It is the "Educating" v. "Enrollment" District Distinction, Stupid!
I was born in 1965 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Almost every single person who has lived and died in Michigan since that time has understood the term School District to mean the same thing. The term and concept is so thoroughly integrated in to our way of life that we rarely think to define it or even talk about its existence.
For real estate agents, for example, the school district question does not take a long time to answer. Location, location, location. The concept of the school District assumes geographical boundaries. Without geographical boundaries, then, you may be using the term “District” but you are no longer talking about what all of us understand as District.
Indeed, the 1963 state constitution seems simply to assume the existence and common understanding of the District, a term that apparently required no definition.
Rather paradoxically, one of the few who thinks differently about the District and its definition is the one person Governor Snyder has entrusted to remake what used to be called public education in Michigan. Richard McLellan, architect of HB 6004, HB 5923, and the Oxford Foundation’s rewrite of the 1979 School Aid Act, is telling you that everything you have thought about a “District” is wrong.
For McLellan – and this is the critical thing to understand about all his current legislative efforts – our common and historical understanding of the “District” means nothing. There is no basis for our common understanding of District as McLellan sees it – other than, of course, historical reality and lived experience.
But historical reality and lived experience is rather beside the point for ideologues.
We are accustomed to say that the “devil is in the details'; for constitutional lawyers like McLellan, however, the devil can be pretty much in your face.
Constitutional lawyers are not particularly interested in the day to day, year to year, business of living that occupies, say, a School District's financial administrator, but, rather in setting the long term rules and concepts, for how we will live. They can wait to get what they want. If you look for next year’s funding allocations in McLellan’s Draft legislation (section 20) you will be, if a member of a top District, relatively pleased.Nothing much appears to change. As most school Districts have learned to live year to year in utter dread of what the state might do next year to “help the kids” this will cause some immediate relief.
If you look four or five years down the road, however, when McLellan (to his credit) honestly tells you everything will come fully in to place, everything changes.
Because we only have our common understanding of District to guide us, McLellan has taken it upon himself to redefine the concept entirely so that -- while the term stays in the Constitution -- the concept becomes unrecognizable to us. McLellan simply changes things entirely by breaking our understanding of District in two: “Enrollment District” v. “Educating District.”
Why have a big constitutional battle when a little redefining of terms will do the trick?
What is left of our longstanding understanding of District can be found in McLellan’s “Enrollment District.” The Enrollment District refers to the geographically bounded District where a student’s parents reside. This “District” will have many administrative charges: verifying residency, verifying eligibility for services, maintaining records, providing counseling services, providing necessary data to the state, granting diplomas, etc., etc. Lots of expense and lots of administrative energy required here.
The “Educating District” means, well, pretty much any “educating” provider (as described in HB 5923) that will be eligible to receive funds currently allocated to the “Enrollment District.” Keep in mind there is only one pot of state money and no more money is coming in. The state will determine who gets to be an "educating" district. Should we give some of this money to community colleges and universities or "math centers" (read: ACADEMIES!) McLellan ponders in a footnote, as if he and the Governor have not already decided? As if getting Bill and Tony's Math Academy up and running hasn't been the goal all along?
A “District,” then, in this formulation, points almost entirely to a charter designated by a business, cultural group, university, and so on. It has virtually nothing left to do with District as “District” has been traditionally understood in the state -- unless and until those traditional Districts start to act like the educational profiteers McLellan favors.
Watch the word "smithing" or magic carefully here because now you see it now you don’t: the “Districts” currently providing top rated public education, including BHSD, Birmingham, and Troy, etc., are not considered to be “Educating” Districts -- unless or until they start receiving students from other “Enrollment” Districts.
You still get to "decide," then, whether you will remain a “school of choice” – that is true. But absolutely every incentive and disincentive the state can now create will make that decision less and less meaningful. Nobody – not even top performers -- can afford to be only an “Enrollment” District under this scheme where all the money eventually flows to the "Educating Districts" (get it? The Districts that co-operate with McLellan are educating -- those that aren't cooperating aren not educating -- not terribly subtle sleight of hand here but effective).
Mr. McLellan thus slowly and gradually defines the Districts most moved in to out of existence.
The new “Educating” Districts? Most of which are still a figment of Mr. McLellan and Governor Snyder’s imagination? They are living large.
Does this mean we will have a voucher system as so many suggest?
Doing things this way Mr. McLellan don’t need no stinkin vouchers.
If he gets to redefine what District means every other argument follows his first move.
Here Mr. McLellan has an implicit point in simply ignoring those who disagree with him. His critics, like the MEA, can be catastrophically stupid, fighting the war of 2000 rather than 2012. It is the Educating v. Enrollment District Distinction, stupid.
Margaret Bloom
9:45 am on Sunday, November 25, 2012
A very thoughtful piece by a highly regarded teacher in Education Week about this: http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teacher_in_a_strange_land/2012/11/whats_the_matter_with_michigan.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB
Elizabeth
12:39 pm on Sunday, November 25, 2012
Thank you Ken. You accurately outlined the reasons why vouchers aren't needed as long as the definition and funding of districts changes. Like I said before, these changes are an end run to get what vouchers provide without calling them vouchers.
Thank you Margaret Bloom. The blog you linked was very interesting as were the links within that blog. I am finding it difficult to suppress anger toward this endeavor by Mr. McLellan and Governor Snyder.
Here is another link to a video. Whether you agree or not agree with the Chicago teachers strike and Karen Lewis, what she says about teaching in a low income area shouldn't be ignored. I say this because I do not belive the reforms within the bills introduced into the Michigan House and Senate and proposed by the Oxford Foundation will benefit those who live in poverty and have no access to transportation or a computer.
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2012/11/lets-be-thankful-for-karen-lewis-hear.html
Mike Reno
3:02 pm on Sunday, November 25, 2012
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chicken%20little
Definition of CHICKEN LITTLE: one who warns of or predicts calamity especially without justification
Your prediction of the falling sky might resonate with those who instinctively oppose any school reform. But the rest of us remember that the failing sky turned out to be frozen pee from an airplane.
Offering choice is not a threat to good school districts, and you offer no rational reason to support your wild claim. Supporting logic would need to explain how choice will drive vast numbers of students way from YOUR schools, leading to irreparable harm to the district, and ultimately the community.
If you believe choice will drive students way... then explain why you think that. You repeatedly state it, as if it's a given fact, and it simply is not.
The only think choice threatens is the monopolistic practices at school districts.
Elizabeth
1:01 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panacea
Definition of PANACEA: a remedy for all ills or difficulties : cure-all
Choice is not the panacea for our educational system.
I am honestly surprised that you didn't realize that your comment a few blogs back saying if a charter school isn't doing good job educating students they can choose to leave, is elitist. Be careful. That option won't necessarily be available to families living in poorer areas or low population areas. Besides, who determines which schools are suceeding? The State, who also can take over schools if they are deemed unsuccessful and will soon be able to offer up all unused school buildings in ANY district if the other introduced bills succeed. Once you have divorced the community from the schools, you have taken away a huge part of the community.
Mike Reno
1:55 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
I'm a bit confused... do you mean that if a student has more choices in a higher population area, it is elitist, because those who live in lower density areas have fewer choices? I guess I don't see that as anything different then what they have now. First, they currently have NO choice, so AT WORST it would be no different. And second, when they choose to live in rural areas, they choose to have few choices in everything, from shopping to restaurants, and so on. It's inherent to being rural. Nobody is promising them anything new.
And even in highly populated areas, keep in mind that the OPTION of choice does not GUARANTEE choice. There is nothing designed to CREATE choices. Maybe nobody will create a charter in Bloomfield. Maybe they will believe the there is 100% satisfaction, and nobody would EVER leave the comfort of their home district.
And to your other question... I think parents will decide if a school is succeeding, not the state. I think the state is ineffective at evaluating schools now, and is unlikely to get any better or worse. I currently don't pay much any attention to their rankings or ratings... do you?
And you are absolutely right... choice is no panacea. It's just an improvement that can provide one more tool to involved parents.
Elizabeth
3:37 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Everything I have been reading from you is that choice is great, yet it seems to be without consideration to where a family lives and without regard to their personal circumstance. Not every family will be able to take advantage of the choice of moving to a school that is better for their child. It may be because they live in a rural area, or they live in an urban area, or that they have no transportation, or because they may not own a computer. Whatever the reason, choice may not benefit those families the way you seem to be envisioning it. The way I see it, choice will work best in a suburban community where income and population are at a level to where options are more easily provided. Clearly, some students will benefit from additional choices of classes or school, but not all.
Governor Snyder wants to improve education across all of Michigan. I just don't think these proposed bills will provide it. I do believe they will provide some with additional choices, but I also believe a divide will remain.
Your idea that parents will decide if a school is succeeding, then I why are we doing all these assessments? Why is the State going to use student performance as one of the measures for per pupil funding? I believe you are wrong to think that this is only in the hands of the parents. The state will always have a hand in it because they provide the funding.
At this point, I know where you stand and you know where I stand and neither of us will change our opinions.
Joan Berndt
9:42 pm on Sunday, November 25, 2012
Mr. Reno,
I do not want to live in an enrollment district or an educating district. I want to live in a local district that enrolls the children who live in the district, whose parents and neighbors and small business owners pay taxes to educate those children in the highest quality and most comprehensive program their money can buy.
The state already plays Robin Hood with our tax dollars; now they want to do away with our school boundaries altogether.
We have had local school districts with geographic boundaries so that people can choose where to live, sometimes paying very high prices for homes in "top school districts." They take great pride as a community in their school facilities, programs and outstanding graduates. The McClellan plan will do away with something time honored and valuable: the total high school experience.
Mike Reno
8:16 am on Monday, November 26, 2012
Joan, that is at least a clear – albeit surprisingly elitist – argument against the plan.
Shouldn't educating children be about educating all children, not just ones with wealthy parents who can move into exclusive neighborhoods? If the wealthy want to supplement the state allocation… then great. But this xenophobic approach of building walls around your community is something that I’ve never been able to support.
And the walls that you want to build not only keep other children out… they keep your children in. I have never seen a school system that is fully satisfying the needs of 100% of the students. This monopolistic geographic approach traps those children.
The goal of maintaining “the highest quality and most comprehensive program (your) money can buy” is noble, but misguided, and debatable at best. Results are much more skewed towards demographics than they are to spending per pupil, and I’m sure you know that.
And the justification for these geographic boundaries often circles back to wealth issues… and this notion that we should be motivated to keep the monopoly in place not because it is best for the education of our children, but because it will prop up our home values.
Having said all of that, there is no requirement to become a school of choice, unless you think a lot of students will leave if given the choice. If the schools are as good as you say, then nobody is going to leave. Status quo will maintained… what’s not to like?
Mac
3:13 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Could Bloomfield, acting as an "educating district", provide online courses to students from other districts, thereby getting money from other "enrollment districts"?
Could Bloomfield then roll the profits into education of local students? Could (for example) the Detroit enrollment district be sending money to (for example) Bloomfield Hills, increasing the money to be spent on Bloomfield Hills students? Would the McLellan plan allow "rich" districts to become richer by profiting off poorer districts?
Ken Jackson
3:18 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Mac, Yes, it looks that way. The whole push is to dissolve the geographically framed District and encourage, instead, that sort of profit potential.
Elizabeth
3:47 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Yes, they could and so could Troy, Rochester, Grosse Pointe, East Grand Rapids or any of the ISDs. The problem I see with this is there would likely be upfront expenses to develop the courses, obtain the infrastructure (computers & softwear), teacher development, etc. when there are likely off the shelf options out there (for profit?). I also wonder what happens when a student needs a counselor. I guess they would go to their home school for that. The issue would then be how the counselor works with the teacher long distance.
Mac
5:08 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Online is a question more generally. No one (Coursera is the notable candidate) has figured out how to deliver online education to ensure credit is legitimately earned. Online for-profit universities are under investigation for offering expensive courses with poor employment outcomes. It is unclear how McLellan or Snyder think Michigan will figure it out faster than the Coursera consortium.
Ken Jackson
5:21 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Mac, With Coursera you might add, too, that you have a group of universities with the luxury (and then some) to do a bit of pedagogical exploration. If Duke, Cal Tech, Stanford, et. al., don't get it right they have more than sufficient financial and cultural capital to cover their risks.
Mike Reno
6:16 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
And if they get it right?
Mac
8:51 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Mr. Reno, I'm sure they *will* get it right. But the fact is, they haven't yet. It is currently experimental and unclear whether it will be financially self-sustaining, and, more importantly, if there is any way to measure student outcomes. At this point, there is no way to get or give college credit for Coursera offerings.
If that consortium hasn't quite worked it out yet for adult students, what makes us think the Michigan government is going to have a magic bullet that ensures accountable, successful, online K-12 education? Especially when nothing in the report attempts to flesh out how it will be done?
Mike Reno
8:57 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
What magic bullet does the Michigan government have to ensure that we have a successful k-12 system now?
They've tried plenty of things, from heavy-handed government to unaccountable local control.
None of the central control command structures work. Parent power is our best hope.
Elizabeth
10:30 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
They are not likely to "get it right" in less than a year.
Joan Berndt
8:04 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Mr. Reno (Mike),
Why is it elitist to allow people to control their own destiny? Local control means people are free to come together to choose and financially support the schools and programs and buildings they want for their kids. That is true no matter where one lives. Whether people choose to provide a high or low level of support, whether their means allow a Cadillac or a Chevy model, they are free to be invested in their children's education and in their communities. There is no community in the Oxford plan. Oh, but wait, there's no more local control in funds for instruction anymore, either, since that went away with Prop A. Now the state wants to take all the money, remove our identities, send the dollars with the kids to wherever and however they wish to spend (or waste?) the stipends. This redistribution of tax dollars is about as unAmerican as you can get. The ensuing chaos ought to drive hundreds of students into the private schools and the parochial schools, eventually leaving public schools unable to function except in the most remedial way. And that is how the privatization of MI schools will come about.
Mike Reno
8:52 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
They are not free to come together ... they are forced to come together.
Under choice... they would be free.
Now, the schools pit parent against parent. I want academics, you want sports. Someone wins, someone loses. I want more rigor, you want "whole child". Someone wins, someone loses.
In the end, I guess the question might be whether the community gets to decide what is best for my child, or whether I do. What say you?
Elizabeth
10:19 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Hmm...I never thought educating the whole child and receiving a rigorous education was an either or proposition. I never thought that having sports in a school was an indication that educational rigor was lacking.
Mac
10:36 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
Mr. Reno, maybe you are thinking of people who were born and raised in a Michigan town and can't get out? I'm not sure who those people are; my peers chose to purchase homes in a particular school district, and in fact it was the absolute top criterion for their choice of home.
If Michigan wants to nurture business and growth, it needs to support the top tier achool districts that allow educated people to move their families into the state. Placing bets on a profit making, unproven charter system is not the way to instill confidence in the educational system. It would make our state look like a joke.
Mike Reno
11:45 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
I know, Mac. We always circle back to your notion that your peeps are 100% satisfied with the perfectly delivered, comprehensive education they get from the district. If they don't like it, they can pay for their own private school, choose another school of choice public school, or move away.
Mac
11:53 pm on Monday, November 26, 2012
No, not 100% satisfied. But people choose when they move here. Just about everyplace is a cooler place to live than Bloomfild Hills. Just about everyplace is cheaper. We live here for the schools. We are not trapped; we are free agents. We made a choice. Please do not tell us we do not, or did not have choice.
Mike Reno
5:54 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Of course you had the choice to move here.
That was never in question.
But for that hypothetical anomaly... the presumably misguided parent who feels their child is not getting the finest education that taxpayer money can buy... I want to be clear on your views regarding their options....
You feel that they have choices. They can pickup and move. Or they can fund a private education. Or they can school of choice to another community where space is available.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth... I want to understand. You feel those choices are adequate?