Thinking Globally About Michigan Education

1. Thinking Globally About Michigan Education Brian Rowan School of Education Institute for Social Research University of Michigan

2. Themes • Michigan is in the midst of a major economic transition. • The building of a “world class” education system in Michigan will be important to the success of that transition. • Currently, Michigan’s K-12 education system is not among the best in the world (or even the USA). • So: What can Michigan educators learn from global trends in educational achievement and improvement?

3. Michigan’s Economic Transition

4. Michigan and the Global Economy • In 2008, Michigan ranked 8th among U.S. states in the $$ value of exports. • Michigan’s economy is the size of Argentina’s. • Michigan’s place in the world economy is due in large part to the Big 3 automakers. • 46% of all Michigan exports involve transportation equipment. • Michigan’s biggest trade partners are: Canada (53%), Mexico, Germany, Japan, and China • 72% of all export value was produced in the Detroit metro area • More than 10,000 companies in Michigan are engaged in exporting. • 89% are small companies • But, small companies account for only 12% of export value Export Jobs as Percent of Total In 2005, 1 in 5 jobs in Michigan was export related.

5. Michigan’s Economic Transition • Michigan is experiencing its longest period of job loss since the Great Depression. • Unemployment is now at 12.9%. • The manufacturing sector has been hardest hit, especially the automotive sector, with nearly 10 straight years of job losses (see Table).

6. Michigan and the New Economy • Many analysts believe Michigan must make a transition to the “new” economy if we are to maintain our historic standard of living. • The new economy is: • a knowledge-based economy • where innovative ideas and technologies raise productivity, asset values, and standards of living • The new economy is indexed by: • Growth in the service sector (education services, financial services, professional/technical/scientific services, business management services) • Research and development to enhance productivity • Employment in “high tech” industries (e.g., info-tech, nano-tech, bio-tech)

7. Can Michigan Make the Transition? • Michigan is not without strengths in this area: • It is an engineering center • It has strong universities and R&D activities • It attracts foreign investment and foreign talent • It has a growing “knowledge” economy

8. How K-12 Education Can Help • Many factors will determine Michigan’s success in transitioning to a “new” economy. • K-12 education will be a key to this transition. • That is because quality of education—as judged by STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES—is associated with economic development. • Eric Hanushek estimates that for every one standard deviation increase in student test scores, economic growth rates increase by 1%. • Figure 2 projects what might happen after an education reform that increased student achievement by 1/2 s.d over three time periods. • The Lesson: Slow but steady education reform ultimately produces increased economic growth!

9. An Example of Economic Transition: Finland

10. Finland’s Trajectory to Economic Development

11. The Role of Education in Finland’s Economic Growth

12. Michigan Education in Global Perspective

13. Can Education Drive Michigan’s Transition? • To answer that question, we’ll first compare U.S. educational outcomes to outcomes in other countries. • Key “benchmark” countries are: • English speaking nations • European countries • Asian countries (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore) • Then, we’ll locate Michigan’s educational outcomes within the distribution of U.S. outcomes generally. • In both cases, we’ll want to look at: • Student achievement near the end of “basic” education • Means • Disparities • Post secondary outcomes • We’re asking, does Michigan have a “world class” education system?

14. International Comparisons: Where Does the U.S. Stand?

15. The U.S. No Longer Leads the World in Educational Provision/Attainment

16. The U.S. Also Lags in Educational Achievement: International Comparisons (PISA) • Why PISA? • Test measures knowledge use in • reallife situations • Test assesses students near end of • “basic” schooling (age 15). • ------------------ • U.S. 15 year olds typically had lower achievement scores than: • All English speaking nations (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom • All Asian nations • Most European nations (except in reading)

17. U.S. Educational Outcomes: International Comparisons (Meta Analysis) • Other testing programs show similar results. • A meta analysis of results from multiple international assessment programs shows that U.S. students typically fall in the middle of the pack. • Two exceptions: • Reading • Civics

18. PISA Also Shows Substantial Ethnic Disparities in U.S. Educational Outcomes 1 sd = 100 points. Black gap to OECD average = .91 sd; Hispanic gap to OECD average = .61 sd

19. How Far Behind World Standards Are U.S. Minority Students? 1 s.d. = 100 points. Black gap to Finland = 1.5 sd; Hispanic gap to Finland = 1.24 sd.

20. PISA also Shows Income Disparities in Achievement:On the PISA (2006) science test, the U.S. had below average achievement and above average SES disparities in achievement

21. Michigan’s Educational Outcomes

22. Michigan Education in National Perspective(Source: Quality Counts) By most indicators, Michigan is average in terms of tested achievement. Moreover, tested achievement and achievement gaps have been fairly stable this decade.

23. More Evidence of Disparities(Michigan’s low income and minority students perform below comparable students in most other states.) Trends shown here are for 8th grade math. But, trends are similar for reading.

24. Michigan’s Reputation This chart labels Michigan as low in achievement and high in achievement dispar- ities. It measures disparities in terms of % minority student concentration in low achieving schools. It measures achievement in terms of % proficient on NAEP. Ranks are above and below national average and do not take into account statistical significance of state-to- state differences. Source: Lost Opportunity, Scott Foundation for Public Education (8th grade math

25. Other Quality Indicators: Graduation Rates Michigan ranks in the middle of the pack on graduation rates. Source: NCES MI Four Year Cohort Graduation Rates 2007 75.45%

26. Other Quality Indicators: Michigan’s Disturbing Disparities in Graduation Rates (2003-2004) African American 32% Asian 67% Latino 35% White 73% Source: Education Trust, Inc., Education Watch-Michigan (2006)

27. Other Quality Indicators: Michigan’s college going population is taking a rigorous curriculum Source: Achieve, Inc., American Diploma Project, Michigan Report, 2008

28. AND: More Michigan Students Are Taking AP Exams Source: Achieve, Inc., American Diploma Project, Michigan Report, 2008

29. But, Postsecondary Participation and Persistence Lag Behind Top States and Show Real Disparities Source: Education Trust, Inc., Education Watch-Michigan (2006)

30. Why Education Disparities Are Important • Michigan’s population will grow slowly over the next two decades (MI will fall from 10th to 11th in state population rank). • Michigan will continue to have a majority White population (>75%) in the next two decades. • But, almostALLpopulation growth over the next two decades will occur among Black and Hispanic populations.

31. What Michigan Can Learn from Other Countries: Global Trends in Educational Improvement

32. Place in world system: Economic development status Historic civilizations Education “system” variables Centralization/decentralization Standards and accountability Inspection/improvement regimes Time/Opportunity to Learn Cross-sector alignment CBE’s Training models Well-developed teaching profession Choice/Privatization Societal planning models Cross-sector coordination/trust Consistent leadership National commitment National Culture Models Life cycle emphasis (early/late) Ability/effort Out-of-school resources Explanations for Cross-National Differences in Academic Achievement

33. Economic Development/Historic Civilization • There is a “world model” of schooling. • It diffused from the north to the south • (1st to 2nd to 3rd world). • Later adopters generally have lower levels • of “school” knowledge than early adopters • Later adopters also face different issues • in educational management/improvement: • Motivating participation rates • Mobilizing education resources • Government efficiency • The countries we benchmark against are • are more highly developed

34. Among Developed Nations Spending and Achievement Are Weakly Related The USA is among developed nations with high education spending, but lower achievement. In the U.S., research does not show a Consistent relationship between spending and achievement. USA

35. Education System Models:Centralization/Decentralization • The US has a decentralized education system. • We often think that other (non-English-speaking) nations are more centralized. • But, the “world” model of education is moving toward decentralization • Centralization/decentralization occur across many dimensions of decision making. • The new “world” model typically has centralized standards and test-based accountability • But there is huge variation cross-nationally in centralization of other functions, like: • Curriculum • Instructional practice • Resource allocation decisions: • Control over funding • Control over instructional materials (textbooks) • Control over teacher hiring • Inspection/Improvement regimes • Choice

36. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems Centralization/Decentralization • In the table, deeper hue = more autonomy. • European systems vary greatly in • what is centrally/regionally/locally • regulated. • Research suggests that: • Days in school year, length of • school day is not related to • achievement differences • curricular centralization • standardizes teaching • centralization/decentralization • overall have no consistent effects • on assessment outcomes • however, decentralization works best • when accompanied by CBE’s Time Instruction Organization

37. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems Testing Systems European systems have a variety of assessment regimes

38. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems Variation in Test- and Inspection-Based Monitoring of Education England: Large-scale assessment + CBE’s + inspection used in government monitoring of schools. France: Large-scale assessment + CBE’s + inspection used in government monitoring of schools. Italy: Large-scale assessment + CBE’s used in government evaluation of schools. No inspection system. Finland: Monitoring by assessment results Research suggests that systems with CBE’s have higher assessment results.

39. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems Inspection/Reporting Systems England: A list of specific criteria is used for school evaluation, nation publishes results of test and inspection results France: No list of evaluation criteria exists (inspectorate has discretion), and there is no publication of evaluation results. Schools are held accountable to inspectorate. Italy/Finland: No external evaluation of school quality exists. There is no research on the effects of inspection/improvement systems on assessment outcomes.

40. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems Teacher Hiring is Made at Many System Levels England:Municipal hiring (school hiring for “public” schools). France: Central government control over hiring/allocation. Italy: Central government control over hiring/allocation. Finland: LEA control over hiring.

41. A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems School Choice Policies Vary England:Choice with limits France: Allocation Italy: Choice with limits Finland: Allocation Research suggests choice can occur without increasing disparities. Systems with greater private school enrollment have slightly higher assessment outcomes.

42. Applying Cross-National Results to Michigan • In the USA, states might be thought of as the equivalent of national ministries. • But, in the USA, states almost always lack the capacity of national ministries. • Therefore, locating responsibility for different functional responsibilities at different levels of state systems is an important decision. • What system level controls standards and testing? • What system level engages in inspection/evaluation? • What system level has authority over resource allocation?

43. The Michigan Situation • Michigan’s system of standards and assessments is considered “world class” (Achieve, Inc.). • But, MEAP proficiency standards are lower than NAEP proficiency standards. • Michigan receives high grades for cross sector linkages (Quality Counts). • K-12 assessment now linked to college standards, incentives for students (and approximates a CBE) • K-12 workplace linkages exist (career tech diploma, industry licensure) • But, cross-national literature might be used for models of cross-sector linkages

44. The Michigan Situation • Michigan’s system inspection and support for improvement is underdeveloped. • Heavy reliance on state-mandated public reporting • Real improvement assumed to occur through “self-evaluation.” • No “professionalized” and “staffed” inspection system. • Under-developed intervention strategy for under-performing schools. • Michigan’s support of the teaching profession is mixed: • MI teachers are well-paid by American/World standards • MI has increased subject-specific course work requirements and has subject matter testing of teachers • MI does not have well-developed “entry” into teaching • MI does not have well-developed teacher evaluation system • MI does not have well-developed system of monitoring teacher education outputs

45. The Michigan Situation • Michigan’s political system might lack the features of political systems that have stimulated marked and sustained education improvement • Researchers classify Michigan as a “local control” education system • Research shows that this form of decentralization leads to educational improvement when there is: • consensus • and common commitment to improvement • But, researchers also classify Michigan education politics as fragmented, with low consensus • No highly visible, non-partisan policy analysis capacity • Education funding debates often prevail over substantive discussions • Key constituencies in contention • Importantly, platforms for discussion/planning/consensus building are emerging (Superintendent’s re-visioning process, the Center for Michigan)

46. Summary • Michigan education is not at the top by world class standards: • High cost/medium performance/high inequity • Uneven quality of organization: • Strong standards • Strong accountability • Progress on cross-sector linkages • Low improvement capacity • Low attention to upgrading the teaching profession • Michigan needs to come together around educational improvement. • In planning for improvement, there are no magic formula to copy. • Each nation/state is unique. But each can learn from the others. • To stimulate improvement, think about: • System components • How they fit together • What makes sense next in context