Michigan’s lesson for Connecticut
Michigan is the home state of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Before she was appointed by President Donald Trump, DeVos wielded her influence and wealth there to push and expand unregulated charters. “School choice” is one of the policies that opponents of adequate public school funding claim can improve education without spending more money. They also tout increased accountability. These two policies are often sold using the civil rights language, promising equal opportunity for all.
A new report by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (“MCRC”), Education Equity in Michigan, demonstrates how underfunding public schools, while relying on choice and increased accountability, has undermined equity and quality in public education across that state. The report is the result of a year of hearings throughout Michigan, where the commission heard from residents as well as subject matter experts.
MCRC notes the persistent underfunding of Michigan public schools, particularly for students with additional needs. In 1993, in an attempt to reduce funding inequity among school districts, Michigan shifted from a system reliant on local property taxes to one relying primarily on state revenue sources. However, the state neglected funding adequacy. Since 1993, Michigan’s school funding revenue steadily declined. A 2019 study found Michigan ranked last in the nation in total education revenue growth and 48th out of 50 in per pupil revenue growth. A key problem is inadequate funding of students living in poverty, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities. The disparity in resources between affluent and poor districts is matched by a disparity in educational outcomes, especially among the most underserved students.
Compounding Michigan’s inadequate state funding is a “money follows the child” system where funds leave with students as they move from public school to charter to Public School Academies — three different systems competing for the same limited pot of state education funds. The report notes that the state “provides taxpayer money to charter schools without requiring them to follow state laws regarding special education, testing and licensing.” The current system also exacerbates racial segregation, and “rewards high-functioning, highincome districts with mostly White students, and penalizes those with unique challenges.” The report concludes these factors have “created an environment of cut-throat competition and deep divisions “rather than collaboration to work toward the collective good.
Just as choice is a false solution to educational inequity, Michigan demonstrates that so is increased accountability. Michigan took over struggling school districts several times, with little to no success. For example, the notorious state-run Education Achievement Authority relied on reformer ideas in Detroit, like replacing veteran teachers with inexperienced ones, like Teach for America corps members, and relying heavily on technology and self-directed learning. As a result, the majority of students made no progress or declined. A state review of state management of Detroit public schools from 1999-2016 found “startling mismanagement,” “questionable financial tactics” and “temporary fixes” that actually led to the “decline of DPS as it existed during the Subject Period.”
The MCRC report also urged reconsidering Michigan’s third grade reading law, which mandates retention of students not proficient in reading on standardized tests. The authors note that retention dramatically increases the rate at which students drop out of school.
The report makes several recommendations. The
MCRC recommends increasing state school funding, providing additional funding for students with additional needs. The report also notes that students with different needs cannot be treated the same. The commission supports state funding of social services to mitigate the factors outside of school that impact learning. The report also stresses the need to eliminate the competition and segregation created by the incoherent systems of public schools, charter schools and public school academies.
Michigan provides a lesson for Connecticut. Many of Connecticut’s education reformers divert policy-makers’ and the public’s attention away from the state’s inadequate funding, proposing that the state simply change its method of distributing insufficient general or special education funding. They also ignore the distinct needs — and costs — of groups such as English Language Learners. In Connecticut’s school funding case, CCJEF v. Rell, the Supreme Court adopted that wrongheaded view, refusing to recognize as essential components of an adequate education services for English Language Learners or social services to mitigate the effects of poverty on learning. Reformers also claim that diverting education funds to the parallel system of less-accountable, more segregated, charter schools will somehow improve public schools. As the Michigan Civil Rights Commission found, if we want to serve all students, there is simply no substitute for a well-funded, coherent and accountable public school system.