| K-16 Coalition; Looks like a vote. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 22 2006, 03:42 PM (2,861 Views) | |
| Administrator | Mar 12 2006, 10:30 PM Post #61 |
|
Administrator
|
I am very interested to hear what everyone has to say about the K-16 Coalitions proposal. Whats your view? How bout you sunshine? |
 |
|
| Derek | Mar 12 2006, 11:09 PM Post #62 |
|
Principal
|
OK, you're right Nancy.... here you go, some educators evaluate the quality of Mackinac Center's reports on Public Education... PLEASE READ IT ALL... Executive Summary The Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy has emerged as one of the largest and most prolific state-based think tanks in the United States, with a mission of enabling “Michigan citizens and other decision-makers to better evaluate Michigan public policy options … from a ‘free market’ perspective.” Notwithstanding its description of itself as “non-partisan,” the organization supports market solutions for public policy challenges and opposes government intervention – positions that can be fairly characterized as politically conservative. The Mackinac Center states it is committed to delivering “the highest quality and most reliable research on Michigan issues.” This report puts that claim to the test. An independent review of the Center’s documents is important because private think tank research often enters the mainstream of public discourse without being rigorously scrutinized. The authors of this report obtained a list of all Mackinac Center publications on the subject of education from 1990 to May 2001 from the Center’s web-site. The 22 documents described as “studies” were sorted into four categories: Original research, interpretive research, opinion essay, and administrative and legislative guide. Only Original research – the collection of empirical data using social science methodology – and Interpretive research – primarily secondary analyses of research conducted by others – were included in this evaluation. The focus of this evaluation is the social scientific quality of these 14 documents. Seven studies were classified as original research and seven as interpretive research. They were evaluated according to established guidelines for social science research. These guidelines are that research be original and important; that it use instruments demonstrated to be reliable and valid; that its outcome measures clearly relate to the variables studied; that the research design fully and unambiguously tests the hypothesis; and that test participants are representative of the population to which generalizations are made. To rate the quality of the studies, evaluators developed evaluation instruments based on the applicable guidelines. A score of 3 points indicated that a study was judged to have achieved the standard of quality necessary for publication in a peer-reviewed social science research journal. A score of 2 points indicated that the study, in general, adequately met social science research standards. A score of 1 point indicated that a study did not adequately meet social science research standards. An average was then taken of scores on each of the applicable guidelines to derive an overall score for each study. The overall scores for Mackinac Center studies ranged from 1.14 to 3.0. Findings The evaluation of education related documents described by the Mackinac Center as studies found that: • Many of the documents described by the Mackinac Center as “studies” do not represent genuine social science research. • Overall, the quality of those education studies published by the Mackinac Center that can be considered social science research ranges from inadequate to just adequate. Applying the rating system established in this evaluation, studies classified as original research received, on average, an overall quality score of 1.80 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest. Studies classified as interpretive research received, on average, an overall quality score of 2.09. • Few Mackinac Center sponsored studies are of high quality and very few would be accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Of the 14 studies classified as original or interpretive research, only one was unambiguously of high enough quality to be considered for publication in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Implications and Recommendations Mackinac Center research is often of low quality and because of this it should be treated with considerable skepticism by the public, policy makers and political leaders. Indeed, much of the work of the Mackinac Center may have caused more confusion than clarity in the public discussion of the issues that it has addressed by systematically ignoring evidence that does not agree with its proposed solutions. To better serve the public, a process should be established that allows the public, policy makers, and the media to become more discriminating consumers of research, so that political beliefs cannot so easily disguise themselves as social science. To that end, the Michigan legislature should work with education research organizations and provide funds to: 1. Establish a network of education experts with diverse expertise who are willing, in a timely fashion, to write reviews of privately produced documents and to allow those reviews to be distributed to policy makers and the public; 2. Create and maintain a system for monitoring the work produced by private think tanks to facilitate the timely review of reports they issue; and 3. Support a web-site containing a database indicating the social science reliability of the hundreds of studies being published by think tanks and policy centers. This web-site would allow legislators to assess the quality of the research that is being used to urge them to take a particular course of action. For the citizens of Michigan it is important to understand that research supported by the Mackinac Center is often inadequate as a basis for formulating education policy. About the Authors Peter W. Cookson, Jr. teaches at Teachers College, Columbia University and has published widely in the area of school choice and school improvement. He has authored and/or co-authored numerous books and articles on educational policy and reform. He is currently completing a book about charter schools. Alex Molnar is Professor and Director of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, College of Education, Arizona State University. He has published widely on education reform topics and is a principal investigator for the Wisconsin Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) class size reduction program. Katie Embree holds an Ed.D. in Higher Education Administration from Teachers College and an MBA in Finance from Seton Hall University. She has worked on a number of education evaluations. |
|
|
|
| insupport | Mar 12 2006, 11:15 PM Post #63 |
|
Principal
|
Regarding the k-16 coalition proposal. I still have to do my homework on that. Like everyone else...so little time so much to do. Do you know the time frame for this? |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 12 2006, 11:17 PM Post #64 |
|
Administrator
|
Here is the link http://www.michigank16.org/ |
|
|
|
| Derek | Mar 12 2006, 11:18 PM Post #65 |
|
Principal
|
and as for the Conservative aganda... as they say follow the money... "Like the F.M. Kirby Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation supports the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institue for Public Policy Research, and the Media Research Center. The Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation also supports the State Policy Network, an association of 40 conservative state agencies nationwide. More locally, the foundation provides funding to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which uses its research to propose and promote various policies in Michigan. It analyzes issues such as private school vouchers, charter schools, privatization, taxes and welfare reform, and presents its evaluations and recommendations to individuals working in policy, academia, business and the media. Like many of the organizations listed abgove, the Mackinac Center promotes private, rather than government, solutions to policy issues. In addition to their contributions to the Council for National Policy, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Dick and Betsy DeVos Foundation also funds the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis." |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 12 2006, 11:22 PM Post #66 |
|
Administrator
|
Whats your point? |
|
|
|
| Derek | Mar 12 2006, 11:31 PM Post #67 |
|
Principal
|
Follow the money Nancy.... Michigan CSF gave $7.5 million to Michigan’s Education Freedom Fund (EFF), and EFF’s Dick and Betsy DeVos of the Amway Corp. matched the contribution with $7.5 million locally.54 Another $5 million was raised by Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit, whose archdiocesan schools would realize a government subsidy with vouchers.55 The DeVoses have been avid supporters of taxpayer-funded vouchers for years as well as major funders for Religious Right groups and causes. Dick DeVos fought for vouchers as a member of the Michigan Board of Education in the early 1990s.56 Dick and Betsy DeVos have contributed $25,000, and the Helen and Richard M. DeVos Foundation gave $100,000 to the Mackinac Center,57 a State Policy Network member.58 The Helen and Richard M. DeVos Foundation has also contributed money to such conservative, anti-public education groups as Focus on the Family in Colorado, Gary Bauer’s Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., and Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida.59 Betsy DeVos has been involved in other anti-public education efforts. She served as co-chair for Of The People, the group attempting to introduce parental rights amendments in the states. These state amendments would have provided disgruntled parents with a strong legal weapon for censoring public school curricula, weakened the ability of social service agencies to act effectively on behalf of children, and facilitated the adoption of vouchers for religious schools. She is chairman of the Michigan Republican Party and, according to the conservative Washington Times newspaper, is said to have close ties to Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, and James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family.60 The DeVos family contributed $1 million to the Republican Party for the 1998 congressional elections.61 |
|
|
|
| insupport | Mar 12 2006, 11:31 PM Post #68 |
|
Principal
|
JImid thamks for the link re the k-16 coalition! |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 12 2006, 11:43 PM Post #69 |
|
Administrator
|
You are welcome innsupport. Education is so important for all of our kids. There is a middle ground somewhere between saving money and throwing money at a problem. This is why I really want to hear some input on this. |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 12 2006, 11:51 PM Post #70 |
|
Administrator
|
Also, I really feel strongly about keeping every possible dollar in the classroom. Thats where it is most effective. That will be another thread about that legislation, but not tonight! I'm tired! And here come some storms outside! And not to mention I have a job and have to get up in a few hours. |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Mar 13 2006, 12:08 AM Post #71 |
Principal
|
Thanks Derek. I will read further on this. I am not a supporter of the "religious right" as some call them. I would agree that much of what I read was not "research" so much as policy opinion and advice. Sounds like what I would call good business advice, which is a different animal entirely. Haven't read it all by any means, so that is a first impression. Will look some more. |
|
|
|
| Derek | Mar 13 2006, 12:13 AM Post #72 |
|
Principal
|
(Mackinac Center Funding) So back to the K-16 Initiative... Jimid, I had the opportunity to go to the School Funding Town Hall Meeting in Flat Rock put on by Senator Bruce Patterson last week. The presenters consisted of Senator Patterson, Senator Jelinek (who is on the an education committee), and Senator Kuipers, (also on one of the education committees). We had a very frank discussion about many issues such as the proposed changes for curriculum, special ed funding, and the K-16 proposal. All seemed to agree that the curriculum changes were for the best, while many districts are there already or close, it brings everyone to a high standard of education. Suprisingly though, while Senators Jelinek and Kuipers were apprehensive of the K-16 prop., Senator Patterson believed it needs to be addressed. He feels that it is unfair for the State to mandate a higher level of education without guaranteeing a higher degree of funding to provide it. All three agreed it would take more dollars to get the districts in line for the higher curiculums. Some other interesting points that were brought up: 1) districts such as Livonia that educate many Special Ed students, are NOT receiving the Federally mandated level of funding that they were promised for that task, so much local money goes to that means. 2) One district official commented that in his district one special neds student required a full time nurse to be with him at all times and the district had to cover it with the same 7,000 per pupil funding that they receive. 3) No child left behind requirements mandated by the Federal Government have NOT been fully funded either, leaving the districts with the added expense of using already lean funds to cover these. Senator Patterson ended by saying that he knows it may be unpopular but Michigan's citizens need to ante up and pay for the increasing costs of education in this country. Not something usually coming from a Republican Senators mouth but it goes back to the seriousness of our financial situation in Michigan. -Derek |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 13 2006, 12:24 AM Post #73 |
|
Administrator
|
Thanks Derek. That is the kind of response I am looking for here. |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 19 2006, 10:41 AM Post #74 |
|
Principal
|
Chamber, educators square off over K-16 funding BY TONY BRUSCATO STAFF WRITER Michigan lawmakers and school administrators are anxiously waiting to see if a coalition seeking guaranteed state funding increases for schools will have enough petition signatures to force the issue onto the November general election ballot. The K-16 Coalition for Michigan's Future turned in nearly 300,000 signatures last month, and if the Secretary of State's office finds at least 254,000 of them valid, the battle between state lawmakers and the Coalition will have just begun. The K-16 proposal, which is backed by the Michigan Education Association and most of the school establishment, calls for annual state funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, as well as public universities. With school districts facing annual increases in expenses greater than the increases in state foundation grants, more and more are using reserves in fund balances to balance their budgets, with many projecting negative fund balances this year or next. CONCERNS RAISED Those against the measure, led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, believe mandatory funding for education will just mean fewer dollars for other state-supported services. "One of the promises made to us when Proposal A was passed (in 1994) is that there would be stable revenue for schools over time," said Tom White, executive director of Michigan School Business Officials, and the chairman of the K-16 Coalition. "But, within five years after passage, the legislature engaged in a series of tax cuts that affected our revenue stream. The bottom line, by the year 2000 there was $500 million less, and by 2002 it was up to $550 million. "That's $3 billion we would have had if they had just left the system alone," added White. "If they would have left Proposal A intact, we wouldn't be here today. In part, this is generated by that frustration." The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which represents business, local governments and taxpayers, believes education has been treated very well the past few years, and the K-16 measure would be financially disastrous. "This proposal really has serious consequences for funding other critical services, like police, fire and health care," said Tricia Kinley, director of tax policy and economic development for the chamber. "We estimate it will cost state government $1.1 billion a year more, ultimately resulting in tax increases. It's bad policy to let any one interest group circumvent the legislative process and have their funding put on auto pilot." As chairman of higher education appropriations, state Rep. John Stewart, R-Plymouth Township, said the K-16 proposal is nothing more than a bargaining chip. "It's for bargaining purposes, a posturing tool," said Stewart. "I truly believe it's to protect the current level of pension and health care for teachers, who are 80-90 percent of all budgets." School administrators liken the foundation grant increases to a family checkbook. If expenses are higher than income, something has to give. SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE "For the past 11 years in Plymouth-Canton, the average foundation allowance increase averages 2.29 percent, including this year's $175 increase, while the CPI (Consumer Price Index) is at 2.51," said Patricia Brand, assistant superintendent for business services. "What that tells you, in a snapshot, is our expenses have increased in excess of the revenue we receive from foundation allowance increases." Every district in the state, from the wealthiest to the poorest, has had to make changes. Birmingham has cut 23 jobs and turned down the heat in its buildings. Plymouth-Canton is looking at an $8 million budget deficit. Farmington Public Schools expects to trim $7 million from its bottom line. Troy recently announced 54 layoffs, and expects to make more in the future. "The state said, 'Let us worry about the funding.' But, we have not seen full funding. If it wasn't flat, we would not see deficits," said Michael Adamczyk, assistant superintendent for business services for the Troy district. If the coalition gets enough signatures, the issue could be put on the November ballot to ultimately be determined by voters. However, once the signatures are certified, lawmakers have 40 session days to act on the proposal before it's placed as a ballot issue. White expects to burn plenty of midnight oil before legislators let voters decide. Polls have shown the public is in favor of the coalition proposal. However, like the minimum wage issue, legislators will most likely want to develop a law that is more palatable to them, rather than having one mandated by voters. 'GREAT DEAL OF UNEASE' "There's a great deal of unease with the proposal on both sides of the aisle," said White. "It's going to take cool heads and thoughtful people to get it done. If not, I'm confident we can make our case to the people of Michigan and we'll win our case at the ballot box." A compromise measure, or one determined by voters, may be the only way school districts receive more state foundation grant money. Lawmakers, with their inaction, have made it clear they won't touch it. State School Superintendent Mike Flanagan, who is appointed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, gives no indication the financial problems will improve in the near future. "We're not going to have more money for awhile, that's just the way it is," said Flanagan. "But, we still have the number five finance system in the country, we spend $1 billion a grade. We need to get over the denial that it's all about more money, and think about how you're going to deal with the money you have." And, if they don't like the answers coming out of Lansing now, schools shouldn't look to Granholm's likely Republican opponent in November, Richard DeVos, for increased funding. "We're 48th in the country in the amount of money that gets stuck in administration versus going into classroom delivery," said DeVos, a proponent of charter schools. "A lot of them (public schools) have apparently made the decision to go into deficit spending ... but have they really done what they need to do to adjust their expenses to suit the reality?" tbruscato@hometownlife.com | (734) 459-2700 Originally published March 19, 2006 |
|
|
|
| fyi | Mar 19 2006, 10:48 AM Post #75 |
|
Principal
|
Where will the money go? Can taxpayers in Michigan afford this? Who will it benefit? |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |
11:43 AM Jul 13