Interesting Times in Michigan

Last week our state legislature indicated that the new budget that they would pass for fiscal year 2009-2010 would include a $218 per pupil reduction.  In other words, districts would receive less money for the school year that started for school districts on July 1.  For Grand Ledge, the $218 per pupil reduction translates to a reduction of just under $600,000 dollars.  

Cut the fat critics say.  Do with less.  The whole world is having to prioritize, schools should do the same.  Get rid of non-essentials.  Focus only on the core.

What is the core?  Do we eliminate transportation?  That's a 2.2 million dollar expense for our district.  Do we eliminate athletics?  That's a $600,000 expense.  Do we not offer any clubs or after school activities?  Is school just what happens from 8:00 AM until 3:30 PM?  

Some schools may be able to postpone difficult decisions because they have built up a fund balance.  Other schools may not be so lucky.  Will the schools that eliminate popular programs be able to retain and attract students the next year or will those districts begin a downward spiral that they will not be able to climb out of?  

Will the state be able to attract and retain highly educated employees if those employees see benefits and salaries reduced below what is comparable in other states?  

Budget decisions are difficult.  In my mind the state needs to value education because it will support our economy, create informed citizens, and help create a better future.  If we fail to support education, business development will suffer and the state will slowly decline.

My hope is that our state can figure out how to support education in a fiscally responsible manner.

What Do We Want?

Jack Lessenberry, a political commentator, wrote that when "Ed Koch was campaigning for mayor of New York, an elderly woman came up to him. She was clearly distressed about the way the city was changing. “Make it like it was,” she told him.

He looked at her, and in a moment of candor rare for any politician, answered, “It was never like it was.”

An article in Wired Magazine, called "The Good Enough Revolution," suggests that increasingly people are satisfied with things that are "good enough." No longer are people holding out for the highest quality products. Good enough is truly enough.

All of this started me thinking about what people want from schools. Ocassionally I hear that we need to do things like we used to; that the past was better, more rigorous, and more demanding than the present.

I also hear that what we are doing is adequately preparing students for the future. We are good enough people say. We don't need to make sure that all students get successfully through Algebra II. A basic understanding of math is good enough.

Schools are torn between those who think we are demanding enough and those who think our demands are just fine. What should we be?

All I know is that the future is going to look different than the past. What it will look like I do not know. But preparing students with the skills and knowledge to live in a changing world will be important. Our students have to be well prepared. Our students have to have the knowledge and skills to compete with anybody in the world. Yet we also need to include in the conversation that not everyone is going to get, or need, a four year college degree.

I hope that we want skills that will challenge students, help students expand their horizons, and identify where they want to go and how they can get there. We need to be both demanding and practical.

Technology and Teaching

Teachers have a lot to worry about. The state of Michigan has identified a vareity of grade level and high school content expectations. The Michigan Merit Curriculum requires a lot from all students.

Where does technology fit into all of this?

I agree with Larry Magid, a technology writer, who suggests that those of us in education need to embrace technology. Instead of trying to clamp down on it and eliminate it from our schools, we need to find ways to become familiar with it and use it to enhance instruction.

Embracing technology in the classroom would serve at least two purposes. First, it might serve to engage students in learning in meaningful ways. Students might be more willing to learn the content of a class if technology was used to help them get access to the content. Secondly, since it appears that technology is becoming more ubiquitous we need to make sure that students understand the benefits and the risks associated with using it. Helping students learn to navigate through the promise and the peril of technology seems like something with which schools should be able to assist.

My concern, however, is how to do this. How do we manage to teach our content, use technology in meaningful ways, and teach students how to be responsible with technology all at the same time?

The only way that I can see this successfully happening is if we - the educators - begin to see technology like we see textbooks and paper and pencils. That is, if we begin to see technology as just one of the tools that we use naturally then we have a shot at making technology use meaningful.

If we see technology as an add on, something else to do, another thing that will take valuable time away from the content, then we have no chance at using technology in ways that will encourage students to use technology. It would be overwhelming instead of empowering.

Yet how do we - the educators - have time to figure out how to use technology well?

Maybe we don't have to. Maybe we could enlist our students - the ones who know and use technology effortlessly - in identifying for us how technology could support or enhance or change learning.

I know that technology is not going away. My concern is how are we going to figure out how to incorporate it in powerful ways without all of us becoming technology teachers?

Funding Schools

There was an interesting article in USA Today on September 2. It addressed how some schools are grappling with how to pay for extracurricular activities. It profiled a school in Ohio that had shut down its athletic and other extracurricular programs. It says in the article that one hour after the final bell the school is shut down for the day. The district spokesperson said the move saved 2.5 million dollars.

In Michigan, we are headed toward a funding crisis. There are projections that next year - 2010/2011 - funding will be reduced by $500 dollars a student. In Grand Ledge that would mean a reduction in funding a 2.5 million dollars.

How will districts throughout our state manage if that actually happens?

The Ohio district decided to eliminate athletics and extracurricular activities. That seems like a bad idea to me. Students need opportunities. While these activities are not directly related to math or science, they do help students learn skills and attitudes that are invaluable as they grow. Skills like teamwork, discipline, and perseverance can be learned in a variety of places, but they can truly be learned on an athletic team or a marching band.

In addition, extracurricular activities can connect students to schools in meaningful ways. Students who are connected to school through an extracurricular activity are often connected academically as well. Without these opportunities we may find it harder to engage students in the learning that should be the centerpiece of our schools.

I don't know what the answer is in Michigan. We need to have a better funding system. Many of us are working hard to find ideas that would help Michigan find a better way to fund education. Can we change the system before the 2010-2011 school year? I hope so but it truly does take time to develop a new way to fund schools.

My hope is as we try to work through what school funding looks like in the years to come we won't sacrifice opportunities for students in the short term.

Evaluating Schools

Tomorrow - September 3, 2009 - the state of Michigan releases the AYP status for schools in Michigan.  The law requires that they release this data before the beginning of a new school year.  

The report will show that our district - Grand Ledge - did very well.  As I review data like this I wonder how important is it to parents.  Do parents look for this information when looking for a school district?  

Part of me hopes that parents do pay attention.  While AYP and School Report Card grades are imprecise measures of school performance, these measures do provide one standardized way to measure how well a school is doing. I want all of our schools to meet the AYP standard and to receive high report card grades. Our schools need to be able to demonstrate that our students are learning. 

Another part of me, however, hopes that parents also look at other things when deciding on a school.  I hope that parents also look at the intangibles.  I hope parents look to see what opportunities students have in academics, athletics, and the arts.  I hope parents look at the physical facility.  I hope parents try to discover the district culture.  I hope parents try to get a sense of what schools feel like - the culture of a school.  I hope parents ask questions and try to make sure that teachers, administrators, and other school employees have a passion for making sure that students learn.

My hope is parents understand that there is more to measuring a school than just test scores.  Test scores are important, but so are so many other things that can't be recorded and reported.