
Cameron Brown , 517-373-5932, sencbrown@senate.michigan.gov
Mickey Switalski,, 517-373-7315, senmswitalski@senate.michigan.gov
4 Comments
What evidence is there that more days in school necessarily equate to better outcomes. The educational world is full of pat answers, smaller classes, better trained teachers etc etc. that have no measurable benefit. Our educational system does need reform – real start all over again reform. Simple pat bureaucratic answers – add more days, smaller class sizes, higher paid teachers … is not the way to increased productivity and quality in our education system.
I do not think school districts are currently in a position that they can increase school days considering the proposed cut of $218 per pupil allowance for FY 2010. Our legislature must first value education and find the money to support it. Reform can only happen once our state decides that it wants to invest in its future by investing in its children and their education.
While education should be about teaching, learning and children– far too often, in Michigan and across the US– it is more about: POWER, CONTROL,POLITICS and ADULTS.
Michigan needs to wake up! While we continue to dis-invest in education at every level– places around the globe are investing in programs and people that will make them competitive in this hyper-competitive, disruptive, transformational, global knowledge economy.
Having travled to China for the past 20 years,(see China Bridge: Michigan, stop whinning and start building– http://www.domemagazine.com) let me assure you they are not sitting back and waiting for us to get our act together.
The state and nation that gets its system of education right– will soar in the 21st century. Our goal should be to make Michigan the “brain bank of the world.” Sadly, we are not headed in the right direction when we short change investments in education that will truly add value and make a differece.
While a school business manager, I argued for more school days rather than fewer, longer days to meet the clock hour requirements. I felt little more was learned with a few more minutes each day, as compared with more days. The bias for fewer days came through negotiations with the teachers’ unions, as they preferred a shorter work year, which means more days off during the year or a longer summer. Sometimes we considered the savings created by fewer school days because of fewer days you needed to run the busses, but the teacher negotiations were the primary driving factor.
Few school boards are willing to stick to their guns in negotiations with the teachers. I described the tools (laws) available to use in negotiations in my presentation to the Michigan School Business Officials annual meeting in 2006 entitled “Taking Back the Ship”, but I am aware of only one district that has been able to extract a favorable result. Heck, in Detroit, even when the teachers struck in violation of the law, NO ONE sought to enforce the law.