In a Nov. 18 article, the Detroit Free Press announced that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is proposing a massive overhaul of the state’s education system, called the Michigan Public Education Finance Act. Opposition has come from many directions, including public school officials and the American Federation of Teachers.
The plan would allow students to split their education between different school districts and tie funding to each student so the money follows the student to whichever public school he or she attends. This money would be split proportionally if the student goes to multiple schools, but the state constitution prohibits it from going to private schools. This proposal is a good idea because it gives parents greater choice when choosing where their kids will get their education.
The plan would also provide a framework for performance-based school funding, encourage districts to adopt a 180-day school year over 12 months and give students college scholarships of $2,500 per semester (up to $10,000) if they graduate early from high school.
The opposition says this proposal will lead to the demise of public education because the new law would divert students to charter, online and private schools. This perception appears to stem from the people who benefit from the current system and are willing to sacrifice educational achievement in order to safeguard their interests.
However, the expansion of educational choices should only have an impact on students whose needs are not being met by their current school. Parents don’t pull their children out of their school district on a whim; they usually have reasons such as crime, a move or the school’s poor performance.
The expansion of educational choices should only have a large impact on the enrollment of students who have valid reasons to switch.
The most obvious reason this law would cause the students to switch is because they are having educational issues, and now they have a better school available to them as a result of the proposed changes. Therefore, if students start fleeing schools in droves, as opponents argue will happen, then Michigan schools must be worse than we thought.
And that begs the question: If that many parents think our schools are bad enough that the bill would lead to their demise, should we be forcing kids to go to them? An exodus of the magnitude the proposal’s opponents are predicting would say volumes about the quality of our public schools.
Opponents, such as State Board of Education President John Austin, also claim this proposal would create a for-profit system that would destroy our state’s educational system. However, Michigan Constitution prohibits funds from going to private schools, and a couple of resources at Michigan.gov/charters said charter schools are given the same per-pupil funding as public schools, are prohibited from charging tuition and are unable to charge a millage (unlike public schools).
That means in order to make a profit, a charter school would have to provide a better education than public schools (to attract new students) at a lower cost than the public schools. If charter schools can make a decent profit, then I have to question the efficiency of public schools.
However, this proposal won’t put our public schools in peril like opponents claim. The majority of our schools will be fine because the majority of students probably won’t switch schools, and the ones that do will finally get a school that meets their needs.
Snyder’s plan will improve our state’s education system and provide a better future for those who need more educational choice.__
