From the Executive Director: $500,000,000 4 U?

By Jim Ballard
MASSP Executive Director

I like our State Superintendent, Mike Flanagan.  I trust him.  I know he has his critics, as I have mine for supporting him.  So, when the State Superintendent of Public Instruction tells me it is very important for Michigan to be a finalist in the race to win “Race to the Top” monies I believe him.  When he tells me what it’s going to take to win this cash prize, I believe him.  When he tells me that there is a difference between complying with the federal minimums and racing to have the best application, I believe him.  When he tells me it could mean half-a-billion dollars for MI, I believe him.

Like you, I’ve read the news stories and listened to the “experts.”  I get it--Michigan prospered in the last century.  However, in the last decade, that prosperity has been lost.  Michigan, economically, now ranks as one of the poorest states in the U.S.A.  So there has to be a new “normal” for us.  We can’t just keep cutting in education until we can match our expenses with our income.  We need to be smart, creative, and wise as we re-make Michigan public education.  Maybe, $500,000,000 from “Race to the Top” funding will give us the resources to create a “right-sized” and “right-fit” Michigan system; a system that is respected world-wide-like it used to be.

So, what’s the stink?

Well, the application expects Michigan to have alternatives to teacher certification in place, along with requiring teacher performance tracking databases, liberalizing charter school restrictions, and legislation provisions to turn around failing schools.  All of these grant requirements need legislation to be put in place.   So, how does the calendar look to get this done?  Our Legislators will take off the last two weeks of November to hunt deer and eat turkey. They return to the Capitol for three weeks of legislative session in December then go home for the rest of the year.  By the way, the drop-dead deadline for applying for the federal funds in January 19. 

Each issue has a legislative history of “bad blood.” 

Alternative to teacher certification: “With 7,500 new teachers yearly graduating from Michigan’s fine teacher colleges we need to serve them first”, says a representative from the MEA.

Teacher performance tracking databases: “Not if you’re going to use them in the evaluation process,” say the teacher union lobbyists.

Liberalize charter school restrictions: “No ----- way!” say most state education lobbyists.

Turn around failing schools:  “The legislation has a flawed definition so too many qualify,” say school management lobbyists.

If Michigan were to be one of the recipients of the federal money half of it would be divided up among the state’s individual school districts, which would mean instant dollars for local districts.  But you can hear whispers say, “Well, it’s really not that much money; it won’t fix our budget problems”.
Do we really need this legislation?  Its purpose is not to fix budget shortfalls.  However, $500,000,000 sure will let us re-imagine and build what the “new normal” will be for our Michigan schools.

Background

What is the Race to the Top grant? It's relatively small by Washington standards, but the Obama administration's $4.35 billion carrot for schools is already leading states to adopt a handful of key reforms.  Tucked into the $110 billion federal stimulus slated for education, a comparatively tiny grant known as the Race to the Top requires that states that want the money must commit to closing historic achievement gaps and getting more kids into college – but they also must show that they're attending to a few nitty-gritty details that President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan believe are important, including:

•Tying teacher and principal pay – and school assignments – to student test scores.
•Adopting internationally benchmarked academic standards.
•Turning around their lowest-performing schools.
•Building long-term student tracking systems.
•Loosening legal caps on the number of charter schools that states allow each year.

Additional Information

Recently key legislators asked for MASSP’s thoughts on mandated principal certification on Michigan’s efforts to win Race-to-the-Top dollars. I would like to share with you the body of that letter, below:

The Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals has been a long supporter of requiring licensure of school building administrators.  We would support legislation that requires licensure of our profession. As you amend section 1246 of the School Code, there are two things that must be a part of this new requirement:

• Grandfathering those in position.  This is important for there are building leaders who came from non-traditional routes after mandated certification was eliminated in the late 1900’s. They should not be denied their income because of this change.
• An alternative route to achieve licensure.  Sub-section 4 in Section 1536 is a path for such an alternative. The alternative candidate can be issued a temporary credential until completion of this specialty endorsement within a three-year period. This concept is found in classroom teacher certification.  The Department, with recommendation of sponsoring professional associations, is now granting special endorsements in building and district leadership. Please do not make this legislation a continuation of the monopoly higher education has on this profession of school building and district leadership.

You have also asked if our association is open to language that links student academic performance with a portion of job performance evaluation of the building and district administrator.  Yes, we are open to this.  This is already practice in many of Michigan’s school districts.  However, it is important that this practice be expanded to include those responsible for the curriculum and placement of resources to the classroom.

Critical to this conversation is the futility of placing such expectations on building leaders, but not on those who are in the classroom. This issue is now drawing national attention.  A recent National Chamber of Commerce report highlights that the building principal is becoming the one targeted for responsibility of student performance and yet has little or no authority to change it.  The building principal is a target because he or she does not have the deep pockets of political support found within teacher unions.

As the “failing schools legislation” works its way through the legislative process I would like to remind the sponsors of earlier conversations. We discussed it was understandable to replace a building administrator if the school is in the lowest of 5% of schools, but it is unrealistic for that person to take on the responsibility of change when those around him, those with the closest contact with students, have life-time, no-trade contracts.  Principals are denied authority to manage the curriculum, and, they are denied authority for the building financial resources.  And, they are denied the job security that is given to both those whom they supervise and those who hire them.

This can be corrected with legislation that is now in process, particularly due to the importance of the Race-to-the-Top monies.

Respectfully,

Jim Ballard
Executive Director

Final Thoughts

So, to wrap it up, there’s a way through each of the above issues if all parties involved have a mutual goal of success in earning Race to the Top funds. It’s time the three biggest unions/guilds in Michigan education policy, the two teacher unions and the superintendents to learn to say yes and put education for Michigan’s students in a winning place.