DagnyJ

Wed, Nov 25, 2009 : 9:39 a.m.

These comments all talk about how to arrange the school system. None address the real work of what schools do--teach students. You can't change the students. You can rearrange grades, look at data, use technology. But if the instruction does not improve student learning, none of this will matter. How do we get teachers to teach better? Some teachers know how and do a great job. Other teachers don't. There's research that shows if students have a string of excellent teachers throughout their school years, they will learn more than students who have a string of poor teachers. So how do we get all teachers to offer excellent teaching?

Stephen Lange Ranzini

Wed, Nov 25, 2009 : 3:53 a.m.

I agree with Michael, who states, We don't need more opinions. What we need is a **process** to **improve** based on **data-driven decisions**. First we must identify the core problem we are trying to solve. I assert that it is: Why is the public education system failing the 21-23% of Americans who are not functionally literate? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States) "This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not 'able to locate information in text', could not 'make low-level inferences using printed materials', and were unable to 'integrate easily identifiable pieces of information.'" In addition to the 21-23% who are utterly failed by the system, even more received a very substandard education and are unable to earn a decent wage in the modern information society as a result. This is a huge social justice issue and its a scandal that we arent taking immediate action to fix the problem. As a society we will fail if we dont fix this problem. Why this problem exists, is now known from *facts* and *observations* of scientists who have studied the matter. If you want the full story go read Malcolm Gladwell's current best-seller "Outliers: The Story of Success" which has a chapter devoted to some of this research - it's an excellent read and I highly recommend it! His conclusion is that low and moderate income children fall behind and fail in the system because of the traditional school Summer vacation. In fact, the research shows that 100% of the achievement gap in school they suffer is driven by the traditional school Summer vacation during their primary school education. Once they start down the path towards failure it is very difficult to get them back on track. Even President Obama and the Secretary of Education have come out in support of eliminating the traditional summer vacation at schools (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33044676/) because it is now well documented that the long summer break is detrimental to the education of our youth. Talk to any teacher and you'll find out that they generally spend the first half of each school year reviewing what the students were taught the prior year. So, what I'd like to know is why aren't our schools stepping up to the plate to fix the school year now that we know that it is the #1 cause that hinders childhood education? We need the *process* to *improve* the system now that we have the data. We urgently need a solid strategic plan detailing what resources it will take to fix this fundamental problem. The benefit would accrue to all of us. Imagine how great our schools and MEAP scores would be if we were among the first to bite the bullet and step up to fix this problem? Imagine the positive impact on attracting jobs to our community and increases in home values if we had the strongest K-12 schools in the region on top of some of the best public universities?

AMOC

Mon, Nov 23, 2009 : 9:29 p.m.

I think Tom Watkins has a number of excellent points, to which I would add that the single most important innovation we could champion in our K-12 schools would be to break the age - grade lockstep that is currently the default. That and remove the requirements that students spend X hours in high school seats to graduate, or to enter college. When a student has mastered the high school curriculum, as measured by ACT / SAT / ASVAB (military multi aptitude)/ GRE test scores sufficient to qualify them for their desired "next step" in life, then he or she should graduate. It shouldn't matter if the student is 12 or 22, when they have learned the material, they advance to the next phase of their education or "real" life. But until they have mastered that material, let them stay in school for as long as they are willing to keep showing up. Similarly, use the same practice throughout the school system. Students should enter kindergarten when they are ready to learn kindergarten material, and advance to 1st grade only once they have mastered it. If a 5 year old comes along who is reading and doing math at a 2nd grade level, put her or him into 2nd grade. But no "social promotion" and absolutely no limiting the amount or topics a bright student is permitted to learn because "then what will she do next year?". This system of assigning students to grades (or to classes within a school) based on their individual achievement would have the additional benefit of making all students perform "at grade level", by definition. So there would be no more fuss about a school (or a district) not making "adequate yearly progress". Most fairly bright kids could complete the actual content of a typical middle school curriculum in a single year if they were at all motivated, and 3 years of high school would be just about right. Those students with learning disabilities; physical, cognitive or emotional challenges to their learning can and should get as much individualized instruction as needed to achieve their full potential as required by Michigan and Federal law. All students can learn, but not all students can or will learn from the same materials at the same rate. Use the extra funding provided by the Federal government and the Washtenaw County Special Ed millage to give them the support they need in order to learn, but don't frustrate them by testing their mastery of material they have not yet been exposed to, much less mastered, merely because they are age 10, or 13, or 17. Test them at the level they currently perform at, and if by age 26 they can't meet the minimum requirements for a GED / HS diploma, then they probably never will. We shouldn't give up on these students, but we shouldn't mislead ourselves about their abilities either.

treetowncartel

Mon, Nov 23, 2009 : 3:48 p.m.

100 plus years ago children came to maturity a lot quicker than they do now. it was a more agrarian and industrial. A man and woman were ready to start their lives together at ages as young as 16. Now, we have extended the maturation rate through many means. People are into their early twenties on average now before they really start becoming responsible for their day to day affairs. I admit that I am speaking in generalized terms and there are outliers to this, but really, most kids are not really mature enough to handle life until they are 21 and beyond. cutting kids free at 17 from the school system is a bad idea. If anything, Kindergarten could be a little more laid back and a place where kids could develop their socialization skills before being hammered with all the academic tasks.

DagnyJ

Mon, Nov 23, 2009 : 7:31 a.m.

It's funny that NONE of these comments actually address the way to improve education across the board, for all students. Improve teaching. That doesn't mean slapping computers in classrooms, or buying new books. It means actually improving what teachers do in classrooms with kids. All the rest of this is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

FreedomLover

Mon, Nov 23, 2009 : 3:31 a.m.

Although I don't agree with all of Mr. Watkin's ideas, I do agree that something needs to change with our education system. I graduated from Romeo High School 40 years ago and went on to get an advanced degree and completed a successful career in the US Air Force. My graduating class had a little over 200 students. I beleive today's public education system has become too top heavy. My High School had a Principal who had two secretarys. There was no assistant principal. We had an Athletic Director who was also a teacher, he took on this position as an additional duty with a little extra pay. We had no Technology Director, Communication Director, Curriculum Director nor any of the other Directors (with secretarys) that today's public schools seem to need to function. Sports were limited to football, baseball, track, volleyball, and basketball. The coachs were teachers who took on the coaching additional duty for a little additional pay. Our classes were always at least 30 students and we had no teacher's aides. I don't beleive most students benefit from 4 years of math or 4 years of English. Even with 4 years of each many students still cannot do basic math or even write a complete sentence. Teach the basics and teach it well! Let the colleges teach the advanced subjects. Not everyone should go to college. Our society needs skilled workers who don't need a college education. Lets stop pushing all students to attend college. Community Colleges are the best thing we have for an advanced education. Let's encourage our college bound students to use them more.

Michael K.

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 10:15 p.m.

Thank you Kathy! Those links are fantastic! The Baldridge Awards web site mentions the replication of so-called "best practices." Or, as they say in 6 Sigma: Steal shamelessly! (except in the classroom;>) Given the nature of the crisis we are facing, we need fast results. "Best practices" amounts to the implementation of field tested, documented, and proven methods to improve our schools. They can be implimented quickly, and the hard conceptual work - what to measure, the creation of working definitions, appropriate goals, etc. - have already been tackled. We have many talented, motivated, intelligent, even brilliant people in AA! bMany teachers and administrators are as frustrated as anyone about the shortcomings of the system they work in. They are eager to have a positive impact on the system, and especially on childrens lives. Plus they know clearly what is wrong with the current system. As Kathy mentions, by involving administrators, teachers, and even union leaders, you empower the people who have the most ability to lead - and to deliver change - within the system. Or you can consider them the enemy, as the US auto company management did the plant floor/union employees, and face an ongoing stalemete that leads nowhere, and offers no improvement, for any of the stakeholders. If you have trouble with the first link Kathy provided, you can go here: http://www.aaps.k12.mi.us/ptoc.home/2005-06_archive and click on the "Slides" for January 31, about 1/2 way down teh page. Here are a couple of quotes from the slides: "PREMISE: MOST PROBLEMS IN ORGANIZATIONS ARE SYSTEMIC Quality theory is based on the simple, self evident premise that every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results it produces. If you want to improve the results, you must improve the system that creates the results. The system, not students, not teachers, not home and community situations, is the problem." Their goals are quite impressive: "We will know we are successful when: Grand Blanc students MEAP scores rank in the top 5% in the state. The Dropout Rate is 0 percent. 100% of students feel accepted at school. 100% of Grand Blanc graduates admitted to Michigan colleges or universities will not require enrollment in Remedial English and/or Math courses." OK, after all of that I promise to be less smarmy here!;>) This is not about ego, aftr all, or my ideas, or your ideas. It is about being agents of change, a process focus, and a systems view (instaed of fingerpointing and blame.) One last quote from the slides: 'Dr. Deming redefined the job of a teacher along the following lines... "Students work IN a system. The job of a Teacher is to work ON the system, to improve it, continuously with their help. Deming changed the understanding of what it means to be a principal. "Teachers work IN a system. The job of a Principal is to work ON the system, to improve it, continuously with their help."' Cheers!

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:41 p.m.

Kathy, He had three ideas: reduce high school to three years, reduce college to three years and replace teachers with computers. Precisely what about that is innovative?

essene

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 8:10 p.m.

Mr. Watkins, Colleges in England have had a three-year program along with another year of high school. In colleges they take very few electives and as a result any change of a major is difficult. Having eliminated 12th grade would you eventually terminate 11th grade? Yes, our schools could cover subjects in much greater detail but more people would flunk. Would you have them pass an exam with only a fraction qualifying for A levels? Yes, of course one should include summers, but many parents would revolt. It's not like it is free to run summer school. Market forces -- so you would reduce choices by the student? Who then gets into engineering or computer sciences? By raising the numbers in one field, one also reduces choices. The biggest problem with your plans is that nearly all of them would cost more, not less. Yes, I agree that high school should be more challenging, but what would you do when 30% of the students are flunking some class? The same problem will arise with the Governer's plan to increase class requirements for high schoolers without deciding what to do with the increased failures.

Kathy Griswold

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 7:49 p.m.

Lisa, I appreciate Tom Watkins innovative thinking I hope Ann Arbor Public Schools will take this approach in the coming months. I apologize if this was not clear; I am not advocating for any of his recommendations, just innovative thinking. I agree with Michael, AAPS needs a PROCESS. One worth exploring is the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award in Education. It incorporates collaboration with our educational professionals and data-driven decision making. An example of its success is in the Grand Blanc Public Schools where the teachers union president and an administrator led the improvement process. The AAPS PTO Council hosted the leaders of the Grand Blanc initiative at a community forum in early 2006. The slides are available on the AAPS website at http://www.aaps.k12.mi.us/ptoc.0506/files/QualityWorkshopSlides.pdf. More information on the Baldrige improvement process may be found at http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/Education_Criteria.htm. @David F. Regarding Free or REDUCED Price Meals, please see the Federal Register at http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/IEGs09-10.pdf.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 7:07 p.m.

Ypsi, I agree that we need more time in preschool and better preschool; I also agree that many 5 year olds are not emotionally/socially ready for Kindergarten but some are. As for getting all the requirements in within three years, it isn't possible. Most university's require students to have 4 years of Math, 4 years of English, 3 years of a foreign language, 3 years of social studies, 3 years of Science and 3 years of music/art. If one goes 6 hours a day for three years, you wouldn't be able to get in your 1.5 PE required by the state or the 4th year of English and Math.

YpsiLivin

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 6:33 p.m.

Are universities across the nation prepared to take our 16 and 17 year old students? Why not insist that children start kindergarten at age 6 instead of allowing them to start kindergarten as early as age four? Develop solid preschool programs for children ages 4 and 5, and allow them to start formal schooling at age 6, when they're more likely to be emotionally ready for it. How will students get the four credits in math and English required by most universities? Um... take fewer electives and more required courses? the three years of science, social studies, foreign language and arts? With three years of high school, students could meet these requirements by taking courses in these disciplines each year.

josber

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 6:28 p.m.

Not a very smart piece...full of reactionary ideas, without much merit. Here's a thought...unchain the retirement and benefits payment from the state legislature, and put it back on the table with other forms of compensation, like insurance and actual cash, and free up money to actually be delivered to the children. The current system is unsustainable, and it must be amended. Teach kids their last year in school, radical but simple. Maybe add to the palate by doing job share apprenticeships in different fields, a different month a different career exposure with good professional mentors.. Yada, yada yada about the three year degree...most people take five years now...bringing down those costs are more important than taking away education. Consolidate school districts?? Ann Arbor is pretty big as it is, and is plagued with bureaucratic sludge and inefficiencies, with this part of the school quite able to blame that department when push comes to shove...Look at Detroit, a very large district that is in complete shambles, bigger is not always better. Kids home on computers for a year or so, I am sure they would be great gains that way on their passage of dependent to independent function. There will be opportunities to teach classes online, but if all we needed was a book or a screen, that would have declared itself as the way to teach a long time ago. I think smaller schools at the high school level with more chance to stratify into interests, not by ability,would yield positive results. Any person who has to get up and go to work or school needs to be positively challenged and engaged and treated well while on that voyage. It's not about the cattle call just attending and not getting much out of the experience, it's about personalizing the experience in meaningful ways.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 6:02 p.m.

limmy, At the middle school, we only have one true 'advanced' class, Algebra 1. The class sizes for Algebra 1 tend to be much larger than the other 8th grade math class. I can't speak for the high school but I suspect the advanced classes have larger class sizes there as well.

Michael K.

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 5:50 p.m.

Everyone has an opinion. Most are based on emotions and deep seated beliefs. They are only rationally justified after the fact, with seemingly reasonable arguments. We don't need more opinions. What we need is a **process** to **improve** based on **data-driven decisions**. Fortunately, that is a pretty well-defined path. We don't need to re-invent the wheel. Most current quality methodologies are similar to the ones that Deming introduced decades ago, that helped the Japanese auto companies be so incredibly successful. For example, Toyota was making record profits a few years ago, while Ford and GM were racking up record losses and sliding into the abyss. What we need is continous, focused, disciplined change that address the needs of all stakeholders, but especially the children. One model, 6 Sigma, is based on the acronym "DMAIC" - Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. As others have mentioned above, clear definitions are often lacking (what are our goals? assumptions? who are we serving?), and metric-based decision making is almost non-existent. According to the Six Sigma Academy: "Black Belts save companies approximately $230,000 per project and can complete four to 6 projects per year. General Electric, one of the most successful companies implementing Six Sigma, has estimated benefits on the order of $10 billion during the first five years of implementation." The teams that work on improvements will come up with the ideas. As usual, the stakeholders who are closest to the process will probably have the best sufggestions on how to imnprove. The Big 3 used to regard the union workers on the line as "just a pair of hands", ignoring the contribution that the front-line folks could make to improving the process. It seems that is how we are trreating students and teachers in the current discussion. The Japanese took the opposite approach. Maybe we will be able to copy their success where teh auto companies have failed? The current 1quality of discussion approaches the level of something like "I don't want death panels teaching my children..." Which is why I am about ready to give up on the whole "comments" section of AA.COM

toomuchtodo

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 5:47 p.m.

Interesting ideas from Mr. Watkins, but it seems such "radical" changes would require a tremendous amount of time for studies and research to justify their efficacy. But NOW is the time that major structural transformation could (and should) happen for our schools. The question remains as to "what" changes, and how to get the ball rolling. My thoughts- first and foremost, highly skilled and motivated teachers are critical to Michigan's future. Our current teacher compensation system does not effectively attract and retain those with the most talent, nor does it reward and motivate teachers who are highly skilled. I am convinced that public education k-12 could be just as effective at devising a method and implementing a merit pay system as are post-secondary schools and the private sector. Unfortunately, as schools begin laying off great numbers of teachers, it is a shame that the only determinant factor in which teachers to lay off will be seniority. Fewer teachers would need to be let go if higher seniority teachers were included in the mix (as their higher wages would offset a much greater part of the budget deficit than the lower seniority teachers). Instead, a likely scenario at all Michigan schools is that some younger (yet highly skilled) teachers will be laid off, and class sizes will be increased to even greater numbers for more senior, but less-skilled, teachers. It's a total lose-lose for kids. This is a report that examines this situation: http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/rr_crpe_layoff_feb09_.pdf I have no idea how this could ever be changed (as it seems that we are so entrenched in the status quo, and union contracts are quite against it), but if it could, it seems that it would be a major step towards doing what is best for kids.

DonBee

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 5:38 p.m.

@DagnyJ - I would suggest that the sorting be done by subject and be a routine thing. For instance, we had monthly reading and math tests when I was in grade school. Those tests determined which groups I was in. Every month students would move between groups. The 2nd thru 4th graders were all mixed by ability and some 3rd and 4th graders were in with the 5th and 6th graders for some subjects. The key was you moved up when you displayed either in testing or by teacher observation the skills needed to move up. In reading the reward was to be able to pick more interesting books, and by the end of most school years most of the students were in the top group. The slowest groups has the highest teacher-student ratio, which meant that they got a lot more help. The small school system in central lower Michigan in the 1960s and 1970s averaged 3 appointments a year to service academies (West Point, Air Force and Annapolis) as well as a raft of folks going to other good schools. In addition the Vocational programs were so good that the adult education classes in the shops ran 5 nights a week and weekends, bringing the schools more money. even the local unions recommended the classes to members. It was clear by the time folks reached 7th grade which direction they were leaning (Vocational, Technical or College) and the school had classes for all of them. One of the keys was there were 4 grade schools and a high school. No junior high, no middle schools. K-6 in the grade schools and 7 to 12 in the high school. 11th and 12th graders who were college bound were encouraged to take college classes, not AP classes. Children mostly sorted themselves, with a lot of suggestions from teachers and parents. The school ran "catch up" classes for vocational or technical students who changed their minds and wanted to go to college, few did, but it was run with the evening adult education classes. The school routinely did well in sports, even with a single football coach per team (JV and Varsity) and a single basketball coach per level. About 40% of the student body was involved in sports and another 25% in band, drama or other activities. The shop classes built and sold a custom camper truck each year, a house each year and stock tanks for local farms. Most of the shop children had co-op jobs their senior year and were encouraged to stay in school by their employers. The cooking classes turned out cookies and breads for the lunch and for bake sales, the sewing classes turned out costumes for the drama classes and holidays, as well as for craft fairs. In short everyone contributed to the community and the classes mostly self funded the materials for learning from sales. I am not suggesting that this can be done today, but it worked 40 years ago. I remember being challenged every step of the way and engaged in every class.

Lisa Starrfield

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 5:23 p.m.

Kathy, Do you honestly hope that the Ann Arbor Public Schools follow his advice as you suggest? Getting rid of a senior year? Rumors are already flying around the high school that this will happen. What will happen to our students without a Senior year? Oh, they have two years to prove themselves as college ready instead of the three everyone else has. Are universities across the nation prepared to take our 16 and 17 year old students? How will students get the four credits in math and English required by most universities? the three years of science, social studies, foreign language and arts? It's a foolish idea.

limmy

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 5:13 p.m.

I woiuld like to hear from high school teachers out there about advanced classes. Is it typical that they have fewer students than the non-advanced classes? If they do, then they are more expensive. If not, then the cost would be the same.

YpsiLivin

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 4:29 p.m.

As a state, Michigan doesn't take full advantage of the opportunity that private schools provide to relieve the burden on the State Aid Fund. Were the state to offer tuition tax credits to parents who schooled their children privately, Michigan could shift some of its burden to parents who are willing to pay for private education, and at the same time acknowledge the contribution that these parents make. A tuition tax credit wouldn't cover the full cost of private schooling to be sure, but it would give parents incentive to remove their children from a broken funding model, and leave more overall cash for the students who remain in the system. The bottom line is that Michigan has more students than it can pay for and everyone suffers for it.

Mike Brewer

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 2:53 p.m.

Cutting the duration of education will not improve our system. Education is the key to success of our state and country...viewing it as a tax drain is dangerous. Of course we do need to work to continually improve efficiencies. I agree with David Fitzpatrick that ATTITUDE is the biggest problem (although very difficult) to address. Having attended one of the more modest high schools in the metro-detroit area, I was able to learn everything necessary to attend a world class university in our state and compete in a technical curriculum with the best students from Asia and the rest of the world. However, having a teacher as a parent that instilled in me the value of education from an early age was critical...such that I was willing to put forth the effort and dedication that is missing in many cases. It is the sense of entitlement in our society that is truly failing us. So I don't know that I have the full answer about how to systematically do so, but we need to: - Make sure students understand the value of education - Get parents to emphasize the value and support the process of education Regarding Math, Science, and Technology, K Thompson's comment that it is not the center of the universe "unless you prefer unthinking androids" is a symptom of reason many of our top student don't pursue these fields. People in Science and Engineering are not respected in our country like they are in Germany, Japan, Korea, and other places. Why would someone aspire to enter a field where they get labeled as an unthinking android...or at least a boring nerd? Both the pay structure and attitude in the US push top students toward business and medicine, and away from careers in science and engineering. On the pay of teachers, I don't think we can afford to increase pay as Mr. Fitzpatrick suggests...but he is right that the current salary levels are not attractive to people that could make much more money in the business world. According to teacherportal.com, we are on par with other states, so it doesn't seem to be an area we can afford to cut either.

sbbuilder

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 2:44 p.m.

Mr Fitzpatrick Evidentally you still have time to peruse this board while grading those papers. While I disagree with much of what is posted, I am heartened by the vigorous influx of ideas, and the comments back and forth. Maybe finally the status quo will be under seige to the point where fundamental change will take place.

The Grinch

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 2:13 p.m.

And, Ms. Griswold, the current system for school-provided breakfasts and lunches relies on statistics gathered through other agencies that gauge poverty (e.g., if one is one food stamps). Moreover, it is a black and white decision--one either qualfies or one does not. Your suggestion of a "sliding scale" suggests a program that will be FAR more complicated that the simple question of whether someone qualifies for food stamps. It suggests an inquiry into the income of each and every family who has a student who wishes to participate in an extracurricular activity or who wants to take an AP class, and setting the fee for that activity based on that income. It suggests that, somehow, the A2PS would need access to the familiy's tax returns. Of course, such a system would be complicated by divorces, second marriages, and how many children in a family (should a family whose income is 50,000 with 1 child in an activity pay the same per child as a family with the same income but with five children in various activities), among many other factors. So, indeed, the A2PS would need not only to start looking like the IRS, but it wold have to have access to families' tax returns were it to implement some form of slding scale. That most certainly is not the case with the breakfast and lunch program. Or is it just that you have not thought through the implication of a "sliding scale"? One last word for stunhsif: you read, apparently, only one paragraph of my (as you note) bloviating fourteen-paragraph post. Had you bothered to read and to contemplate it in its entirety, you would have noted suggestions for reform of the pension and health insurance system. Also, as for where I am getting my figures regarding teachers' pay, the 2007-2008 contract between the AAEA and the public schools (available at http://www.aaps.k12.mi.us/hrs.home/files/2006-2009_teacher_contract.pdf sorry--could not find the current contract but it likely is little different) sets first year teacher pay at $38,860 per year, or barely $3200 per month before deductions. If that first year teacher had $25,000 in student loans (a relatively modest ammount, the monthly payment would be approximately $225/month for 15 years. On top of this, new teachers very quickly arerequired to go back to school, on their own time and on their own dime, to keep that very modest income. So, stunhsif, it is Economics 101. New teachers willing to teach at these salaries and having to deal with people such as yourself do so out of a very rare sense of dedication. And, according to the US Department of Education, 1/3 of new teachers leave the profession after three years and 1/2 leave after five years (http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/nclbsummit/dickson/index.html). Why do you suppose that is? Do you think this creates an enivironment of quality education? But now, as promised, I'm off to grading. Sorry that my "bloviating" so offends. God forbid that you might actually be exposed to the ideas of someone who is a professional educator who might know what they are talking about. As I said earlier, you make my case. Thankless, indeed!!;-)

st.julian

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 1:53 p.m.

I would like to thank Mr. Watkins for his radical ideas however misguided. Pushing his agenda will speed Michigans descent toward the bottom of the education paradigm perhaps enabling us to fall below Louisiana or Mississippi in educational attainment. It seems that people of his ilk focus on cost not quality, short term rather than long term, individual rather than commonweal. The benefit of intense high quality education has not been lost on up and coming economies where American knowledge jobs have been sent offshore. I would propose a different model, one that focuses on building Michigans educations infrastructure and content. A model that intensifies the education process- forcing more not less study in the same time period- for high school and college. The idea is to allow the Michigan intellectual nexus be a draw to parents, students, and business. We can create the knowledge and economy right here. Yes, it would cost money, but I rather look at it as an investment with worthwhile return for the future. Mr. Watkins is looking to the present and the past with not much of a future in mind or impetus for economic progress.

Kathy Griswold

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 1:26 p.m.

@David F. The income based "system" is already in schools. It is the federal free and reduced lunch program.

The Grinch

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 1:09 p.m.

stunhsif: You make my point for me. Who would want a teacher's perspective on what's wrong with our school system? Thankless, indeed. And, for the record, I will be grading today between 2PM and midnight, stopping only for dinner.

stunhsif

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 1:03 p.m.

David Fitzpatrick, "teacher pay must be drastically increased as they make only 1/3 to 1/2 the pay". Where on earth are you getting your figures. I will be for higher teacher pay when your healthcare/benefits and pension's mirror the public sector. And trying to imply that the average teacher works 60 thankless hours a week is just nonsense. You apparently have way too much time on your hands as you just wrote a 14 paragraph email and are one of the most prolific writers to A2.com. How on earth do you have time to do all this in addition to working 60 hours a week. Should you not be grading papers and tests rather than spending so much time bloviating on A2.com

The Grinch

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 1 p.m.

Happy Senior: according tov http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, an item bought in 1970 for $1 will today cost $5.57 if its cost went up at the rate of inflation every year. So what cost roughly $4000 in 1970 today ought to cost $22,400. But I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Heritage Foundation, with its anti tax and anti-public school agenda, would get that wrong. NOT!!

HappySenior

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 12:50 p.m.

The is a fine opportunity for a dialog. Why not approach education in a scientific fashion. Conduct actual research to uncover what methods and approaches provide the best outcomes. from: http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm The article states that "per-pupil expenditures in 19701971 ($4,060) were less than half of per-pupil expenditures in 20052006 ($9,266) after adjusting for inflation." Stated another way, we are spending twice as much now as we did 28 years ago to educate students. Student test results over those 28 years are not better. "Despite the lack of consistent findings, leading researchers in the area acknowledge that any effect of per-pupil expenditures on academic outcomes depends on how the money is spent, not on how much money is spent." We need innovative thinkers to come up with new ideas, and we need actually do the research to find out what works best. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but one opinion is not better than the next one, no matter if you were on a school board, or if you were a superintendent, or if you are a teacher, or if you are a parent, etc.

The Grinch

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 12:21 p.m.

Kathy Griswold says: "We must remember that much of the excellence of AAPS is derived from our outstanding students, parents and educational professionals. An AP class is not more expensive than a regular class and parents generously subsidize many extracurricular activities. An income-based sliding scale could expand that support." So, in order to save money, Ms. Griswold is proposing that the A2PS create version of the IRS into which families will need to report their income so as to determine what they should pay for "special programs" and for "extracurricular activities". Why is it that I think that this will actually cost more money to implement than it will bring in in revenue? Thank God she's no longer on the school board!

limmy

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 12:14 p.m.

Eliminate the senior year? I thought we were trying to provide better educated citizens? I don't like the emphasis on computer classes, either. I think students need to be in classrooms for the most part. I have my own list of cost saving measures. 1. Look at class size for every single course. My one child's advanced language class has 16 students while my other's aveage English class has 33. 2. Eliminate the 5th grade instrument program that provides instruments and mandates that every child play one. This is a look good/feel good program that is not supported beyond 5th grade. By high school, the ones that continue and succeed are overwhelmingly kids that started private music study at a young age. The racial and income diversity completely disappears in middle school because the kids that rely on the school for music education are not being supported and they all drop out anyway. 3. Stop throwing money at programs that don't work. I recall Deb Mexicotte regretting that the efforts to lower the achievement gap have not succeeded. But, we are still spending millions on it. Stop what doesn't work and put the money into programs that do work.

The Grinch

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 12:08 p.m.

Mr. Watkins suggests that we need to get radical when we consider the changes necessary for Michigans educational system. I agree, but radical does not mean nonsensical, and most of his recommendations are nonsensical. Let me explain, point by point. Mr. Watkins says Eliminate the senior year of high school. For far too many of our students, the 12th grade has become nothing more than state subsidized dating. Mr. Watkins, apparently, has not set foot in a high school, public or private, for many years if he thinks that this behavior is unique only to senior classes. One of the major problems in ALL of our high schools, colleges, and universities is the relatively high number of students who are there ONLY for the socializing and for whom attending class is a necessary evil. Eliminating the senior year in high school does not change the underlying problem, which is the attitude and expectations that students bring to school. This ATTITUDE is the problem that demands a radical solution. Eliminating the senior year in high school merely addresses the symptom, not the underlying disease. Mr. Watkins asks, Where is it ordained that a college degree must take 4 years of study Could the same amount of knowledge be acquired in 3 years? The answer, Mr. Watkins, is that nowhere is it ordained that students must take four years of college classes. What IS ordained is the number of credit hours required to graduate, usually a minimum of 120 credit hours for a bachelors degree, but more if the degree is part of a certificate program (e.g., teachers certificate). Having been the state superintendant of schools, you MUST know that the number of credit hours is dictated by accrediting agencies and by professional bodies that oversee programs. Is it possible for individual students to move through a college degree program in less than four years? ABSOLUTELY! But Mr. Watkins apparently does not know (or refuses to acknowledge) that five years, rather than four, has become the norm for a college education. Mr. Watkins, then, has not offered a radical change. Instead, he has suggested that the calendar length of a college education be reduced with little thought as to how universities are to change their programs to meet the demands of accrediting bodies and whether or not students will be able to or will be willing to accomplish the resulting academic program in under four years. And this relates to my response above: students who see school more as a social opportunity than as an educational opportunity are not finishing school in four years, and it therefore seems unlikely that these same students will finish in three years. So, again, a truly RADCIAL solution would address the question of student motivation and abilities. Mr. Watkins says Maximize technology and limited resources in our system of higher education by making the equivalent of one year of the basic freshmen or sophomore instruction be offered via e-learning. The courses would be taught by specially certified e-learning instructors hence reducing the need to expand campus infrastructure and personnel cost. As someone who has been teaching distance learning classes for five years, I can tell you that it is a wonderful idea for SOME students. But those students who need the discipline of classroom attendance and instruction oftentimes find themselves overwhelmed by the degree to which they are on their own in a distance classroom. Even worse, such a suggestion replicates one of the worst aspects of our current educational system, that being its one size fits all approach. If this suggestion were implemented those students for whom distance learning was not a good fit would be left at the wayside no matter their abilities. Mr. Watkins says Take action to consolidate school districts in ways to maximize the redirection of resources to the classroom. In other words, do what the South has done for more than a century. I urge anyone who thinks this a good idea to look at southern schools and at their test scores and tell me how this addresses the problem of student achievement. Moreover, given the example of the recent millage vote in Ann Arbor and the outrage expressed by some that Ann Arbor tax dollars might go to (heaven forbid) Willow Run or to Ypsilanti, it is hard to imagine the political circumstances where this might become possible. Mr. Watkins says Use market forces to steer students to high-demand fields such as math, science and technology. All education is valuable - some education is more valuable than other education. Currently, we are producing more college grads infields in low or virtually no demand while high-demand fields cannot find native born students to fill available jobs. The taxpayers of Michigan are subsidizing this inefficiency. Suggest those that majors in high demand fields have their tuition cut in half while those majoring in low-demand fields pay one and one-half the going tuition rate. THIS, it seems to me, is spot on, though hardly radical. Still, it is a GREAT IDEA. So, having disagreed with most of Mr. Watkinss points, how should we move forward? First, I agree with DonBees posts above that suggest a truly radical agenda for an educational culture that has become radically democratic in its philosophy. It has become dogma in our society that all students need a college prep education in high school and that they then should go on to a four-year education. Furthermore, it is dogma that all students are capable of such. But the facts tell us differently. Many students in high school are either disinclined toward or incapable of benefitting from a college prep education. This is not to say that, at some point in the future, these students wont have matured or have come to realize the import of a four-year degree. But to treat all of these students the same serves them poorly as it does students who are in the same classroom who are serious about their education. So, a truly RADICAL solution would be to adopt DonBees suggestions that classes be sorted by ability and that there be different tracks in education for those students who are either uninterested or who are apparently (if at least temporarily) incapable of attending a baccalaureate program. This is RADICAL and will be VERY unpopular, but also very necessary. It should also be noted, then, that moving mandatory school attendance from age 16 to age 18 accomplishes nothing, nor does the state-mandated curriculum changes that treats all students as if they desire or are capable of attending a baccalaureate institution. Second, it would be TRULY RADICAL but MUCH NEEDED were the MEA to take a leading role in education reform (Full disclosure: I am a member of the MEA). Among other things, teacher tenure and merit pay need to be put on the table. But these must include some way to take into account the students who are in teachers classrooms. The average high school teacher has 180 students per year for roughly 180 hours per student (this being the case if that teacher has exactly the same students fall and winter semestersseldom the case). Only under exceptional circumstances can that teacher be expected to overcome what happens in those students lives in the thousands of hours per year that the student is not under the teachers supervision. Third, both the health insurance system and the pension system need to be reformed. Regarding the former, the Minnesota system deserves our attention. Four years ago the Republicans in the Michigan Senate proposed bills that they CLAIMED would do this, but that was disingenuous as those bills had virtually nothing in common with the Minnesota system. Regarding the latter, it is time to move from a defined benefit system (for which it is near-impossible for the state or for school districts to budget) to a defined contribution system. This must be done, however, in such a way as not to damage those teachers and school employees who have spent their careers in the current system (Full disclosure: I opted into a defined contribution system when I was hired). Again, the MEA can and should take a leading and constructive role in making this happen. Fourth, teacher pay needs to be drastically increased. This probably seems, not radical, but heretical to all of the anti-public school, anti-tax, anti-government types out there, but it is a simple case of you get what you pay for. Students graduate from college with huge debts and very few recent graduates capable of finding high-paying careers in other fields will willingly take on an oftentimes thankless job at 1/3 to 1/2 of the pay (Note: all of the talk about average salary misses the point that most school systems have a seniority system and that new teachers, fresh out of college, earn substantially less than the average). In this society we seem to understand that if one wants a good car one needs to pay a certain sum of money for it. Where teaching is concerned, however, there is the inexplicable myth of there being a plethora of highly qualified and highly motivated young people willing to teach for a salary that they would earn were they to work in WalMart. This is nonsense. If you want good teachers who are willing to work with problematic students, who will put up with misbehaving parents, and who will work 60 hours per week (many of them at home on weekends), you have to pay for them. Period. Finally, extend the school year. Our school year is much too short and, for many students, attending school is simply a case of putting up with school as a period in between school vacations. School and education need to become a year-round undertaking. If one takes the above suggestions seriously, some will save money but, in the aggregate, they will cost money. So the question is not just one of radical change vs. stasis. It is a case of whether or not we are willing to invest in our future, that of our state, and that of our children. Unfortunately, I think I know the answer to that question.

K Thompson

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:58 a.m.

I'd like to add that the headline is mean-spirited: "Michigan's education system is failing students and taxpayers." The economy is failing citizens and students. What has occurred socially, economically, politically, globally is NOT, I repeat, NOT the fault of Michigan's education system. Stop the false logic and scapegoating.

K Thompson

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:50 a.m.

If you recall Piaget and other developmental research, students do not move from concrete to abstract thinking until late age 15. Seniors learn or begin to master it in their senior year with challenging classes. Intellectually physically, socially we should not hustle them out the door too soon. There are exceptions for advanced students and they dual enroll in college. They will be working all their lives (with a reasonable economy) - why push them out? Also, college is not always fast-track job preparation. Further intellectual maturation also occurs. Math, science & tech. are not the center of the universe, unless you prefer unthinking androids. Unlike European schools, we attempt to educate ALL, not just the college-bound. But, yes, change is good... How about work/apprenticeships and community service in 12th? And senior seminars to polish their intellect and oversee longterm projects? Yes, More Content in Middle School, where they are slowed down before arriving in h.s. I suggest taking 8th grade off, wait for them to mature, do part-time work/service. They waste that year otherwise, and would be more serious for h.s. Also, take year between h.s. and college to be an exchange student, learn about other cultures, and not be so ethnocentric. Again, they'd be much more appreciative,and ready for serious college study or career training. (from a former h.s. teacher)

48104

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:37 a.m.

Oxford and Cambridge take the creme de la creme of a small, homogenous nation. I'm not sure their practices can be generalized to our higher education system.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:34 a.m.

Unfortunately, Mr. Watkins' analysis falls into the same trap as other supposedly "radical" calls for reform. He assumes that education is solely for the benefit of industry, that whatever skills are most in demand in today's market is what our country will need twenty or fifty years hence, and that schools should be set up to sort out winners and losers. Instead, I suggest we look to the lessons from the High/Scope Perry Preschool study, running for some forty years in Ypsilanti, which profoundly shaped the current discussion of the critical nature of early childhood education. Rather than pushing resources and effort up into higher education for a restricted number of "winning" students, why not invest in young children so that more of them can grow to be successful, prosperous and thoughtful citizens? The results of the studies, showing long term success not so much on standardized tests but in actual life experiences, are compelling. Our schools should not be places where children go to be sorted into little boxes - the future doctors and the future ditch-diggers. Our schools should be places where we nurture the future of our community, and work to make sure every child has the tools and support to make the most of their lives. Only in this way can we ensure a safe and prosperous future for us all.

L'chaim

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:19 a.m.

Privatization of support services does not save money. It's a short-term fix, slight-of-hand trick that ropes districts into inefficient contracts with profit-driven corporations. As for radical ideas to educate students, try local control and democratic schools. Look to the alternative education movement that thrived for decades on it's truly radical approach. The author's ideas are interesting on the surface, but not necessarily very substantial. Basically, he wants to reduce service to meet the irresponsible funding and policy crises without challenging it. Radical is not the word to describe this. STOP PRIVATIZATION OF JOBS AND EDUCATION!

Kathy Griswold

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 11:01 a.m.

Thanks for the innovative thinking I hope Ann Arbor Public Schools will take this approach in the coming months. Michigan has been in a recession since 2001, and according to the latest economic forecast from the University of Michigan, the unemployment rate will average 15.4 percent in 2011. UM economist George Fulton is quoted in todays AnnArbor.com as saying, Sobering statistics, almost surreal numbers, a situation crying out for a way to put a better face on things. Fortunately, the AAPS community has been somewhat sheltered from this economic downturn and the community generously approved a nearly $250 billion construction bond in 2004 and a sinking fund, originally at 1.5 mills and currently at 1 mill. With this locally approved money, district officials could transfer some costs that had previously come from operating dollars (primarily funded by the state foundation allowance, which lagged inflation). With these additional local funds and AAPSs higher foundation allowance, AAPS has not had to make significant cuts and is in much better shape than most of the surrounding districts. Now AAPS must change. We have the opportunity to work collaboratively on innovative reforms that will improve the quality of education for all students while keeping costs within Michigans financial means. Yes, Lansing must address some of the issues, but the AAPS community, including the professional educators, can significantly improvement public education with needed reforms. We must remember that much of the excellence of AAPS is derived from our outstanding students, parents and educational professionals. An AP class is not more expensive than a regular class and parents generously subsidize many extracurricular activities. An income-based sliding scale could expand that support. Examples of successful, cost-effective reform include the Miami-Dade Co. Schools described on page A18 of the print version of AnnArbor.com. There are many other success stories in Michigan and I hope AnnArbor.com will cover them in future articles.

belboz

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:55 a.m.

"Tom Watkins is an education and business consultant in the United States and China." Hope your not working on ways to increase our trade deficit with China. As in, providing knowledge, working on ways to help US businesses outsource, etc. If so, I'm not sure I want to hear an opinion from someone who themselves is part of the problem. Our Trade Defecit must once again become a Trade Surplus, otherwise - all of the things the US wants so bad to spend money on - Education, Health Care, Defense, Environment, etc... - will suffer more than they are now.

DagnyJ

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:49 a.m.

Don Bee, how and when would you decide a student's "ability"? And do you expect students to move between "ability groups"? And what kind of minimum requirements of learning and knowledge would be expected for all students, and at what grades/ages?

glacialerratic

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:48 a.m.

In the UK, secondary school concludes with two years of 6th form for students who want to enter university. Students entering university, then, have received 13 years of primary and secondary, and many follow this with a gap year before entering university. How would reducing primary and secondary schooling to 11 years make Michigan's education system stronger and its kids better educated?

JT

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:48 a.m.

I fully agree with the strategy and the last two ideas in particular. Unfortunately, I have no faith that Lansing will ever agree on anything close to these measures. Is it possible that the state can grant a task force with the authority and budget to design, engineer, and implement an all new public education system (similar to Obama's Auto Task Force)? All Lansing would have to do is choose the task force members and set some governing rules. That isn't too much to ask of them is it?

stunhsif

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.

Tom, You have some very good ideas and I agree with all of what you suggest. Your ideas would reduce costs,educate our children better and faster. One other suggestion, get rid of summer vacation and make school go 12 months with perhaps a "fall break", "winter/Christmas break", "spring break" and "summer break".

DonBee

Sun, Nov 22, 2009 : 9:09 a.m.

Mr Watkins - Thank you. While your at it: 1) allow ability based classes, so that children are challenged all the way through school and children who are struggling can get extra help in smaller classes. Yes - I know this goes against the usual "everyone created equal". 2) Re-Think the "Middle School Model" and put more meat into the classes. 3) Be willing to let students declare a "major" early - vocational, college, technical, etc. Then offer classes to support them. All three would better prepare the students for the future and keep more of them engaged in the school system, it would probably keep more of them in school (I have only second and third hand comments - no studies to prove this) Again thank you for your essay.