MEA Votes

In her monthly column in today's Detroit News, MEA President Iris K. Salters outlines why Michigan will be at a huge disadvantage in earning federal Race To The Top dollars and how, regardless of federal funding, we need to approach school reform so it's constructive for students over the long haul.

In the debate over the federal Race to the Top program, we've heard politicians and pundits argue over money -- and who's to blame if we don't get the dollars we're all hoping for.

What we haven't heard is how Michigan might have already blown any chance at grant money anyway.

As much as the Michigan Education Association would welcome millions of dollars in federal money, our state's draconian budget cuts have put us at a disadvantage compared with other states that invest in their schools.

In a conference call with reporters last Thursday, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan issued a warning for states like Michigan. While acknowledging that times are tough, Duncan said one of his chief criteria for Race to the Top grants would be whether states make education a priority during tight budget years.

If states -- like Michigan -- cut education spending, Duncan said he would ask a simple question.

"Did those cuts help students in the classroom, or did they benefit adults?" The answer, he said, would be a major evaluation tool in this process.

That does not bode well for Michigan schools.

It's clear that the state's cuts to the K-12 budget weren't made to help students -- they were made in the name of political expediency. They were made because certain legislative leaders refuse to even consider finding a way to restore funding to our schools. They were made because Lansing has not made education a priority.

And that just might eliminate Michigan as a contender for millions of dollars in grants.

Now, that's not to say we shouldn't make changes to education that will help students -- with or without federal money.

But like Duncan, we need to set criteria and evaluate whether each "reform" will do what it is supposed to do -- make students more successful. We need to ask the same question Duncan posed:

Will these reforms help students in the classroom, or will they be made to benefit adults?

In the public debate over education reform, it's a question that has rarely been raised.

No one has asked whether spending millions of dollars on tying test scores to teachers will mean students will score higher. No one has demanded that watering down the requirements to become a teacher come with guarantees that those teachers will be highly qualified. No one has asked for proof that expanding charter schools will mean more students graduate ready for college.

The MEA is working with lawmakers and others on real reform efforts -- reforms that help struggling schools instead of punishing them, reforms that could have a positive impact on student success. We support measures in the House that use the expertise of professional educators to help shape the schools of the future. Turning around failing schools and ensuring that every student has the tools to success are goals we all should strive for.

But we cannot afford a "try it and see if it works" strategy with our students' futures. And we're not alone in urging caution.

State school Superintendent Mike Flanagan told the House Education Committee last week that we should "walk carefully" on certain reforms and that he "agreed with the MEA" on many of our concerns.

We agree with Flanagan and others that changes need to be made to ensure that struggling schools do not continue on a path that clearly isn't working -- and we're proud to support efforts to lead the way.

But we must ensure that the reforms proposed bring the right answer to the same question: Will they help students in the classroom or are they just more political posturing to benefit adults?

Let's keep our eyes on the real prize -- great schools for every student -- before we enter a race where winning means students stand to lose as well.