|
|
|
K–12 Schooling Alternatives
GLOSSARY
Charter school A
school, sometimes having a particular education approach, that is
exempt from certain state regulations; also known as a public school
academy.
Choice Refers to
“schools of choice,” an option that parents sometimes
have that permits them to elect to send their child to a school
other than the one assigned by the local district.
Foundation allowance The
per pupil amount of state funding that pays for most of schools'
operating costs.
Home schooling Educating
a child at home rather than sending him/her to a public or private
school.
Interdistrict choice A
form of school choice whereby parents may send a child to a public
school outside of the school district in which they reside.
Intermediate school district (ISD)
An educational service agency that provides support to
school districts in a certain geographic area (frequently approximates
the county).
Voucher A form of
state aid that allots to parents a certain amount of public money
that they may use to pay for their children's education at any school.
BACKGROUND
[APRIL 1, 2002] One of the most hotly debated topics
in K–12 education is schools of choice (or “school choice”
or, simply, “choice”), whereby parents are permitted
to choose the venue in which their children will be educated. In
Michigan, school choice generally refers to the following:
- Interdistrict (cross-district) choice
- Charter schools
- Vouchers
- Home schooling
Interdistrict Choice
Since 1994, when Proposal A (the school-finance reform
initiative) passed, the amount of state funding a school district
receives depends more on the number of students it enrolls than
previously was the case. Schools now receive from the state a certain
amount (the foundation allowance) per pupil; thus, if a student
leaves his/her current school district for any reason, the district's
state funding is reduced. Losing students can have very serious
financial consequences for a district: for example, a district receiving
the minimum foundation allowance ($6,500) in FY 2001–02 will
forgo $162,500 if it loses just 25 students.
School choice in Michigan has been permitted since
passage of Public Act 300 of 1996, but it is not unlimited. Students
may transfer only to another district that is located within (1)
the boundaries of the intermediate school district (ISD) in which
they live or (2) a contiguous ISD. In addition, there are certain
restrictions.
- School districts may choose whether to participate
in the schools of choice program—that is, whether they will
accept transferring students.
- Districts that choose to participate must publish
a list of grades in which they will accept nonresident students
and the number of students they will allow in each.
- Schools must accept students on a first-come-first-served
basis; they may not discriminate on the basis of race, academic
ability, or any other factor.
- Parents must provide their own transportation.
In the 1996–97 school year, the first that the
law was in effect, almost 8,000 Michigan students attended a school
outside their home district. In 2001–02 the number more than
quadrupled, to about 33,500.
Of the state's 554 local school districts, two-thirds
(64 percent) are accepting students from outside their district.
Since more districts are expected to experience declining enrollment
in coming years, it is likely that in the future more will participate
with the aim of increasing their revenue.
Charter Schools
In 1994, as part of school-finance reform, lawmakers
passed P.A. 362 of 1993, the so-called charter-school law. The law
permits “public school academies” to be established.
Michigan was among the first states to take such a step, and, according
to one education-reform organization, the Michigan law is one of
the most far-reaching in the nation—second only to Arizona's
and Delaware's in the amount of autonomy given charters, the kind
allowed, and other factors.
Michigan charter schools operate under the auspices
of an authorizer, one of four types of public entity: a state
university, school district, ISD, or community college. The authorizer
is responsible for monitoring the charter school's progress and
its adherence to state regulations as well as providing other oversight;
the authorizer may revoke a school's charter if it believes the
school is not performing satisfactorily. The number of charter schools
that state universities collectively may authorize is 150, and this
ceiling was reached in FY 2000–01, meaning that universities
may not charter additional schools unless an existing one closes.
Although there is no cap on the other types of authorizers, they
are confined to authorizing charters in their service area, whereas
a university may authorize schools statewide.
Charter schools are subject to most of the same laws
as traditional schools; for example, they must employ only certified
teachers, are prohibited from charging tuition or teaching a religion-based
curriculum, and must accept students on a first-come-first-served
basis. Unlike traditional public schools, however, they need not
(1) accept all applicants if they do not have available space, which
means they can control school and class size, (2) hire unionized
teachers, or (3) participate in collective bargaining.
Currently, Michigan has approximately 190 charter
schools. Only a minority of Michigan youngsters attends a charter
school (see Exhibit 1). The amount of
state funding lost to traditional schools is about $420 million
(out of $11 billion).
Vouchers
Under a voucher system, the state would provide funding
for parents to send their children to a school of their choice,
be it public or private. A voucher system would be a substantial
departure from the current system, where state aid flows only to
public school districts and parents of private-school students foot
the bill themselves.
Five states—Florida, Maine, Ohio, Vermont, and
Wisconsin—currently offer voucher programs that pay tuition
at private schools. Most are confined either to a specific city
(e.g., Milwaukee) or are targeted to students who have an identifiable
risk of academic failure. Six other states offer tax credits for
private-school expenses or scholarships, and some observers consider
this to be a form of voucher.
Article VIII, section 2, of the Michigan Constitution
specifically prohibits using public monies to fund private- or religious-school
education. This means that to have a voucher system in Michigan,
a majority of voters must approve a constitutional amendment. In
2000 Michigan voters turned down, by more than a two-to-one margin,
a ballot proposal to institute a sweeping voucher program in the
state. The measure would have allowed vouchers in any district having
a graduation rate of less than two-thirds or in which a majority
of voters approved a voucher system. Potentially, all of the state's
districts could have been voucher districts. Had it passed, the
amendment would have created the first statewide voucher system
in the nation in which any district and any student living there
could participate.
The U.S. Supreme Court currently is considering a
pivotal voucher case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, regarding
whether a six-year-old voucher program in Cleveland violates the
Constitution because 96 percent of the students in this state-sponsored
program attend schools that have a religious affiliation. If the
decision, expected in July 2002, upholds the program, it could lead
to an increase of such programs nationwide; if it rules against
the program, the question of whether vouchers may be used at religious-affiliated
schools may be laid to rest permanently.
Home Schooling
The Revised School Code of 1976 states that a child
is not required to attend a public school if s/he is
being educated by his or her parent or
legal guardian at the child's home in an organized educational
program that is appropriate given the age, intelligence, ability,
and any psychological limitations of the child, in the subject
areas of reading, mathematics, science, history, civics, literature,
writing, and English grammar.
This provision makes home schooling legal in Michigan.
The state's home-school laws are among the least restrictive in
the nation—only a handful of other states have laws that are
as or more permissive than Michigan's. See Exhibit
2 for a comparison of states' home-schooling requirements.
The Michigan law requires home-schooling parents to
teach certain subjects, but this is one of the few requirements
it imposes. Home-school parents may choose their own curriculum
as long as it addresses the subjects required by the state. They
may select their own textbooks, issue their own diplomas, and, if
they wish, teach a religion- or philosophy-based curriculum. Home-schooled
students are not required to take Michigan Educational Assessment
Program (MEAP) tests, and there are very little data collected on
the education performance of home-schooled students.
Although there are various reasons why people choose
to educate their children at home, among the most commonly expressed
are dissatisfaction with the quality of public education, concern
about violence in the public schools, a desire for the child to
have individualized instruction, and preference for a curriculum
that reflects parents' values, religious or otherwise.
The number of home-school students is growing. In
the decade from school years 1990–91 to 2000–01, the
number is believed to have more than doubled—from around 825
students to 1,915. Because parents are not required to report that
they are home schooling their children, these numbers are estimates
and likely to be low.
DISCUSSION
The 1998–99 education poll, conducted by Public
Sector Consultants, Inc., found that 58 percent of respondents statewide
believe that students should be allowed to attend any public school
they choose, even one outside their home district. The same poll
found that 53 percent agree in concept with giving public money
to private schools. Alternatives to public schooling are seen by
some as the solution to the ills of public schooling and by others
as a destructive force in education, and the debate may be expected
to continue for years to come.
Choice and Competition
Supporters of school choice claim that choice and
its resulting competition among schools is necessary to improve
education quality in Michigan. They argue that if public schools
lose their “education monopoly,” they will have to respond
more quickly and appropriately to changing student and parent demands.
This market-driven approach, choice supporters say, will help the
education system identify good and bad schools and find ways either
to improve or eliminate the ones not serving students well.
Supporters of school choice also believe that there
is no one best way to learn or teach, therefore students and educators
should be entitled to choose among diverse programs, teaching styles,
and school schedules. They contend that students will be better
and more enthusiastic learners if they may choose a school or program
compatible with their learning style, and teachers and administrators
will be more enthusiastic and effective in schools that support
their personal philosophy of education. The result, they posit,
is better education.
Opponents of the choice concept counter that the market
analogy is not appropriate for K–12 education. They argue
that unlike businesses, schools do not have control over the “raw
material”—the students—who enter their halls. They
assert that by draining resources from traditional public education,
school choice actually is detrimental, rather than beneficial, to
the quality of local public schools. They argue that a healthy system
of public schools is necessary in a democratic society and weakening
the public school system to accommodate the needs of a few is not
in the best interest of the state or nation.
Opponents also argue that public education can be
best improved by working within the current system through such
improvements as adopting a statewide core curriculum (that is, ensuring
that all schools teach the same basic subject matter) and giving
schools the technical assistance they need to deal with low levels
of academic performance. They also assert that there now are many
more choices than in the past within traditional public schools
themselves, and the needs of individual students usually are accommodated.
Charter Schools
Charter-school supporters say that these schools give
parents more options, foster competition among public schools, and
are laboratories where education innovation can be explored and
the findings used to help improve all schools. They point out that
there is a strong parent demand for charter schools, as evidenced
by the waiting lists for admission. They also say that charters
serve many of the state's economically disadvantaged students and
point out that the majority of charter schools are in urban areas,
where traditional public schools frequently face the most difficulty.
Opponents contend that charter schools are damaging
local public schools by taking funding from them. Moreover, they
assert that charters “skim” students from traditional
schools—that is, for the most part they take the better students
and also the least expensive to educate (lower-grade students and
those without special needs). Also, since charters typically do
not hire unionized teachers (who generally draw higher salaries
and benefits than non-union teachers) and are permitted to limit
the number of students they enroll, they may have smaller class
sizes, which gives them an unfair advantage in competing for students.
All of this, opponents say, further hurts traditional schools. They
further contend that studies, such as that conducted by Public Sector
Consultants in 2000, find a lack of education innovation in charter
schools, rendering invalid the argument that charter schools serve
as education laboratories to develop and test new teaching methods.
They also point to a recent state audit report that finds that charter
schools are not sufficiently monitored by their authorizers, and
they argue that these schools should come under much closer scrutiny.
Proponents are fighting to get the cap on the number
of university-chartered schools increased from the current limit
of 150. They argue that as about three-quarters of the charters
are authorized by universities, the cap unfairly limits growth in
the number of charter schools. Charter-school opponents disagree,
contending that until there is greater oversight over existing schools,
new ones should not be started. At this writing, the issue is under
study by a task force appointed by the legislature, and lawmakers
have agreed to delay their vote on raising the cap until the task
force's report, which is expected soon, has been submitted.
Vouchers
Voucher supporters argue that parents of private-school
students pay taxes just as parents of public school students do,
but they do not receive the same benefit from their tax dollars.
They also point out that wealthy families can afford to “escape”
the public schools if they are dissatisfied with them, but low-income
parents, who cannot afford private-school tuition, are forced to
place their children in a local public school whether they feel
the school is adequate or not. Vouchers, they contend, would provide
equity for these parents and their children.
Voucher opponents counter that private-school parents
voluntarily have opted not to send their children to public schools,
thus they voluntarily have chosen to forgo the tax benefit derived
from public education. They further assert that using public funds
to help pay for private schooling would be expensive and drain substantial
resources from public schools. Finally, they object to vouchers
because they believe their use would violate separation of church
and state in that the vouchers, which could be used to attend private,
religious schools, would be paid for with public dollars.
Home Schooling
In regard to home schooling, many supporters feel
that whatever an individual's reasons for home schooling, it is
a parent's civil right. They argue that in public schools, children
may encounter ideas, philosophies, and even physical danger to which
their parents do not want them exposed. Opponents fear that home-schooled
students will suffer from lack of socialization with other pupils
and argue that the state should monitor the academic progress of
home-schooled students. They believe that home-schooled children
easily could “fall through the cracks” educationally
unless there is more state monitoring and assessment.
See also K–12 Funding; K–12 Quality
and Assessment.
F0R ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Charter Schools Office
Central Michigan University
2520 South University Park Drive
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859
(989) 774-2100
(989) 774-7893 FAX
www.cmucso.org
Home School Legal Defense Association
P.O. Box 1152
Purcellville, VA 20134
(540) 338-8899
(540) 338-2733 FAX
www.hslda.org
Michigan Association of Public School Academies
215 South Washington Square, Suite 210
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 374-9167
(517) 374-9197 FAX
www.charterschools.org
Michigan Association of School Administrators
1001 Centennial Way, Suite 300
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 327-5910
(517) 327-0771 FAX
www.gomasa.org
Michigan Department of Education
Hannah Building
608 West Allegan Street
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-3324
(517) 373-4022 FAX
www.michigan.gov/mde
Michigan Education Association
1216 Kendale Boulevard
East Lansing, MI 48826
(800) 292-1934
(517) 337-5598 FAX
www.mea.org
CONTENT CURRENT AS OF APRIL 1,
2002
© 2002 Public
Sector Consultants, Inc.
Sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council
of Michigan Foundations
www.michiganinbrief.org
 
|
