Dueling Facts about K–12 Funding

This is an election year, so we will continue to hear conflicting stories about how public schools in Michigan are funded. On both sides, the facts are largely correct, yet the conclusions — spending has gone up or has gone down — are opposite. How can this be? Whom are we to believe?

The kind of sound bites we will be incessantly exposed to during a campaign season cannot adequately capture the full story of school funding. Nor can I, in a single blog post. But I will explain some of the reasons the facts and conclusions seem to contradict one another. The bottom line is that, while state spending has increased, the amount of that spending available to traditional public school districts (which I will call “districts” for brevity) for operations has not, when one controls for inflation. The reasons include
(1) tax cuts significantly reduced revenue for school aid;
(2) existing school aid money has been diverted to other uses;
(3) nominal increases in funding were not equitably distributed;
(4) nominal increases were absorbed by mandated retirement contributions;
(5) overall funding has not kept pace with inflation;
(6) Proposal A and the Headlee Amendment constraints will delay recovery of property tax bases for many years; and
(7) funding has not kept pace with the concentration of needier students left in public districts by choice and charters.

For all these reasons, traditional school districts have greater needs and less inflation-adjusted revenue available to actually educate children than since before the Great Recession began. If you consult the Senate Fiscal Agency’s ten-year history [www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DataCharts/DCk12_FoundationHistory.pdf‎] of per-pupil Foundation Allowances for every district and charter in the state, you will see that they are now below what they were in 2006–07, before the recession began. This is why an unprecedented number of districts are in deficit or flirting with deficits.

When Funding “Increases” Equal Decreases

The simple math used to demonstrate “increases” is misleading. In his January 2014 State of the State address, Governor Snyder asserted that state spending on K–12 education (not counting preschool or adult education) has increased $660 per pupil from 2010–11 to the 2013–14 current school year. This is true (although the actual math says it was $666). Total state spending was divided by the official fall student count to produce the figure.

Why is this misleading? People assume that increased state spending translates into more money for school operations — that is, more money in the classroom. It has not, in the aggregate. (It may have for some districts but not others; we are talking statewide averages here.) Nearly all of the increased funding went to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS). Due to legislative changes beginning in 2007, newer teachers will never have the kind of traditional pension once enjoyed by their colleagues, but the unfunded liability for current retirees and older teachers is still considerable and grew enormously when invested monies lost value during the recession. This MPSERS liability tends to soak up any alleged increases in funding. This year, for example, the state budgeted a modest increase in the per-pupil Foundation Allowance. Charter schools, almost none of which participate in MPSERS, enjoyed this increase. Traditional schools sent all of it — and usually a bit more — right back to MPSERS. The “increase” translated into an operational decrease in funding for them.

It is difficult to overstate the effect that the rising MPSERS liability has had on traditional public school districts. Remember: they were required by law to participate in MPSERS. Every employee, from kitchen workers to bus drivers to custodians to substitute teachers, had to be part of the system. Yet the state sets benefit levels and districts have no control over the costs. For example, the state offered financial incentives for older teachers to retire — allegedly “saving money” for the schools, which could replace them with younger teachers at lower pay rates. But those incentives permanently increased the retirement pay — and the MPSERS liability — for those retirees. That immediately translated into increased diversion of operating funds to retirement costs. Declining numbers of employees contributing to the system (due to lay-offs, diversion of teachers to charters, cyber schools, and the Educational Achievement Authority; changes to the system for newer employees; and privatization of non-instructional district employees) has exacerbated the revenue constraints — even as participants contribute substantially more to their own and to existing retirees’ pensions and post-retirement health care.

The state annually mandates the percentage of payroll that districts must contribute to MPSERS. Legislation that reformed this system capped the district/employer contribution to MPSERS at 25.8 percent of payroll. That is, for every $100 of salary to the employee, another $25.80 is owed to MPSERS. This has been the driving force behind privatization of all but regular teaching jobs. Most districts now contract with a third party to provide substitute teachers, for example. If the subs are not district employees, then this surcharge is not owed. The same savings can be found through contracting out for non-teaching jobs. (That also means, of course, that the contract employees have lost significant benefits.)

The cap on contributions means that the state pays any amount over it needed to fund the system; in fact, the state has made additional contributions in some years toward the accumulated unfunded liability that was exacerbated by the effect of the Great Recession on MPSERS invested assets. These contributions all come from the State School Aid Fund, though, which means that less dedicated funding has been available for school operations.

In addition to the MPSERS drain, many of the increases in funding on Snyder’s watch have not been rolled into the Foundation Allowance and are or will be disappearing. These include various “performance-based” awards, as well as this year’s one-time “equity” payment for the lowest-funded districts — which presumably can go back to the previous level of inequity next year. All of these disappearing pots of money are experienced as funding cuts on the ground.

Diversions from and Reductions in the State School Aid Fund

The state’s School Aid Fund (SAF) collects earmarked revenues from many sources. The state has historically supplemented the SAF with appropriations from its General Fund, as well. But, in recent years, the SAF has taken major hits from two directions: deliberate reductions in its revenue streams and diversion of its funds to new uses.

About 80 percent of the fund’s dedicated revenue comes from the statewide education property tax, plus portions of the sales and income taxes. The rest comes from lottery profits and several smaller taxes, including real-estate transfer, tobacco, and liquor taxes. Gov. Snyder and the Michigan Legislature eliminated the Michigan Business Tax, which had contributed more than $700 million a year to the SAF. They are also phasing out the Personal Property Tax on most business equipment, for a cut in the State Education Tax and in local school taxes estimated by the Senate Fiscal Agency as another $19.9 million in 2014, $20M in 2015, $44.7M in 2016, and $45M in 2017. Revenue for only partial replacement of the Personal Property Tax has been identified, and the SFA warns that the requirement on the Legislature to make even those appropriations is not considered legally binding.

As the recession deepened, Governor Granholm made an emergency, one-time allocation from the SAF to higher education, which had always been funded through the state's General Fund. Governor Snyder chose to make that a permanent diversion and to double the amount. Thus, some $400 million per year is now unavailable to K–12 schools because it goes instead to colleges and universities.

Expanded preschool programs, which most educators would agree are necessary, took another $65 million from the SAF this year. The governor proposes to double that amount next year, making $140 million per year not available for K–12 needs.

Unaddressed But Increased Needs

The governor’s calculations alleging increased funding do not factor in inflation. Districts must contend with inflationary increases in costs for utilities (especially this winter!), technology, books, materials, buses and fuel, professional services, and so forth. Most district employees have experienced pay cuts and benefit cost-sharing increases since the recession hit, and none have yet regained that take-home pay. Teachers at the lower rungs of the longevity ladder have also been hard hit by freezes in the “step increases” that normally raise their pay as they gain experience. But a desire to fairly compensate their employees is hardly the only reason districts are clamoring for funding increases.

Unfunded mandates are an ongoing problem. New teacher evaluation requirements and the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) both involve considerable expenses not reimbursed by either federal or state funding. Districts have already invested years of planning in them, and the CCSS requires software and a huge number of computing platforms for its on-line assessment tests. There are also large costs associated with compliance with the Affordable Care Act, in addition to expected annual premium increases for health coverage.

Simultaneously, the need for and cost of purely educational services rises as district student populations change. At-risk students are increasingly concentrated in poorer districts, as other students are diverted to charters and to wealthier districts through “choice.” The state does offer additional at-risk funding, although the level of such supplemental funding does not approach that needed to adequately address the needs. Duncombe & Yinger (2005), in the Economics of Education Review, estimated that economically disadvantaged students would cost 100% more to properly educate. State law offers 11.5 percent more. State appropriations are inadequate, however, so the actual supplement was less than 7 percent last year, according to the Michigan Department of Education.

Special Education is similarly underfunded. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal government mandated an “appropriate” education in the “least restrictive environment” for students with specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, autism, or emotional disturbances. It has never, however, come close to meeting its commitment to fund 40 percent of the difference between the cost of educating a disabled student and a general student. Under the sequester, the federal share fell to 14.9 percent, forcing additional costs to come from per-pupil funding for other students. So the districts, which educate a much higher percentage of students with disabilities than do charters, are at a great economic disadvantage in meeting all their students’ needs.

The funding burden is exacerbated in Michigan, which mandates special education through age 26. Keep in mind that 72 percent of Michigan charter school students are elementary (K–5) school students (CREDO, 2013), so this burden would be minimized for them even if they did not serve a much lower proportion of each grade cohort of special education students.

The Bottom Line

The overall-funding-divided-by-pupil-count calculation used to trumpet “increased” education funding is both technically true and deeply fraudulent. This simple average significantly misrepresents how much funding can actually be used to support and improve teaching and learning and vital school operations. Moreover, averages mask significant differences in the actual per-pupil funding received by individual districts or available to them for operations. Unprecedented numbers of districts are in deficit, on the edge of such trouble, or rapidly burning through any fund balances they once used to cushion annual funding volatility. Of all the factors I review above that contribute to this problem, the MPSERS drain is the most severe. Most other states appropriate employee pension contributions separately from direct K–12 spending. When the U.S. Department of Education corrects its data for our diversion of funding to pension costs, it ranks Michigan as 26th in per-pupil spending — a dramatic decline in our ranking since the pre–Proposal A period.

If you believe the “increased funding” line and really think that school districts are crying wolf, I encourage you to speak with your community’s parents, teachers, school staff, and school boards to learn the truth they live with daily.

Lessons for Our Schools from Apple and Microsoft

Let me begin by saying that I am emphatically NOT suggesting we run our public schools “more like a business.” Businesses exist to make a profit, not to provide a service. And manufacturers practice strict quality control over which “raw materials” they allow to pass their doors, unlike traditional public schools, which welcome every child — no matter how poorly equipped, prepared, or supported at home.

I am suggesting, however, that the examples of both great and poor techniques used by two of our largest and most successful companies may instruct us on mistakes we can and should avoid.

First, What NOT to Do

An insightful analysis by Kurt Eichenwald (Vanity Fair, August 2012) called “Microsoft’s Lost Decade” explains how a company that once dominated the tech industry has “fallen flat in every arena it entered: e-books, music, search, social networking, etc.” Again and again, it blew long leads on competitors, and now even its strengths in operating systems and Office are being threatened by the free Google Chrome OS and Google Docs. A single Apple product, the iPhone, had come to produce higher sales than the entire Microsoft Corporation.

How did it come to this?

Eichenwald found intriguing and instructive answers in “interviews with dozens of current and former executives, as well as in thousands of pages of internal documents and legal records.” They might be summarized as (1) emphasizing immediate profits and losses killed innovation and design, and (2) force-ranking employees against one another killed collaboration and actively undermined the core business.

The first change came when a brilliant technical guy, Bill Gates, was replaced as CEO by Steve Ballmer — not a “product guy”" but rather “a businessman with a background in deal-making, finance, and product marketing.” If great marketing could produce more revenue, the products themselves were less important. Everyone started watching the daily stock price, and long-range research and development suffered. Even with huge leads on e-readers and mobile operating systems, Microsoft was left in the dust by competitors.

But the real damage was done by forcing employee evaluations to fit the bell curve of a normal distribution. Microsoft called this “stacked ranking,” and the resulting corporate culture of “self-immolating chaos” nearly sank the company. No matter how good staffers were, only ten percent of each unit could be ranked as excellent, and ten percent would be ranked as poor, with three other ranks between. Not surprisingly, they learned not to collaborate, to withhold vital help and information, and even to actively sabotage one another. After all, they “were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed” — and fail they did. One pernicious feature of the system was that “outcomes were never predictable.” Even achieving all your objectives was no guarantee of a high ranking; crippling your (coworker) competition was the safest way to stay afloat. And “worse, because the reviews came every six months, employees and their supervisors — who were also ranked — focused on their short-term performance, rather than on longer efforts to innovate.”

Sound familiar?

As mandated by the federal Race to the Top legislation, Michigan (and most other states) adopted laws requiring teachers and schools to be similarly “stack-ranked” against one another in a normal distribution. No matter how well they perform objectively, only a few will be designated as top performers, and a steady percentage will be labeled as failures. And such teacher evaluations have proven to be capricious, if not random, from year to year: one year’s “teacher of the year” will be rated as ineffective the next year. Just doing your individual job effectively is not enough to guarantee a high ranking. And the test scores of the moment are The Most Important Thing, crowding out the serious intellectual work it takes to perfect one’s professional craft.

To absolutely no one’s surprise, the “poorest” performers are those who deal with special education, English language–learning, and economically disadvantaged students. These students start from behind, have greater needs and fewer supports, and tend to cluster in the more poorly resourced schools with the least experienced teachers. Ask yourself: if you were a teacher, and your job depended upon how much progress your students made on standardized tests, why would you want to teach those destined to perform more poorly? Sure, there are innate rewards to helping those who most need the help, but you still have a family to support.

Teachers may not sink to actively sabotaging one another, as Microsoft workers did, but will they be inclined to share their secrets, their reliable tricks for helping kids to learn better? Will they actively collaborate to help one another and their schools and districts reach organization-wide excellence? Will they put in the time to study, test, evaluate, and share best practices, getting ever better at what they do, rather than doing endless test-prep for the only measure that seems to count? We had better hope so, but this discredited management system does everything possible to prevent and undermine that vital collaboration and professional development.

Epilog

Microsoft has finally learned better. A few days ago, its head of human resources announced, “No more curve…. No more ratings.” The performance evaluation system had to change in order to foster the teamwork and long-range perspective that once made the company great. “We are optimizing for more timely feedback and meaningful discussions to help employees learn in the moment, grow and drive great results.” Wow. Do you think we could do that in our public schools again? Microsoft had a “lost decade” under this misguided system. It appears we are headed for a “lost generation.”

What TO Do

Apple’s “design wizard” insists that the company will always choose product quality over any strictly numerical measure of it. By that, he means that product specifications are not proxies for how good a product is or how satisfying it is to use. Marco della Cava, in a September 2013 USA Today, profiled Jonathan Ive, “the fertile and detail-obsessed mind behind culture-shaping products such as the lollipop-colored iMacs (1998), the iPod (2001), iPhone (2007) and iPad (2010).” His hardware group and Craig Federighi’s software group collaborated to produce the new IOS 7 and fifth-generation iPhones.

This duo notes that people care more about the quality of photos they take than the megapixels their phone boasts. The price and the screen size are similarly easy to measure but imperfectly aligned with perceived quality. As Ive notes, “There’s a more difficult path, and that’s to make better products, ones where maybe you can’t measure their value empirically. This is terribly important and at the heart of what we do.”

Apply THAT to schools!

Imagine if, instead of focusing seemingly all of our time and energies on “attributes that you can measure with a number,” in Ive’s words, we looked at students — our product — more holistically. Test scores are always a proxy for something else: knowledge, abilities, likelihood of future success, “college readiness.” Because they are simple numbers, they are very easy to compare across nations, states, districts, schools, and individuals. But test scores do not accurately measure nor reliably correlate with those real outcomes. Just as Microsoft found its personnel evaluations unpredictable, test scores vary from one iteration to the next in inexplicable ways. That is because they are actually quite poor measures. Using them to evaluate teachers and schools compounds the error, since the inputs on the child that produced that output included many, many more factors than those controlled by the teachers and the schools.

They don’t measure what we pretend they do, and the measurements are invalid because they vary in ways that we cannot explain. We rely upon them solely because they are numbers and therefore have an unwarranted cachet of “objectivity.” As Apple’s successful designers assert, numbers do not begin to tell the real story. What we really want for our children’s education, for our end “product,” is graduates who know how they learn, know how to find and evaluate information, can acquire skills on their own, know how to find and ask for appropriate help, are intellectually curious, take the initiative and the responsibility in their own learning process, are self-directed and self-disciplined, can work collaboratively with others, are self-confident in their written and presentation skills. Isn’t that what you want in your coworkers, hirees, managers … your own children?

The Apple folks say that they “care about how to design the inside of something you’ll never see, because we think it’s the right thing to do.” At its core, schooling should be about forming and molding the inside of our children, to help them become the top-quality products the world recognizes as the best. I fervently wish we’d catch a clue from the geniuses amongst us on how to do that.

Too Much Power Equals Danger

This post is not directly related to education. It may sound like the whining of an aggravated political partisan, but it is not. I am not necessarily opposed to the laws referred to below, but I do find the PROCESSES alarming. Abuse of power is never a good thing, and concentration of power tends to be corrupting — as demonstrated repeatedly through the millennia of recorded history. It appears that no amount of power is enough for those now in charge of our affairs....

In Michigan, the Republican Party firmly controls all branches of government, but that level of power is apparently not enough. In the legislature, for example, they routinely use voice votes to give immediate effect to legislation, despite their not having anywhere near the super majority required for that, should the votes actually be recorded. This legislature now also routinely attaches a small appropriation to any act it wants to make referendum-proof, to keep those pesky voters from getting in their way.

For example, the people voted a year ago to repeal an emergency manager law (which allows governor-appointed czars to take over municipalities and school districts bankrupted in large part by huge cuts in state revenue supposedly mandated by other laws). That aggravated the legislature, which immediately passed a replacement law, attached an appropriation so that it could not be repealed again, and used a bogus voice vote to give it immediate effect — clearing the way for the Detroit bankruptcy, among quite a few others in process or soon to come.

Another irksome thing has been the way folks keep trying to stop such over-reach through lawsuits, which are first heard by the Lansing-area (read: Democratic) Circuit Court judges. Yes, their rulings can be overturned by Republican judges on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, but that slows things down!

Enter the fast-tracked Public Act 164, which moved the Court of Claims (for lawsuits against the state) from the capital’s Circuit Court to a panel of four Michigan Court of Appeals judges, all to be named by the (5:2 Republican) Supreme Court rather than chosen by blind draw. It was, of course, given immediate effect by bogus voice vote, and cases already before the Ingham County Circuit Court were transferred to the new panel.

Interesting side note: the Michigan Judges Association chose not to oppose the new law, as members lobbied that doing so would endanger their hoped-for pay raises: it would be “a suicide mission” while “it’s big boy politics being played.” Sure enough, two days after the law was passed, the long-awaited bill to increase judicial pay was introduced. EVERYONE denies any connection.

Things just have a way of working out for you when you get out of the way of this determined political majority. And vice versa. I don't know about you, but I find the whiff of tyranny in this kind of steamrolling frightening.

Report Cards that Offer Zero Useful Information

Years ago, my niece gave a colorful report on her aggravating and disappointing trip to see the pyramids with the title “I Went to Egypt so that You Don’t Have To.” My trip through the labyrinth to try to understand the new school accountability system was similarly aggravating and disappointing. No, I did not have people trying to pick my pockets throughout, but I ended feeling just as ripped off and disgusted. Here is my report. Do not expect much local color.

In compliance with federal Race to the Top legislation, Michigan has now implemented a new Accountability Scorecard for every school and district, giving them color-coded ratings ranging from red (terrible!) to green (terrific!). The great majority (more than two-thirds) were rated yellow (caution: red is imminent!). This has been confusing to all, since many educational entities appeared to be doing well in every sub-category, yet they did not achieve a green rating overall. How can that be?

The short answer is that the system is rigged to produce failure. And that is exactly what it did.

The system requires 85% of children to become proficient in every subject by the end of the 2021–22 school year, mandating incremental progress toward that goal in every subgroup every year. The subgroups include students with disabilities, English Language–learners, economically disadvantaged students, the bottom 30% (in terms of proficiency), and various ethnic groups (white, black, Hispanic of any race, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and multiracial). In addition, there are requirements regarding test participation rate, attendance rate, graduation rate, and compliance with school improvement, educator effectiveness, and other kinds of reporting.

The state’s database lists 5,816 schools and districts to be rated. Of that number, 1,144 (almost 20%) are given no color/rating, mostly because they are too new to have the requisite historic data trail. The lowest, red, rating was given to 692 (14.8% of those given a rating). Another 263 (5.6% of rated entities) were rated orange. A whopping 3,180 or 68% were rated as yellow. None were given the lime green rating. And a tiny 135 (2.9% of the total rated) got the coveted green designation. To summarize, then, more than 97% of schools and districts rated are considered “failing.”

But the news is actually worse than that. Of the 135 green schools, 41 (nearly one-third) got “zero of a possible zero points” — so how is it that they are rated green? Most are so designated on the basis of three-year participation rates (how many children actually took the tests) and “compliance factors” (planning and reporting requirements that earn no points). They have no student test scores because all their grade cohorts are under 30 pupils — a prime indicator that they are likely to be charter schools. Other “green” schools with very low point totals got them for such factors as student attendance. You will note that student attendance, test participation rates, school improvement planning and teacher evaluation reporting are ALL FACTORS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT.

Looking more closely at the data, the news is even worse. Here is an example: the Jalen Rose Academy is Green on the strength of Student Attendance (2 of a possible 2 points) and Compliance Factors (no points). Its only assessment participation rate is a three-year average for social studies — which made me realize it is just three repetitions of the sixth-grade participation rate they brought with them to this high school. How is that at all relevant to this school?

This exposes the glaring hole in the rating system — and the reason nearly every entity will be “failing” in short order: it requires incremental improvement in student test scores every year, but not all tests are given every year. So, students who were not proficient in social studies in sixth grade are unable to show improvement until they take a social studies test again in ninth grade. Students who were not proficient in science in fifth grade will be unable to show improvement until the eighth grade test. For three years they WILL fail to achieve the required incremental progress. Students who are not proficient at writing in seventh grade will not be able to demonstrate progress for four years, until they take the ACT in eleventh grade. Any one such failure mandates a yellow rating, at best, for the school and district.

The system also requires a steady progress (equal increments over each of the next ten years) toward proficiency targets. The farther away a group is in a particular subject, the larger those increments will be. In the subject in which the state’s students do most poorly overall, science, the improvement targets will be almost impossible to reach. If 15.9% of eighth graders statewide were considered proficient in 2012 (they were), and 85% must achieve proficiency by 2022, then the proficient group must increase by 6.9 points [(85 - 15.9)/10 years] every year. If the target is missed one year, it just gets higher the next. Improvements of that magnitude are almost never achieved anywhere, let alone consistently every year for a decade. If not one of a particular subgroup was proficient in 2012, as was true in many places for special education or bottom 30% groups in science, then their improvement target will be even higher: 8.5% per year — which simply cannot be done for ten years straight. It will be impossible to achieve green status once student achievement data is used for all schools, unless those schools already have elite, selective populations that are universally high-achieving. The only way to guarantee that is to exclude special education, English Language–learning, and economically disadvantaged students — which is exactly what is occurring at charter schools today.

Another wrinkle — or perhaps “monkey wrench” is more evocative here — in the system is that cyber schools can now provide one-third or more of educational classes for grades five through 12, but the home school district will be held accountable for student achievement results. Let me repeat: traditional school districts will be punished for the failures of on-line schools over which they have zero control.

Presumably, the point of the rating system is to give parents the information they need to exercise the vaunted “choice” that is supposed to be making all schools more effective. If the basis for the ratings is so hard to understand, and if all are rated as failing — as they soon will be, how is this helpful to anyone?

Uncommonly Undecided about the Common Core

I am conflicted about the Common Core.

The minority of folks shown by polling to be at all aware of Common Core State Standards probably know little more than that they are controversial. Those who’ve read a bit more may realize that CCSS opponents include some truly strange bedfellows: leftist progressives like Diane Ravitch (I am a fan) who see this as one more ersatz “reform” actually designed to reveal the “failure” of public schools, and rightist, libertarian and/or Tea Party types who see it as Big Government undermining “local control.”

A little background

The Common Core originated with corporate executives, major philanthropists, and state governors, prompted largely by a concern over economic competitiveness. Besides worry on a societal level that we must keep up with competitor nations, fewer manufacturing jobs here mean that our high school graduates need better skills to guarantee their own competitiveness for jobs.

CCS Standards discount rote learning in favor of an encouraging emphasis on deeper understanding, application to problem-solving, the ability to translate knowledge and skills to novel situations, and skills in collaboration and in evaluating information sources. All of these abilities will produce confident, competent young people with both hard and soft skills needed to thrive in today’s college and work environments.

CCSS are also part of a new accountability system to replace the mandates of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Early in the George W. Bush administration, NCLB aimed for all of our children to be proficient in all tested subjects by the end of the current school year. This was an unrealistic goal, and the draconian penalties for failing to make “adequate yearly progress” toward it have failed to produce such universal success. The successor plan to NCLB, called Race to the Top (RttT), allowed states to apply for waivers from the NCLB standards and penalties if they adopted the Common Core and other revised accountability measures, including the evaluation of teachers and administrators on the basis of student academic progress.

This new system restarts the clock, in a way, still requiring most (but not all) children to become proficient by the end of the 2021–22 school year, and requiring incremental progress toward that goal in every subgroup every year. The subgroups include students with disabilities, English Language–learners, economically disadvantaged students, the bottom 30% (in terms of proficiency), and various ethnic groups (white, black, Hispanic of any race, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and multiracial). In addition, there are requirements regarding test participation rate, attendance rate, graduation rate, and compliance with school improvement, educator effectiveness, and other kinds of reporting. Because it is so multi-factored and complex, the system is difficult to understand — and its results are difficult to interpret (more about that below). But the aim is praiseworthy: that we expect more from our students and from our educators, and that we help them reach that higher bar.

So, why is this controversial?

The two sides

The left side argues that CCS Standards are so high, and the assessments written for them so difficult, that they are useless for assessing learning — think of giving a middle schooler a calculus exam. Even worse, the resultant low scores will be used to bludgeon teachers and schools, feeding the narrative that both are failing and must be replaced by charters (demonstrably no better than traditional public schools when measured by these tests) or privatized, for-profit options via vouchers (demonstrably worse). A huge and extremely profitable industry has grown up around producing materials and assessments aligned with CCSS, the digital tools and software required for on-line assessment and classroom management, the translation of student growth assessment into teacher evaluation, and even a newly privatized effort to train teachers and to test them for certification. Generally, all that money is diverted from the classrooms where it had been, and should be, more properly applied.

The right side argues that CCSS impose federal control where it does not belong. [I must interject that certain Michigan legislators, who suddenly champion “local control” after passing literally hundreds of micromanaging laws re education, must not have an ironic bone in their bodies.] Much of this opposition appears to be rooted in an unshakeable distrust of the Obama administration, more than anything else. I do not find their arguments nearly as compelling as the left-wing objections.

My fence-sitting

I have seen some of the CCSS “exemplar texts” for primary-grade language arts. My first reaction, as a long-time advocate for differentiated education of gifted children, was to think how much they would love these rich and challenging literary resources. Second thought: would the average student be able to handle them? Frustration level is very important in learning. If something is a stretch for you, you grow in pursuit of it. But, if it is too far over your head, you give up in resignation. Like Goldilocks, we do best when something is “just right” for us. Since we do not fully individualize teaching and learning — yet — it is probably best to err on the side of expecting more rather than less. After all, low expectations are as damaging in their impact on children as low test scores.

In general, higher standards are a good thing, as both teachers and students will strive to meet them. A ton of money and years of effort has already been invested in curriculum redesign; new materials; common assessment development; teacher training; infrastructure, hardware, and software for on-line assessment; and prodigious training and skills upgrades for all the professionals involved. What purpose would be served by throwing out the CCSS assessments at the eleventh hour? What tests would we use for all the federal and state requirements, both to asses student learning and to evaluate staff, as newer laws mandate?

I think we should continue on the CCSS path, but I know that the assessment results will be used unfairly, to malign good people working hard to serve our children and our society’s future.

This has already happened in New York, where scores on the first round of CCSS-related testing made it look as if both teachers and students had been lobotomized: 77.4% of students passed last year's exams but only 31.1% did so this year. To exemplify the absurdity of the new assessments, in one Long Island district where students take algebra early, eighth graders took the traditional New York Regents algebra exam for ninth grade, and 95% passed it. They also took the eighth-grade CCSS-related new test, meant to assess whether they were ready for algebra, and only 39.5% were deemed ready for the course they had already successfully completed. Results like this are simply useless. Even the much-celebrated Harlem’s Children Zone schools, where about three times as much as average is spent per child to provide extended schooling and wrap-around services, did not do well on the new exams. So, they will be used to call students, teachers, and schools failures — you can take that to the bank.

What to do?

I say we adopt and adapt to the Common Core standards and, as much as possible, ignore the testing results. Unless they are deliberately skewed for political reasons, as happened Indiana, they will make us all look pretty bad. This is just what happened with the recently released new Accountability Scorecards [link will download Excel spreadsheet] in Michigan, which rated less than 3% of our schools and districts as green (i.e., good) — and a third of those “green” schools were so labeled after achieving zero of a possible zero points. In all my reading, I have not been able to determine the basis for their good rating. (I am still awaiting a reply from the Bureau of Assessment and Accountability.) Just as this ranking system produces results so uniformly poor as to be pointless, low CCSS scores will be seen as invalid for the purpose of comparing schools. Let’s not waste any more energy or angst on fighting such things. Instead, we should focus on helping both our teachers and their charges to be the best that they can be. This stuff is a distraction from our real work.

It may be that the current “reform” effort, backed by corporations that stand to profit and by billionaire philanthropists who know little about education, has jumped the shark — gone too far and destroyed its own credibility and support. There are so many folks from so many quarters now complaining loudly about the over-reaching and conflicts of interest that the tide is turning.

We’ve experienced tremendous upheaval in public education, producing much less in terms of good results. We have the data to show that so-called accountability measures are really measuring socioeconomic status. They correlate almost perfectly with poverty levels. Instead of applying greater resources to the children who need them most, we have been systematically defunding, restructuring, and then closing their schools. Nowhere have these interventions proven to work better for children.

If we don’t call off this war on kids and teachers soon, it will be over — and both will have lost it. The most important way we can prevent that is to remember, in the voting booth, who has done what to whom.

Backdoor Vouchers

VOUCHERS ARE HERE. Some years ago, Michigan voters actually inserted a prohibition against school vouchers into our constitution. But Governor Snyder and the Michigan Legislature found a quick and easy way to override voter opinion: incorporate vouchers into the State School Aid bill for 2013–14. The enacted omnibus bill accepted the Governor's proposal to require school districts to pay for students from grades 5 to 12 to take two online courses per semester (more if they are successful with two). I cannot adequately express in polite language what a poorly thought out idea this is. Here are some of my objections:

• This new Sec. 21f “caps” the cost at one-twelfth of the Foundation Allowance per semester course. That is a ridiculous notion of a “cap.” That amount assumes that districts divvy up the Foundation Allowance evenly per course taken in a six-period day, but that is NOT how this money is spent. To begin with, some secondary schools offer 7 or 8 periods per day. But the real problem is that this funding is also used to pay for utilities, maintenance, transportation, administration, excess special education costs (since it is mandated but not fully funded), etc. — NOT just to pay for one period of a teacher's time and the cost of materials. Carving out voucher-like portions of the per-pupil allowance makes it much harder to cover these systemic costs.

• Among those systemic costs will be a new one: the requirement that districts act as unwilling fiscal and administrative agents for a potentially unlimited number of vendors. This is clearly another unfunded mandate.

• There is no guarantee of quality services and little recourse for students or school districts if services are sub-par. Districts are required to pay 80% up front and 20% upon completion, so a lot of profit can be made without successful course completion. On-line schools will rush to take advantage of this money spigot, with almost no requirement that they ensure or demonstrate the quality of the offerings. The existing track record for Michigan “cyber schools” is very poor. The state average ACT score for spring 2013 was 19.7 on a scale that goes up to 36. The average for the seven “virtual” or “cyber” academies was 17.5. For the one with the longest track record (5 years), it was 15.8. The extensive experience in Colorado, with large numbers of on-line schools over many years, was simply dismal. Why are we determined to replicate failure?

• All of the test-driven accountability measures (including the top-to-bottom rankings that trigger serious consequences) will apply to the district and its schools, despite their losing control of a third or more of the instructional day.

• The legislature held no hearings in which district administrators might have advised them that subcontracting a third of the school day will produce a supervision and transportation nightmare. Districts will not be able to offer classes to students during the periods for which funding has been diverted to vendors. Where are those students to go, and how will they get there? Perhaps the legislators assumed that all districts have free space in computer labs to accommodate these virtual students, but I know of no schools where these facilities are not fully booked. Perhaps the vendors will supply laptops to students, since they will certainly have plenty of revenue to do so, but that does not mean there is free space and qualified supervision available in the public schools. No, these students will have to do their virtual classwork elsewhere, and they cannot be allowed to range unsupervised in our schools when they do not have class. How will they get to and from school during the school day? Transportation is already a tremendous burden on traditional school budgets; there is no money available for extra bus runs during the day.

In what universe does any of this make sense?

Pay for Performance: the worst idea ever?

Our state and federal political leaders are invested in the idea of reforming education through accountability for results. There's nothing wrong there in theory, but the implementation is being distilled down to paying (and firing) teachers on the basis of test scores. Remember the axiom: you get what you measure. (Nor is every important result easy to measure.)

So, we’re in trouble in Michigan immediately. For three years, we have invested prodigious time and effort and millions of dollars in teacher training, curriculum writing, and hardware for the on-line Smarter Balanced Assessments set to replace the MEAP in the coming school year. All of this is based on the Common Core State Standards — for which implementation the legislature just denied funding.

So, will students be tested and teachers evaluated (as mandated by state law) on the basis of old tests that do not match the new curricula? What possible sense does that make?

And what is the point? Weren’t we trying to improve student learning?

We know from a robust and valid research base what works to improve teaching and learning: when teachers focus on analyzing, together, evidence of student learning, and when they hold one another collectively responsible for these outcomes, children achieve more. See ACSD’s “How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?” for numerous citations.

A collaborative culture of teaching professionals is the research-proven best practice that we should be encouraging. Instead, our ill-informed legislature keeps mandating practices proven not to work but to actually undermine that collaboration.

“Merit pay” or “pay for performance” does not work and puts teachers into competition with one another. There is NO research showing that it improves student performance or positively changes teacher behavior.

“Merit pay” makes things worse

But beyond absolutely not working, pay for performance makes thing worse. The “bigger stick” approach to improving instruction — by putting teachers’ pay and their very jobs in jeopardy — fosters fear and short-term thinking. Fear, competition, and short-term thinking prevent rather than encourage organizational improvement.

• Daniel Pink: in the MIT incentives study, “the high reward produced the worst performance. It has been proven over and over again by psychologists, sociologists, and economists [that] incentives work for simple, if-then tasks; but when tasks require some conceptual, creative thinking, straightforward rewards like money do not work and often lead to poorer performance.”

• W. Edwards Deming: merit pay “nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics.”

• Large corporations proved that the “bigger stick” is a bad idea by implementing it. Both IBM and Ford, some years ago, discovered that “forced ranking” employee evaluation systems destroyed the cooperation and collegiality necessary to efficient and effective operations.

When we set out to radically change the institution of public education, we should do so on the basis of valid research proving what actually works rather than our preconceived notions. We should carefully pilot and monitor changes so as not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And we must always put the needs of our children over our ideology or the interests of those positioned to profit off them — such as testing and software corporations and for-profit school operators.

How about applying this to the legislature?

Regarding school districts in deficit, one of our legislators was recently quoted as insisting that “Someone must be held accountable!” Given that the legislature made unprecedented cuts in school funding and diverts $400 million a year from the School Aid Fund, I’d suggest that he look in the mirror.

Or, we could apply the same outcomes-based metrics to them. An editorial (“Teacher pay proposal flunks the test”) in The Livingston Daily recently suggested exactly that:

“Michigan lawmakers are among the highest paid in the nation, but the state doesn’t have the outcomes to justify those salaries…. Here’s a plan. Cut the pay of all lawmakers in half. Then, create a salary reward system based on quantitative improvements. A 10 percent pay hike, perhaps, if the Michigan unemployment rate dips below the national average. A similar sliding-scale reward when incomes rise. How about a bonus for lowering the number of residents living below the poverty level? Or improving the health status of Michigan residents?”

Or does such a suggestion insult and outrage them? Hmmm.