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

Thinking Globally About Michigan Education

Brian Rowan

School of Education

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan

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?

Michigan’s Economic Transition

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 wasexport related.

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).

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)

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

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!

An Example of Economic Transition: Finland

Finland’s Trajectory to Economic Development

The Role of Education in Finland’s Economic Growth

Michigan Education in Global Perspective

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?

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

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

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)

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

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

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.

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

Figure 4.10Performance in science and the impact of socio-economic backgroundAverage perform ance of countries on the PISA science scale and the relationship b etween perform ance and the index of econom ic, social and cultural status

Score

Percentage of variance in performance in science explained by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (r-squared X 100)

Note: OECD mean used in this figure is the arithmetic average of all OECD countries.Source: OECD PISA 2006 database, Table 4.4a

Strength of the relationship betw een performance and socio-economic

background below the OECD average impact


background above the OECD average impact


background not statistically s ignificantly dif ferent f rom the OECD

average impact

Sweden

P ortugal

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

J apan

Hong Kong-China

M ontenegro

Greece

Chinese Taipei

Thailand

Azerbaijan

Estonia

UruguayChile

Indonesia

Spain

Brazil

Romania

Argentina

Russian Federation

Liechtenstein

Belgium

Lithuania

Austria

Canada

Latvia

New Zealand

M exico

J ordan

Croatia

Ireland

Colombia

United KingdomAustralia

United States

F inland

Iceland

Tunisia

Israel

Kyrgyzstan

Norway

Slovenia

HungaryM acao-China

P oland

Turkey

Netherlands

Serbia

Italy

Luxembourg

Denmark

Slovak Republic

Korea

France

Switzerland

Germany

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

0102030

Below-average level of student performance in scienceBelow-average impact of socio-economic background

Below-average level of student performance in scienceAbove-average impact of socio-economic background

Above-average level of student performance in scienceAbove-average impact of socio-economic background

Above-average level of student performance in scienceBelow-average impact of socio-economic background

OECD mean

Michigan’s Educational Outcomes

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.

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.

Michigan’s Reputation

Source: Lost Opportunity, Scott Foundation for Public Education (8th grade math

This chart labels Michiganas low in achievement andhigh in achievement dispar-ities.

It measures disparities in terms of % minority student concentration in lowachieving schools.

It measures achievement in terms of % proficient on NAEP.

Ranks are above and belownational average and do not take into account statistical significance of state-to-state differences.

Other Quality Indicators: Graduation Rates

Source: NCES

MI Four Year Cohort Graduation Rates2007 75.45%

Michigan ranks inthe middle of thepack on graduationrates.

Other Quality Indicators: Michigan’s Disturbing Disparities in Graduation Rates

(2003-2004)

Source: Education Trust, Inc., Education Watch-Michigan (2006)

African American 32%Asian 67%Latino 35%White 73%

Other Quality Indicators: Michigan’s college going population is taking a rigorous curriculum

Source: Achieve, Inc., American Diploma Project, Michigan Report, 2008

AND: More Michigan Students Are Taking AP Exams

11th and 12th Graders Taking AP Exams (2004)

18%12%9%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Michigan Nation Top States*

11th and 12th Graders Taking AP Exams (2004)

9%5%7%

28%

3%0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

AfricanAmerican

Asian Latino NativeAmerican

White

11th and 12th Graders Taking AP Exams: 1997-2004

19%

12%

9%

11%

8%

6%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Top Improver(MD)

Nation

Michigan

1997

2004

Source: Achieve, Inc., American Diploma Project, Michigan Report, 2008

But, Postsecondary Participation and Persistence Lag Behind Top States and Show Real Disparities

Source: Education Trust, Inc., Education Watch-Michigan (2006)

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, almost ALL population growth over the next two decades will occur among Black and Hispanic populations.

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

Explanations for Cross-National Differences in Academic Achievement

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

Economic Development/Historic Civilization

1. There is a “world model” of schooling.

2. It diffused from the north to the south (1st to 2nd to 3rd world).

3. Later adopters generally have lower levels of “school” knowledge than early adopters

4. Later adopters also face different issues in educational management/improvement:

• Motivating participation rates• Mobilizing education resources• Government efficiency

5. The countries we benchmark against are are more highly developed

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

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

A Brief Look at Variation in European Systems

Centralization/DecentralizationIn the table, deeper hue = more autonomy.

European systems vary greatly in what is centrally/regionally/locallyregulated.

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


Testing Systems

European systems have a variety of assessment regimes


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.


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.


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.


School Choice Policies Vary

England: Choice with limits

France: Allocation

Italy: Choice with limits

Finland: Allocation

Research suggests choicecan occur without increasingdisparities.

Systems with greater private school enrollment have slightly higher assessment outcomes.

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?

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


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


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)

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

Documents

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