M-STEP and opting out

Michigan has a new standardized test this year--the M-STEP.  There is a lot to be said about standardized testing and the high-stakes associated with it.  We hope to talk to you more about that in the future.  For now, since M-STEP testing is nearly upon us in Okemos, we thought we would share the option of opting out.

Your children are not required to take the M-STEP test if you opt them out of it.  In theory, the federal No Child Left Behind Law threatens consequences for schools where less than 95 percent of kids take a standardized test.  However, changes to the law have essentially made that requirement irrelevant.  Fairtest.org, Sept. 15, 2014.

Across the country, parents are increasingly opting their kids out of the test in numbers far greater than five percent.  In New York, last year more than 60,000 kids opted out of the test, and that number is expected to grow this year. The Buffalo News, April 14, 2015.  In West Seneca near Buffalo, 2,074 of 2,976 eligible students refused testing.  Id.  In another district, 1,534 of 2,740 eligible students opted out.  WGRZ.com, April 11, 2015.  Here in Michigan, some parents are opting out in Grand Ledge.  WILX.com, April 14, 2015.  Further, some parents are opting out here in Okemos.  In particular, Michigan State University Professor Mitchell Robinson, who has written on this blog before, and his wife opted their children out.  He wrote on his blog about the ease of opting out and the painless response from the district:

Having read and heard about much more hostile responses from schools around the country to similar requests, we were both relieved and encouraged by our school's reply. Not only was our request for our child to opt out greeted with respect, but provisions for our son's attendance on those days when the test was scheduled were provided without argument or hassle. The approach was understanding, positive and student-centered--everything we have come to expect from our school district.

I also believe that this response is an indication of a tipping point of sorts when it comes to the issue of opting out and school testing. More and more, teachers and administrators are understanding the negative impact of these tests on students, teachers and schools, and are joining the fight with parents and other groups advocating for a reduction in the number and uses of these tests. [wwwmitchellrobinson.net, March 25, 2015.]

It's worth noting that the M-STEP is considerably different from the MEAP you took as a child.  The test is taken on computers, and the questions are of a very different format and content.  You can see sample questions here: Michigan Department of Education.

If you choose to opt out, you should be able to accomplish it with a phone call or letter to your school.  Sample letters can be found  at United Opt Out Michigan.

Mitchell Robinson - Pull the plug on standardized testing.

By Mitchell Robinson

As a parent, I sit down and talk to my children's teachers at least twice per year at parent-teacher conferences about their work in school, and receive regular updates about their academic, social and musical development.

Mitchell Robinson

I check their homework, help them with projects and talk to them about their studies every day.

I can check their grades online any time of the day or night.

I attend their soccer games, band concerts, piano recitals, and school events, so that I know not just what they are doing, but have the chance to meet their friends and their friends' parents--many of whom have become good friends.

As a teacher, I engage in continuous formative assessment, tracking my students' progress as learners, and using the information gathered to improve my practice as a teacher.

I provide formal and informal updates on my students' development, and offer mentoring and guidance whenever asked--and often when not asked.

I know my students as persons--their strengths and challenges, their goals, their aspirations--and am fully committed to helping them achieve their dreams.

Why would I need standardized tests to tell me anything about my children, or my students when I already know so much about them?

The only purpose for these tests is to evaluate teachers and schools--even though we know that these tests are neither valid or reliable for those specific purposes--and to make millions of dollars in profits for the corporations that develop them.

Stop the madness. Let kids learn. Let teachers teach.

Pull the plug on standardized testing.

Mitchell Robinson is associate professor and chair of music education at Michigan State University. Prior to his current position, Dr. Robinson taught music for 10 years in the Fulton (NY) City School District, and held collegiate appointments at the University of Connecticut and the Eastman School of Music. Dr. Robinson recently concluded a term as Academic Editor of the Music Educators Journal, and has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Music Teacher Education, Arts Education Policy Review, the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, the International Journal of Education and the Arts, and Research Issues in Music Education. His research is focused on education policy and the mentoring and induction of new music teachers.

Governor Snyder removes School Reform Office from Department of Education

Quickly after the idea was floated to political insider publications, Governor Snyder signed an executive order which will remove Michigan's School Reform Office from the Department of Education.  The constitutionality of the order has been publicly debated with the State Board of Education calling the move unconstitutional.  The timing of the order with the State Board of Education's search for a superintendent has also been discussed.  Let's unpack some of this.

The School Reform Office is charged with overseeing the state's most troubled schools.  Once the order takes effect, the office will move from the Department of Education to the Department of Technology Management and Budget.  Michigan Radio, March 12, 2015.

As an initial matter, it's worth noting this executive order differs somewhat from the President's power in the federal scheme.  While federal executive orders are self-executing, may have immediate effect, and are reviewable only by the judicial branch through the regular adversarial process, Michigan's constitution allows for the Legislature to disapprove of the order by a majority of both houses within 60 days of its enactment.  See Mich Const 1963 Art V, § 2.  The political reality of this situation is that neither house will disapprove of the order.  It will take effect.

There are plausible arguments for and against the constitutionality of the order.  In support of the order, the Governor can point to his authority under Article V, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution to oversee and reorganize departments in the executive branch:

Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration. [Mich Const 1963 Art V, § 2]

The Governor might argue that the Department of Education is merely an arm of the executive branch like any other, and he can reorganize it as he sees fit.  If this is true, he could even dissolve the Department and spread its functions throughout the executive branch.  Wayne State Law Professor Robert Sedler recently expressed this view in an article on MLive.com.  MLive.com, March 17, 2015. However, the State Board of Education likely has the stronger position.

Unlike the federal system which has just three co-equal constitutional branches of government, Michigan has more.  Most relevant here is the State Board of Education.  Just as Articles IV, V, and VI of our state constitution establishes our Legislature, Executive and Judiciary and define the contours of the authority of each of these branches, so does Article VIII define our State Board of Education:

§ 3 State board of education; duties. 

Leadership and general supervision over all public education, including adult education and instructional programs in state institutions, except as to institutions of higher education granting baccalaureate degrees, is vested in a state board of education. It shall serve as the general planning and coordinating body for all public education, including higher education, and shall advise the legislature as to the financial requirements in connection therewith. [Mich Const 1963, Art VIII, § 3.]

If this were the end of what the constitution had to say on the matter, it would seem somewhat ambiguous. Yes, the State Board is supposed to be a co-equal branch, but the text would seem to allow for reorginization which would allow the Governor to remove its authority to actually do anything.  But the constitution says more:

Superintendent of public instruction; appointment, powers, duties. 

The state board of education shall appoint a superintendent of public instruction whose term of office shall be determined by the board. He shall be the chairman of the board without the right to vote, and shall be responsible for the execution of its policies. He shall be the principal executive officer of a state department of education which shall have powers and duties provided by law.  [Mich Const 1963, Art VIII, § 3.]

The key here is that the Department of Education is not simply an executive agency like any other, subject to the Article V powers of the Governor.  Rather the Department of Education is specifically provided for in Article VIII and under the control of the state superintendent, the department's "principal executive officer."  Further, the department's powers and duties are to be "provided by law," rather than determined by the Governor.

The Governor's spokeswoman said his motivation for the move was that he "feels like there needs to be a more proactive approach to addressing these most struggling schools, to benefit the kids that are in them."  Detroit Free Press, March 13, 2015.  Critics however noted the move came as the State Board of Education was selecting a new superintendent.  The Board is controlled 6-2 by Democrats, and one of the three finalists was Oakland Schools Superintendent Vicki Markavitch who has been an outspoken critic of the Governor's educations policies.

State Board of Education members John Austin and Cassandra Ulbrich were immediately critical of the move, questioning its constitutionality.  The board unanimously approved a statement which read in part "The State Board of Education opposes any effort to diminish the constitutional authority of either the State Board of Education or the State Superintendent,"  The Detroit News, March 17, 2015.
Mr. Austin has said the board is exploring a court challenge to the constitutionality of the order.  WKAR, March 18, 2015.






 

Prop 1 - We Recommend You Vote "Yes"

On May 5 Michigan voters will make a decision on whether to increase education, municipal and road funding with a 1 percent increase in the state's sales tax.  Okemos Parents for Schools recommend you vote "yes."

Finding new funding for road repair has been a priority of the Snyder administration for years.  However, the tax-averse Republican Legislature has refused to raise the revenue needed to for additional spending on roads.  In last December's Lame Duck legislative session a compromise was struck to fund road repair with a 1 percent increase in the state's sales tax.  To gain support of House and Senate Democrats the proposal also included additional funding for schools and municipalities:

The proposal, along with the other laws that it would trigger, is projected to eventually generate $1.25 billion a year for roads and bridges, according to the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. It would also raise $200 million for the School Aid Fund and $111 million for local governments, when fully implemented. [MLive.com, March 3, 2015.]

However, because increasing the state's sales tax requires an amendment to the Michigan Constitution, the Legislature does not have the ability to implement the plan alone.  Rather, it will require a statewide vote.  This is the question which will be put to voters May 5.  Read more about Proposal 1 here. 

Critics of the proposal make two arguments.  First, some critics argue against any tax increases.  This position is typically associated with the right end of the political spectrum and is advanced by groups which supported the 2013 federal government shutdown.  Second, some critics argue that while additional revenue is necessary to fund road repair, municipalities and schools, the sales tax is a regressive tax which is disproportionately bore by working class Americans.  

The position of Okemos Parents for Schools is that additional revenue is needed for K-12 education.  This view is shared by Michigan residents who pegged K-12 education as a top priority in recent statewide survey.  

From the Center for Michigan Citizens Agenda for Public Money.

While we are sympathetic to both arguments offered by Proposal 1 critics, we feel the need for additional K-12 funding outweighs both.  

Additionally, an alternative to Proposal 1 has surfaced which would be devastating to K-12 education.

During the December debate over Proposal 1, former Speaker of the House Jase Bolger floated a plan to raise the $1.2 billion for roads without increasing any taxes.  Of course, this meant the money had to come out of existing state spending.  That plan is now back and being floated as an alternative if Proposal 1 fails.

The legislation would phase out sales tax collections on motor fuel over several years but increase fuel taxes by a similar amount. Doing so would mean more money for crumbling roads but reduce potential growth in sales tax revenue for the School Aid Fund and local governments. [MLive.com, March 11, 2015.]

We would have recommended a "yes" vote on Proposal 1 without this destructive alternative, but with the reemergence of this plan, passing Proposal 1 becomes critical for public education in Michigan. 

Lame Duck wrap up

All in all, the lame duck session couldn't have been expected to go much better for K-12 education.  Road funding, which was threatening to suck catastrophic amounts of money from K-12 education ended up with a compromise which may result in significant additional funding.  Also, a slew of harmful measures did not pass.

The biggest issue in the lame duck was how funding for roads might effect K-12 education.  A plan that passed the house would have moved funding from K-12 to road funding.  Okemos Parents for Schools, December 5, 2014. By the accounting of MLive.com, the move would have cost Okemos Public Schools almost $1.9 million per year.  Okemos Parents for Schools, December 10, 2014. 

The politics of the situation put Republicans in control of the Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan Senate, as well as the Governor's office.  The far right of the Republican party was unwilling to accept any additional taxes to pay for roads, and moderate Republicans were unwilling to take all the road funding money from schools and municipalities.  This meant the legislative minority, Democrats, were needed to pass any road funding bill.  The compromise that emerged centers around a May election where voters will be asked to approve a one percent increase in the sales tax.  If it passes, the entire compromise will be enacted:

In addition to increasing the sales tax from 6% to 7%, the plan would remove the sales tax from motor fuel and effectively raise the overall tax on gas by 3 cents. . . .  Snyder and legislative leaders say the deal will not only improve road funding but increase funding for Michigan schools by $300 million--an amount Snyder says will work out to about $200 per student--and create an additional $100 million in funding for public transportation. The plan will also reportedly ensure school aid fund revenue goes to K-12 districts or community colleges and not universities. [ClickOnDetroit, December 18, 2014.]

Democrats also insisted on restoring the Earned Income Tax Credit for working poor people to the level it was at before cutting by the Snyder administration.  All in all, an issue which presented a significant risk to K-12 education was turned into a positive situation.  Okemos Parents for Schools supports this measure and will ask voters to approve the measure in May.  Another little reported aspect of the compromise is that it authorized a study to determine the cost of educating a child in Michigan:

Finally, the compromise included one more surprise: a repurposed bill which will authorize a study to determine the true cost of educating a child in Michigan. This is a measure which Michigan parents have advocated for years, and was proposed by a bill introduced earlier this year. So far, our state has been talking about school funding in a vacuum, and this study would give us a chance to systematically measure what different school services cost. That would help us hammer out a sensible system for funding K-12 education that was geared at giving schools the resources they need. [Michigan Parents for Schools, December 22, 2014.]

A slew of other measures which threatened schools did not come to a vote in the lame duck session. "these measures will have to be reintroduced in the next session to move forward. Teacher and administrator evaluation, A-F school rating, 3rd grade flunking, EAA expansion, and the deficit "early warning" package all failed to become law."   Michigan Parents for Schools, December 22, 2014.

These are significant victories which would not have happened if not for the efforts of those of you who wrote and called legislators.

House roads bill would cost OPS amost $1.9 million per year

One of the issues with the most traction in this year's lame duck session of the Michigan legislature is funding road repair.  That repair could come at a high price to schools.

As we have previously reported, the House plan to fund road repair would shift the way gas is taxed in Michigan so that tax revenue would go into the general fund instead of the School Aid Fund.  Okemos Parents for Schools, December 5, 2014.  In short, the House plans is to pay for roads by cutting schools. 

MLive has compiled a database which projects how much the House plan would cost each school per year.  The price tag for Okemos? $1,898,575.00 per year.  Check the MLive date base here: MLive, December 10, 2014.

Here are some price tags for neighboring communities as calculated by MLive:

• Haslett - $1,298,175.00 per year
• East Lansing - $1,645,875.00 per year
• Lansing - $ 5,669,600.00 per year
• Holt - $ 2,747,400.00 per year
• Grand Ledge $ 2,400,650.00 per year
• Williamston $854,525.00 per year
• Mason $1,471,075.00 per year

Lame duck: funding roads by cutting schools

Two years ago a slew of radical education bills reared their heads in the lame duck legislative session--and it's happening again.

The election is over and there are many Michigan Representatives and Senators who won't be back on January 1st either because they are term limited or because they lost their election. Nonetheless, they still hold office until then and now is a time when they can push forward with unpopular measures without fear of reprisal from voters. There are several bad ideas making their way through the Legislature, one is to fund road repair by taking the money from public schools.

Fixing the roads has been a big focus in Lansing for more than a year. But, while all lawmakers say they are for improving roads, they disagree on how to pay for it. There are competing proposals in the Legislature right now. The measure which has passed the Senate would raise money by raising the gas tax:

The plan would convert the state's 19-cent per gallon gas tax to a wholesale version and gradually increase rates over four years. At the current wholesale price, gas taxes could top 40 cents by 2018. [MLive.com, November 13, 2014.]

This plan is backed by Governor Snyder, and passed with Democratic as well as Republican votes in the Senate.  Okemos Parents for Schools takes no position on this measure as it has nothing to do with schools. The version passed by the House is another matter.

The version which recently passed in the House would not actually generate any additional revenue for the state, but would shift money which would otherwise go to schools and municipalities to roads:

The proposal put forth by Speaker Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, would phase out sales tax collections on fuel purchases between 2016 and 2021 but increase fuel taxes by a corresponding amount.

Fuel taxes are one of the state’s primary funding sources for roads. Most sales tax revenue, meanwhile, is constitutionally earmarked for the School Aid Fund and municipal revenue sharing programs.

"Simply put, this plan dedicates the taxes drivers pay at the pump to fixing their roads," Bolger, R-Marshall, said in a statement. 

...

There’s another complicating factor, however: Any new money generated for roads under the plan is not really new money. It’s funding that would have otherwise been directed toward schools and cities.

“If we take more money from our schools and our cities to solve the road funding problem, we haven’t really done anything,” said Rep. Doug Geiss, D-Taylor. “We’ve played a shell game.” [MLive.com, December 5, 2014.]

This same idea was floated last year, and we told you about it then, Okemos Parents for Schools, May 3, 2013, and estimated it could result in cuts to schools in the neighborhood of $500 per student.  Michigan Parents for Schools is once again estimating the cost to schools could be in the neighborhood of $500 per student.  Michigan Parents for Schools, December 4, 2014.

Okemos Parents for Schools strongly opposes this measure.  While fixing roads is certainly a worthy pursuit, there is no need to do it by cutting funding to schools.  If you would like to contact your elected officials you can easily do so with a helpful tool generated by Michigan Parents for Schools:

Click here to contact lawmakers.  Fund roads by cutting schools is Bad Idea #1.