In a late December (28th) Oakland Press editorial Glenn Gilbert called for more “intelligent discussion” of school reform plans in 2013. He suggested that some of the discussion had been “hysterical” and not based on “facts.”
I agree – (although the term “hysterical” has come to be applied by too many to female politicians they don’t like and “fact-based,” of course, is code for positions pushed by conservative think tank The Mackinac Center).
Nonetheless, as Gilbert says, we need more sustained, civil, and, by all means, intelligent political discussion on a host of issues ranging from school reform to gun control.
But Gilbert’s editorial inadvertently pointed to obstacles – rather than solutions -- in improving our level of political discourse. Gilbert cited paid policy strategists from The Mackinac Center and The American Enterprise Institute, the latter a national conservative think tank.
My concern is not just that Gilbert cited think tanks from the political right rather than the political left. The work of the editorial is, in part, to stake out a position for debate and, on school reform, The Oakland Press has worked rather admirably – say in contrast to The Detroit News -- to present a variety of perspectives.
My concern is that in that calling for more intelligent political discussion on a critical issue for Oakland County schools and property values he couldn’t see fit to call on the people we have actually elected to represent us in these political discussions.
One can’t blame Gilbert for this either.
In seeking “experts” on school reform from the reformist side of the debate Gilbert had to turn to un-elected policy strategists because that is where much of the expertise (such as it is) currently exists.
Because of Michigan term limit law enacted in 1992 we don’t have enough elected officials with expertise or experience in such issues to comment intelligently, let alone debate. Because Michigan state reps can only serve 3 consecutive 2 year terms and state senators only two 4 year terms most elected officials don’t have what it takes to engage in a sensitive, historically informed balanced discussion between teachers, districts, parents, analysts, and so on.
Hence we are left with the lobbyists to frame the discussions that matter most to us. That is, we turn to people primarily if not exclusively interested in grand political ideologies and abstractions rather than in making our real lives work better – the ostensible job of the democratically elected official.
In these politically divisive times we really need the few experienced politicians who have worked to gain the trust of their constituents and their colleagues in Lansing.
Many Bloomfield, Birmingham and Troy public education parents don’t fully realize this but the woman who has the most potential influence on their kids’ future education is not their child’s teacher, school principal, or Hilary Clinton but Lisa Posthumous Lyons, 32 year old second term state rep from Alto (Grand Rapids). Lyons heads the important House Education Committee (a post given to a relative newcomer because, well, there are only newcomers, but also because Lyons is the daughter of Michigan Republican stalwart and Governor Snyder campaigner Dick Posthumous).
We do have elected politicians, such as Senator John Pappageorge, who have served all of us well and know school reform debates intimately enough to have real perspective, dating from the days of Prop A to our seeming preference for all things Mackinac Center. (It is worth viewing on Youtube Pappageorge’s defense of 20j funds, critical to Districts like Birmingham, Bloomfield and Troy, cut during the Granholm administration). It seems just plain odd to call for intelligent debate when we embrace a system that blindly takes some of our most experienced and reasonable conversationalists out of the discussion and turn instead to “think tanks” to talk about what matters most to regular people.
It is time to look, yet again, at Michigan term limits as a means to generate actual discussion by experienced people who know their constituents, the state, their history, and the seriousness of the issues at hand.
I suspect I will hear crickets coming from you on that one. A four year degree in agriculture? That's qualifies her in your book. Well, maybe you are content with your expectations, however , mine are a tad bit higher. Dismanteling the entire school system to fix a small percentage of failing schools at the expense of our tax dollars and property values is not something that should fly under the radar. Just because you don't like the source, doesn't make it false. I for one ,believe that you personally will benefit financially from the switch to charter schools and vouchers. Not because you really care about kids in Benton Harbor, Detroit or other failing districts.I tend to follow the money when large changes are being proposed and who stands to benefit.
Age is not the issue. The bills she wrote (with Mr. McLellan) are the issue and they are not new or fresh. I believe, that in order to understand the possible educational choices and the ramifications of those choices requires an understanding of pedagogies. What we as residents of Michigan received was a series of bills that sought to reform or change nearly everything within the existing system of education across the state, both the good and the bad, and sought to do it without regard to how it would impact the education and districts within our state. Why not reform what needs to be reformed and improve what needs to be improved rather than whole scale reform/change? That is why I said No Thanks.
http://oxfordfoundationmi.com/2013/01/07/choice-legislation/
When I consider that the same people have been controlling the board for almost a generation, all too many more traditional and yet effective academic approaches take the back seat to the ever present new academic fads. This - mostly to our children's detriment. Wouldn't our children benefit from some "new" blood on our board?
Only one trustee has been on the board longer than 5 years, Cynthia von Oeyen and I appreciate the fact that we have at least one board member who understands the history of our District. All the others have been on the board 5 years or less, so your representation that they have been on the board for "almost a generation" is unwarranted. Term limits are a double edged sword. While they keep people from becoming an institution themselves, much of wisdom and perspective is lost when a seasoned individual is forced to leave. Time and time again, I hear this about our own state legislature. The new members must be educated about the issues only to be lost in about 6 to 8 years. Would you please explain to me what you mean by traditional, yet effective approaches and new academic fads? Examples would help. Your words imply that traditional is best, yet it is not defined, therefore I can't agree or disagree with you. If by traditional, you mean the way and what I was taught in the 1960s and 70s, I respectfully have to say again...No Thanks. That would be going backwards.
All too often we offer a myriad of electives courses that are margianl in their content and allow our kids to graduate "feeling good" or with an enhanced amount of "self-esteem" butt being matginally prepared for a rigorous university "experience." Just take a look at the amount of our HS graduates that have to take remedial classes once they start college. Insofar as academic fads are concerned, let's just think back at the late sixties and seventies you mentioned. Do you remember "New Math?" An utter disaster in my opinion. Then came more of the self-esteem policiews, followed by the group study approach - where 4 or 5 kids get a project, one or two do the work but all 4 or 5 get the credit. I know, I know, I am overstating the case but the truth is in there somewhere. And as far as my term limitation argument is concerned, the trustees that actually control the board have been at for a very long, long time. Maybe too long?
C'est la vie. Right? Ah yes - understanding the history of the board should not be under-estimated. But being able the discern what really works in the best interest of our children - I consider much more important.
New Math - I have no idea if I was taught 'new math' or 'plain old math' but it is interesting to note that new math was not just an American phenomenon, it was used in Europe as well. I did however have many group projects. In fact, world geography was taught almost completely with group projects in my 6th grade class (still elementary school back then) and it was a wonderful experience that not only taught me how to work in a group, but taught me a tremendous amount of world geography. Those projects are my fondest memory of Mr. Michael's 6th grade class. Being a part of a team is an essential part of work today. It is a necessary skill to learn and an experience students need to have before they reach college. Thanks also for the clarification about the board. It seems your view is more about the individual positions of the members rather than the length of their service. In the end, it is ultimately up to the voters.
I hope you all get as good a laugh out of it as I did...however please read and take to heart the the caveat at the end of the piece about accuracy. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1529/what-exactly-was-the-new-math And then finally here is the classic "New Math" by Tom Lerher...loved his album as a kid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXx2VVSWDMo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vetg7vWitTU&feature=endscreen&NR=1
One of the discussion points during the bond issue and school board elections was the Nature Center. Having been there two days in a row with the classes for each of my 4th grade students I saw how the students were engaged and were using reasoning to connect with the animals, their habitat, and the effects of the environment. Some excellent learning took place. This is the kind of advantage BHSD offers the students that we should never consider letting go. So...when we have these discussions about state run education I would absolutely want to know how that would affect places like the Nature Center and Bowers Farm. It's all part of the discussion we need to have.
One of the many issues that I don't seem to convey with even a minimum sense of clarity is the fact the our "A. P." courses are the NORMAL classes in all too many countries around the world. Our electives I happen to consider as "nice to have" but not critical to our children's future. Coming to think of it - this is a luxury that we should take a very serious look at - because our children will be competing with those students from around the world that have received a more solid (for lack of a better expression) than ours are getting today. And yes Neal - I do believe that the statistical distribution of uninformed people among the major parties is rather even-handed. Best personal regards, Vic
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/132416889/chinese-top-in-tests-but-still-have-lots-to-learn
We both agree regarding the fact that rote learning is not called for in any school system. That is very obvious. What I espouse is really nothing else than increasing our core curriculum in both quantity as well as quality. A similar analysis needs to take place the vast amount of elective courses - with the difference being to reduce the amount while improving the content. Having had the opportunity to discuss this subject with B.H.S.D. A. P. students, even their consensus is that all too many elective courses border at being fluff. But I would prefer to have an opportunity to review my objectives as well as my background with fellow residents so as to be able to discuss these subjects in more detail. Best personal regards, Vic Moigis
One of the great things about highly successful districts like Bloomfield Hills is having choice. If a student wants to take a full course load of AP classes he can. If a student wants to have a broad range of educational experiences including electives he can. If a student would benefit from a more non-traditional school setting, we have that too! (Model and Bowers Academy) The adding of what you refer to as "core" content can be accomplished through a student's own course schedule. There are plenty of rigorous choices. What always gets under my skin are folks who dismiss electives as somehow being less important to the overall education of a student. In my children's experiences it was the choir, forensics, imaging, etc. classes in addition to AP and core classes that brought them the most joy and indeed steered them on their future path.
I agree with your premises that elective courses may be helpful in rounding out a students high school "experience." However human nature also tells me that most (or more) students will choose an easier elective in lieu of a more substantial academic course. The Bowers Academy is a case at point. If I were to ask you what are those kids prepared for upon "graduation" in the real world - how would you answer that? Or aren't we allowing kids to skate through their real learning years instead of preparing them for the real world? Again, I believe that we are NOT preparing enough of our kids for what awaits them tomorrow because we allow them to choose all too many elective courses while escaping from the more substantial courses. It is human nature! Thank you for your interest in this matter (and this morning I read that we are preparing 59% of our kids for real college work.) Kind regards, Vic Moigis
I strongly feel that assistance with course scheduling rests with the student's parents, counselor, staff members and potentially a college requirement booklet. If a student has aspirations for a tough 4 year university he/she will know what course load is required throughout their high school years. And I believe nearly every university takes into consideration ALL the classes a student takes. Granted, some may carry a heavier weight than others, but all mKe up the total picture of that student. Not sure about your comment re. Bowers Academy students. It seems quite heavily negative. My answer would be that they are prepared to follow their dreams to the next phase of their lives. For some a 4 year university is not the be-all, end-all. But I would say that Bowers Academy graduates are indeed prepared whether it be to continue on in a vocational school setting, working in the "real" world or attending a college or university. If you think that high school students these days are "skating" through, you are sadly mistaken. One look at the high school graduation requirements would show that. In fact, there is very little time available in most students' schedule for electives. Not sure about your comment you read about "59% of our kids" being prepared for real college work. By "we" do you mean BHSD or the United States? Please clarify.
J. Wagner
Ues, you are right when you state that I paint all too much with a broad brush. Then again I try to be deductive in most of my reasoning and that (obviously) gives the impression of me over generalizing. But allow me to address the issue regarding your experience with your children here. Yes, I know that the BHSD is a good district for children that are self-motivated, parent motivated or peer motivated. And I would like to congratulate you for your children's success with their high school "experience" here. My children's education here was a mixed bag of academic results - from very good to marginal. The latter was my fault because I relied on the district to assume the academic responsibilities and having my first daughter being self-motivated, I thought that her sister and brother would follow her example. My mistake! But with some later guidance and a proivate school for my son, things turned out rather well. My educational background covers several countries - including the US - at both the K-12 and college levels. This has allowed me to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of them. With this in mind, my concern is to make sure we (the BHSD) really provide our children with a solid core that will allow them to compete with those kids in foreign countries that are the beneficiaries of an expanded core that we don't have. Kind regards, Vic Moigis
As I have pointed out previously, our school district provides agood education for those kids that are self-motivated or have parents who encourage their children. Most of our graduates are well prepared for college level work (as the figures range from 59 % to 79%.) I agree with your premise that not every child has to get a college education. A good vocational ed is a honorable way - and a satisfying one at that for many kids. As a matter of fact, I remember reading an analysis some time ago that indicated that almos 50% of the law school graduates work in fields that have nothing to do with their degree. And that was long before the present recession! Insofar as the Bowers "Academy" is concerned, I am really not sure what those kids are being prepared to do once they "graduate." A cynic could say we are babysitting them for several years until they are too old to continue there. Maybe a follow-up study with "graduates" could give us an idea of their succes or lack thereof? This is my market research background coming to the surface after so many years. Cont.
This brings them to a level where they can compete tomorrow with those students from other countries where our A.P. classes are their NORMAL courses. To finish - the we referred to our BHSD - the country as whole is worse off than we are. I know - I should be more specific. Its the broad brush thing..... Kind regards, Vic Moigis
You and I do have some common ground on this subject. We agree that BHSD has much to offer those looking for excellence. We also agree that the student/parent has a certain amount of responsibility toward acquiring that potential from the District. We are fortunate to live in a community where such a high priority is placed on academic acheivement as it sets expectations that the District must strive to meet in order to keep its "customers" satisfied. What is discouraging is how BHSD's residents have gradually lost their ability to control their district's financial destiny. It started with Proposal A, which removed the ability for BHSD residents to fund their district as they saw fit. Now less than 36% of the combined property and sales taxes BHSD residents send to the State get returned to the District. Next was the removal of 20j funds, which were one of the offsets to this "donor" status that the State initially allowed BHSD to retain (the other being the "hold harmless" millage). Now there is the discussion about further splitting the pie with private schools (charters) funded by public dollars. None of this bodes well for the long term for BHSD I'm afraid. J. Wagner
Have you had an opportunity to bring your concern to the attention of the school board? I don't see any reason we have take everything that is dished out and surrender. Just remember that the squeeky wheel gets the grease........ But enlucí of these tired clichés ....... Best personal regards, Víc Moigis
J. Wagner
Maybe the MEA could focus on satisfying its customers (parents and students) instead of letting 26,000 of them sit home while many of its members called in sick to protest in Lansing recently. What’s wrong with a committee chair with a background in Ag Communications, leadership in a crisis pregnancy center, and being an outdoors-loving church member? Her constituents elected her. Your other post about her sounds a lot like “you can’t have any fun in Grand Rapids. There are too many Christians there.” Disdain for people with different values than yours. Read my blog post for more on this: http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/the-fiscal-cliff-an-option-c-solution Senator Pappageorge has served us well. Perhaps term-limited Rep Chuck Moss will run for his seat or maybe Lisa Brown’s. Term limits have worked well in state government as the cream rises to the top. Mediocrity tends to hide in county government or Congress where you can be a career politician.
Farmers are very customer focused and go out of business if they don't turn a profit. We need a farmer or two on education committees. If we had all farmers, no manufacturing, business people or teachers & principals it would be a bad thing. Having all professional educators sitting on education committees guarantees the latest educational theories will be tried. How did Chicago math and look-say work out? An education committee should have a homeschooler and private school parent as well as teachers and principals from public schools. Or at least people who are open to those options. Otherwise you will get only one perspective - government schools.