A roadmap to fixing our FAILING Public education system

Imagine if the resources spent on the Federal Department of Education was instead sent to the states?

Michigan has more School districts than counties, has had to (as a state) take over whole systems that cannot manage the resources given them by taxpayers, and is delivering CRAP insofar as outcomes.

Let me state this comparison as clearly as I can .. If you had a roofer fix your leaky roof, and the first time you had a light sprinkle you find yourself putting buckets around the house, what would you do?  You might have them try to repair, but most folks are going to get someone new.

Let me remind you that our kids can’t read.  Not like they should anyhow.   I drafted the below roadmap last night.  It is a response to my own personal assessment of what doesn’t currently work in our public education system.  It was inspired to this point as I spoke with a couple of retired legislators who may or may not agree with the entire premise.

I believe if we could follow this road map, we would clean up and set new and higher performance standards going forward.

Step-by-Step Roadmap

1. Legislative Framework

• Action: Draft and pass enabling legislation that:
  • Retains elected school boards but redefines their role as authorizers and overseers of charter schools.
  • Mandates all school districts to align with county borders.
  • Introduces pilot programs in select counties to test the feasibility and efficacy of the model.
• Challenges: Opposition from unions and stakeholders resistant to change; requires robust advocacy and public education campaigns.
• Benefits: Sets the legal and operational foundation for the new system.

2. Transition to County-Based School Districts

• Action: Consolidate the existing districts into 83 county-based units.
  • Develop a transition plan for merging administrative offices and redistributing resources.
• Challenges: Logistics of merging districts; potential loss of jobs in administrative roles.
• Benefits: Streamlined governance reduces redundancy, leading to cost savings.

3. Charter School Authorization

• Action: Empower county school boards to authorize multiple charter schools based on local needs and preferences.
  • Establish minimum standards and performance metrics for charters.
  • Encourage diversity in teaching models (e.g., STEM-focused, arts-integrated, vocational tracks).
• Challenges: Balancing variety with equity; preventing favoritism in charter approvals.
• Benefits: Increased competition and innovation, tailored to community needs.

4. Performance Monitoring and Accountability

• Action: Implement regular evaluations of charter schools by independent agencies.
  • Criteria include student performance, graduation rates, financial health, and stakeholder satisfaction.
  • Mandate corrective actions or revocation of charters for underperforming schools.
• Challenges: Ensuring impartial evaluations; addressing closures without disrupting students.
• Benefits: Maintains high educational standards and accountability.

5. Liquidating Assets to Meet Obligations

• Action: Direct districts to sell unused or redundant properties and assets.
  • Use proceeds to fulfill obligations like pensions and legacy contracts.
• Challenges: Resistance to selling assets with sentimental value; managing market fluctuations.
• Benefits: Reduces long-term liabilities, freeing up funds for education.

6. Collaborative Extracurricular Efforts

• Action: Encourage charters to collaborate on extracurriculars, pooling resources for sports, arts, and special interest programs.
• Challenges: Coordination between charters; ensuring equal access for students.
• Benefits: Expands opportunities for students without burdening individual charters.

7. Eliminating Millage Dependency

• Action: Transition funding to a state-wide education budget derived from general taxes and other revenue streams.
• Challenges: Designing a fair funding formula; addressing concerns over state control.
• Benefits: Relieves taxpayers from repeated millage campaigns and stabilizes funding.

8. Trial Programs in Select Counties

• Action: Select counties to pilot the new system with:
  • A diverse range of charter schools.
  • Independent evaluation metrics.
  • Transparent reporting to stakeholders.
• Challenges: Identifying suitable counties; managing public expectations.
• Benefits: Provides data and insights for scaling the system state-wide.

---

Potential Pitfalls

• Resistance to Change: Strong pushback from unions, educators, and communities attached to the existing system.
  • Solution: Engage stakeholders early with clear communication and emphasize long-term benefits.
• Equity Concerns: Risk of unequal access to quality education if charters cluster in affluent areas.
  • Solution: Mandate equitable distribution of charter schools and prioritize underserved regions.
• Administrative Challenges: Complexity in merging districts and managing transitions.
  • Solution: Hire experienced project managers and allocate transition funding.

---

Key Benefits

1. Cost Savings: Reducing districts and streamlining administration lower operational costs.
2. Improved Outcomes: Charter competition incentivizes better performance.
3. Taxpayer Relief: Eliminating millages removes financial uncertainty for homeowners.
4. Local Control: Elected boards ensure community oversight remains intact.
5. Flexibility and Innovation: Diverse charter models allow for tailored educational experiences.

---

Conclusion

This roadmap outlines a vision for a more efficient, accountable, and innovative educational system in Michigan. By combining the strengths of local governance with the flexibility of charter schools, taxpayers and students alike stand to benefit. The trial program ensures a cautious, data-driven approach to implementation, minimizing risks and maximizing potential gains.