Another thing Mr. McLellan said in the podcast was, "schools operate to get the funds..." Really? Schools operate to educate students.

Mr. McLellan also mentioned that "Any Pace" will allow students to go faster or "take twice as long to be successful." I wonder how this works with the performance based funding? To me it sounds as if the slower paced students will get less funding for their district.

In the talk, he also mentioned the difficulty of measuring performance. Shoud it be...Completion of a course? Proficiency (C-)? Mastery (A-)? Growth? and that there is a strong trend in the country to measure growth on reading, math, science, & social studies.

Ok, so how do we measure it? From the draft bill it looks like the MDE will approve the assessments of the grade-appropriate basic education skills. These shall include "off-the-shelf assessments." (Page 44, Lines 17-20). I am wondering what basic means = C- ?

And I am only 2 pages into the proposed bill.

"Schools operate to get the funds."

From the head of an organization that "focuses on projects that “lessen the burdens of government.”

I am so confused about this incentive to graduate early and the "any place any time business". How does that fit in with the current state mandated graduation requirements? For example, there is a current state requirement that students take science during each of their four years. How could one speed that up?

Is there any indication the Oxford folks know what the current state requirements are?

Mac,

I believe the graduation requirements will be met by performing on the standardized competency tests at a high level. Perhaps if a student shows they have completed a course, mastered it and showed growth to the point where a 'normal' student would have completed 4 years worth, then they will probably be considered to have met the graduation requirements. The $2500 is less than the $4,010/semester they pay out to BHS, so it is a win for the state and the student. I can see how this will work for languages and math, but a little less with sciences, language arts and social studies. The legislation is either in the 300+ pages or in some other bill meant to mesh with the OF Draft Funding bill.

The state eventually creates a summary of the bills introduced, but since this is a draft, I think we will have to slog through each page to find out what is in it. The few pages I did read took me a long time because I had to continually cross reference and read footnotes. It will take a long time for the average parent to read.

That is an article from the Mackinac Center defending McLellan's plan. McLellan founded the Mackinac Center.

The MEA... you forgot to link to the MEA!

Oh, and the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB)... I'm sure they have plenty of ugly things to say.

Hmmm... what other adults that are employed by the system and threatened by the changes might like to weigh in? Ahhh... The Oakland County Superintendents! Have you checked their website for fuel to add to the fire?

I have to ask Mike,

Are you even reading the draft bill? I am, although it may take me until the deadline to get through the whole thing.

I've probably read more of it than Diane Ravitch.

She says, "It is a voucher plan that allows students to take their public money to any private vendor."

These links are all full of that sort of blatantly wrong nonsense.

Almost every point John Austin offers is subjective, and smacks of the "Not invented here" syndrome.

Even Austin is shouting out false claims about vouchers, and noted here: http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17961

I am trying to browse the 300 page beast for two reasons. One: It's good to know these things, and Two: It looks like these edu-folks are leaving their self-serving misinformation droppings everywhere, and some of us are going to need to clean up after them,

Mike,

If you have an MEA link, you can post it.

I'm not wholly opposed to having "education folks" involved in this. In fact, I might have started with people who knew education, rather than whoever the anonymous funders of the Oxford Foundation are.

Education folks might be able to propose the performance measures which are as yet unnamed. Performance measures are not an afterthought, or something you work out later; I'm not sure anyone has come up with an uncontroversial measure of performance. You certainly can't vote on a bill that doesn't define them.

I reject the notion that people who are followers of the Mackinac Center are independent thinkers, while people who disagree with them are captive to unions or educational professionals. We are all able to think for ourselves.

And the Oxford Foundation proposal appears to be half baked at best. It doesn't appear to consider funding, administration, or educational outcomes. For all its 300 pages, it seems to evade every difficult issue. This is why those who see it as a thin veneer for allowing corporations to, as Mr. McLellan would say, "operate schools to get the funds."

Viewing the School Aid Fund as a big pot of money ripe for the picking is probably not the best start for education reform that focuses on education.

Mike,

A private corporation can run a charter school. That is a private vendor.

The edu-folks have had their chance... for decades.

If you are satisfied with where they have gotten us... then under this plan it looks like you will be able to stick with them. What's not to like?

Mike,

We will not have what we have now.

McLellan has made it clear that the pot of money will remain the same. But charter schools can siphon some off, without any specified performance measures. And there will be an administrative system to manage student's funding, which will siphon some off. Performance measures, transportation responsibilities, administration of funding, will all remain responsibilities of local public schools. So their expenses and requirements go up; their funding goes down. And funding becomes erratic and reliable, as students are coming and going.

You couldn't run a business on those terms, and I don't think our educators can run a school system that way.

So, no, I will not have what I have now. And what I have now is unlikely to be able to maintain current standards. Which forces me to Cranbrook for, lets say, eight years. So as a parent who could afford it in a pinch, it's about $300K pre-tax for me.

If I were not a parent with options, it would just mean my child's education was below acceptable levels.

As a homeowner, eroded public schools make this a bad place to move. And a bad place to do business.

I'm sorry I'm not more disappointed in BHSD public education than you'd like me to be. Our teachers, principals, and superintendent are extremely competent people.

I don’t want you to be disappointed with schools, Mac. Don’t say that.

What I just don’t understand is why you are so insistent that I keep my child there. It sure seems that in the end what schools really want is the money associated with my child.

Can’t you see how it looks that way?

We will provide "X", and if you don't like it, or it's not working, then too bad. You are free to leave, but your money stays here.

Mike,

No one is stuck, especially around here.

But everyone needs to be held to the same commitments and standards. Do not ask one type of school getting public money to do special ed, transportation, free lunches, bookkeeping, require them to hire qualified and trained teachers and meet a maze of government mandates, then allow another type of school to waltz in and get money for doing none of that.

Our schools are using the money associated with the child to educate children. The Oxford Foundation proposal hasn't quite worked out the kinks to ensure that others who take that money will do the same. They need to do that for it to be viable.

As it is, they seem to have proposed how to move money out of our functioning public schools while imposing new administrative burdens on them. And move money into new entities owned by profit-making businesses, who operate without measure or restriction. That isn't a choice.

OK... I get it. Bloomfield's got 100% satisfaction. Even if money was available for other alternatives, 100% of the Bloomfield parents would choose Bloomfield schools, if offered the choice. 100% successful educational outcomes.

Not one single person would want to leave.

No complaints here.

I get it.

Except that darn Jenny Greenwell. Thank goodness her kids are done! :-)

No, that's not what I said.

There are many options for those who are dissatisfied with the BHSD schools. There are also many options within the BHSD. We have left the BHSD, returned, and would leave again if we saw a better option. I am selfish.

I do not believe that giving public money to anyone who sticks a shingle out and says they'd like to teach stuff is necessarily going to provide desirable alternatives.

I think if we believe public schools need to be heavily regulated with mandates, requirements, and performance standards, competing entities must be held to the same standards. Either we need guidelines and checks on educational offerings or we don't. Do not impose burdens on one entity and remove them from another and call it competition.

The fact that the funding, the student tracking system, the curriculum requirements and the performance measures are the parts that haven't been worked out leaves very little serious content in the Oxford Foundation proposal. All that is left is that they see a big pot of money, and people who would like to have some. That has nothing to do with education.

But Ms. Greenwell can open a charter school if she'd like.

"There are many options for those who are dissatisfied with the BHSD schools."

Like what? Other Oakland County Traditional Public Schools?

I think the question is: what are the mandates that would be put on districts that would not be required of "new schools"? For example, If an Enrollment District is required to: verify residency, identify eligibility for funding, maintain records, counsel students, furnish data to the state, grant diplomas, approve credits for same and administer growth and assessment tools, etc., etc. for a kid that takes 70% of his/her classes on-line with "New On-Line School", does New On-Line School get 70% of that pupil's allowance. With all the responsibility that are retained by the Enrollment District, obviously the answer has to be "no" ... but perhaps this is addressed in 260 pages that I have not read.

And these are just administrative responsibilities. I think Mac is also talking about the certification/qualification issues for new schools. Who is allowed to teach in such schools...could traditional public schools use such teachers? Under the new law, can anyone really just open a school? Is Bill and Tony's Math Academy really possible under the new law? If not, why not... let's find the provisions in the new law that address these concerns. Otherwise, we're just assuming and talking past each other.

Another article: http://www.macombdaily.com/article/20121119/NEWS03/121119554/snyder-panel-suggests-more-michigan-education-choices

Yes, and the multiple private schools in the area. That is different than some small town in the UP, where there truly may not be options at any price. "Choice" is different in a metropolitan area, where there are many school districts and private schools, than it is in a small town geographically separate from its neighbors.

Here is a quote from today regarding the timeline.

http://oxfordfoundationmi.com/2012/11/20/mclellan-school-re-write-getting-harsh-reaction/

During the next 30 days, he wants input from the stakeholders with hopes of improving on the document he just finished.

McLellan acknowledged on today’s MIRS Monday podcast that this is a “next year” project, but the bill sponsored by House Education Committee Chair Lisa LYONS (R-Alto) need to be discussed.

“You wouldn’t want to run a bill that extensive through two or three weeks,” he said. “These are issues for next year.”

December 14 is the end of the comment period. The comment form is here:

http://oxfordfoundationmi.com/

People should offer their comments, and not be discouraged by the fact that public and professional input seems to be solicited but not incorporated.

30 days is better. I hope that the OF is truly open to constructive comments during that period.

Am I correct to say that there is no mandatory school of choice law? Most articles seem to confirm that. Good for districts like ours to at least have that choice, although it will be tougher to elect not to be school of choice if you really think district students will take flight (kids going out, none coming in)... not so sure that's the case (or should at least be less likely in the better districts), but that will be an important analysis for districts like ours.

The other concern I had is addressed a little in the sense that there is at least some indication that $ can't go to private schools like Cranbrook or Country Day- but then, of course, there's all the "new schools" which I haven't had the chance to analyze .... first indications are that they have certain characteristics that are more "private" (for profit) than "public"... but that will be tonight's assignment (ha ha).

Also encouraged to see that performance would be based on individual student achievement (had to be that way vs. a school-wide model). More upside, frankly, for lower performing districts that can pull their kids up. Disturbing, however, that, apparently, the actual methodology isn't given. That won't be easy to establish and will have to involve heavily standardized testing that is administered by the state. Not opposed to standardized testing, but at what point is there too much?

Yes, they've been extremely clear that school of choice is optional, and that private schools are not an option. Though I'm not sure where the line is between a privately funded charter and a private school. Presumably the charter will have to meet some restrictions or standards the privates don't adhere to?

It seems like a lot hangs on how the measurement is done, and whether it is meaningful and effective.