Archive: Opinions

I have a lot of problems with mandates.  Working on the three-part series of articles (Part 1 is in this week's issue) was an eye-opener that challenged my assumptions about tenure, good and bad teaching, school finances, and objectivity.

I don't like a macro approach to problems unless there is really a global problem that demonstrably needs to be solved.  When the state places mandates on the Lansing schools or any local municipalities it is doing two things I don't like.  It is saying we rubes can't be trusted to do the right thing for our own communities, and it is creating a lowest common denominator.  Then, more often than not, it makes local property owners pay for the mandate, just to add monetary injury to the insult.

That may be beneficial for schools that are not performing well, but it creates a real burden for those that are.  Lansing has long been a high-performing school district with an unusual level of community buy-in and participation.  Wouldn't it be an even better district if the great people who have made this happen had freer rein? 

Taking the APPR (teacher evaluation) mandate that is now being imposed as an example, we have something that sounds good until you look at the details.  It is meant to motivate teachers, but is based on some things that teachers have no control over, and creates a curve that skews grading of teachers who may not actually be bad.  The worst part, to me, is that it encourages doing nothing but teaching kids how to pass tests.  That's a skill, not an education.

I have long felt that tenure is a good way to motivate  and reward good teaching, but that it is only effective if it is coupled with continuing incentives.  Merit pay seems to me to be a good incentive, or subsidized sabbaticals, or a system of promotion similar to that of college professors who start at instructor and then earn rank (and commensurate salary) from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to Full Professor.  Tenure without incentive seems to me to be an invitation to coast for most of a teacher's career.

That is not to say that there aren't teachers who are self-motivated and engaged and would never think of coasting.  Of course there are, and we are blessed to have a lot of them here in Lansing.  But shouldn't they, of all people, be rewarded for continued excellence?  And on the other side of the coin, shouldn't the district be able to replace teachers who aren't performing with new ones who will?

To me that's not just a matter of business or one of job protection.  It's about doing what's best for kids.  This is why I was upset that personnel cuts because of the budget gap in recent years had to be based on longevity rather than merit.  Lansing lost or almost lost some really excellent teachers.

So in theory I like this new teacher evaluation mandate paired with the promise of an expedited firing procedure for when it is really warranted.  But in practice I think it is a mess.  Saying that you are politically doing something that benefits children is great.  Doing it the right way makes it greater.  Doing it the wrong way or haphazardly makes it really, really not great.

I would prefer that the state let go of both the evaluation process and the firing process.  Local school boards must set educational goals.  Shouldn't they also evaluate their districts' level of progress and success in meeting those goals?  While there has to be a state and national standard for public education so that kids  everywhere in America can successfully compete to get into college or to get jobs, there should be a bar above which local school districts have more control over how they operate and how they deliver education.  It would be a motivator for lower-performing schools to improve, and a reward and incentive for higher-performing schools to do even better.

In preparing the series on school mandates I was particularly struck by two things District Business Administrator Mary June King said to me:  first, she said that home rule is virtually decimated by the amount of state mandates on school districts.  Second, she estimated that 80% of Lansing's budget pays for mandates.  I was shocked at how much state control that meant.  It's too much.

I would like to see some real state mandate reform that includes lifting existing mandates paired with a moratorium on new mandates.  And I would like to see a law enacted that says that any state mandate must be 100% funded by the state.

If state legislators have to think about where they are going to get the money before slapping more rules on localities they will think twice before doing it.  We would, I would hope, have fewer, but more effective mandates that make sense.  My two cents.

v8i12