Improve teacher quality to fix education system – Mackinac Center

Advancing SDG 4: An Analysis of Michigan’s Educational Policy and Teacher Quality

Introduction: The Challenge of Ensuring Quality Education for All

Michigan’s public education system faces a significant challenge in reversing a trend of declining student performance. This situation directly impacts the state’s ability to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Current legislative proposals focus on increasing spending to reduce class sizes. However, an analysis suggests this approach may be a fiscally inefficient and ineffective strategy for achieving the desired improvements in learning outcomes as outlined in SDG Target 4.1.

Evaluating Class Size Reduction as a Strategy for SDG 4.1

While smaller class sizes are theoretically appealing for providing more individualized student attention, practical application reveals significant drawbacks that could undermine progress toward SDG 4.

• Financial Unsustainability: Implementing a statewide cap on class sizes would necessitate billions in spending for hiring new teachers and constructing additional classrooms. This is particularly concerning as per-pupil spending has already increased by 35% over the past decade with no corresponding rise in student achievement.
• Dilution of Teacher Quality: A rapid expansion of the teacher workforce to meet smaller class size mandates risks lowering overall quality. The experience in California following a similar 1996 law demonstrated that districts were forced to hire thousands of new, often less-qualified teachers, which is counterproductive to SDG Target 4.c’s goal of increasing the supply of qualified teachers.
• Lack of Causal Link to Improved Outcomes: Observational evidence from school administration indicates that teaching practices often remain unchanged regardless of class size fluctuations. The primary determinant of student success is not the number of students in a room but the quality of the instruction they receive.

Prioritizing Teacher Quality: A Core Component of Sustainable Educational Development

The Critical Role of Effective Teachers in Achieving Learning Outcomes

Research consistently shows that teacher quality is the most significant in-school factor influencing student achievement. An effective teacher’s impact on learning outcomes surpasses that of any other controllable variable, including class size. Therefore, to make meaningful progress on SDG 4 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), policy must pivot from infrastructural changes to a direct focus on cultivating a high-quality teaching force. An effective educator with 30 students will foster more learning than a mediocre one with 20, ensuring more equitable opportunities for all students.

Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Teacher Quality and Institutional Effectiveness (SDG 16)

To build strong and effective educational institutions (SDG 16) capable of delivering quality education, legislative focus should shift to policies that directly support and enhance teacher effectiveness. The following recommendations are critical:

1. Adopt Robust, Evidence-Based Teacher Evaluation Systems: To meet the aims of SDG 4.c, it is essential to accurately identify effective educators. This requires an evaluation system that incorporates objective and standardized student achievement data. The 2023 repeal of Michigan’s rigorous evaluation system hinders the ability of districts to distinguish between high- and low-performing teachers, making targeted support and development difficult.
2. Make Job Performance the Primary Factor in Personnel Decisions: Policies such as “last in, first out,” which prioritize seniority over classroom effectiveness, should be discontinued. State law should mandate that performance is the most significant factor in placement, retention, and compensation decisions. This ensures that students have access to the best possible teachers, directly supporting SDG 4.1.
3. Limit Union Bargaining on Policies Impacting Instructional Quality: To maintain strong institutional focus on student outcomes, school administrators must have the authority to manage key personnel policies, including evaluation structures and classroom observations. Allowing these subjects to be part of collective bargaining, as permitted by 2023 legislative changes, can shift the priority from student learning outcomes to teacher seniority and preference, undermining the core mission of educational institutions.

Conclusion: A Sustainable Path Forward for Michigan’s Education System

Achieving the goals of SDG 4 requires a strategic, evidence-based approach to education reform. Policies that emphasize and cultivate teacher quality are demonstrably more effective and fiscally responsible than simply reducing class sizes. By implementing rigorous evaluations, prioritizing performance in personnel matters, and empowering administrators to focus on instructional quality, lawmakers can ensure that Michigan’s students receive the high-quality education they deserve. This path represents a more sustainable investment in the state’s future and a genuine commitment to providing equitable and effective learning for all.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article is fundamentally about the quality of education in Michigan’s public schools. It critiques current strategies, such as reducing class sizes, and proposes alternative solutions focused on improving teacher quality to enhance student learning outcomes. The entire discussion revolves around ensuring effective and quality education, which is the core mission of SDG 4.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

  The article directly addresses this target by focusing on how to improve “student outcomes” and reverse the “downward performance trend in our public schools.” The author argues that policies should be judged by their ability to “improve student learning,” which is synonymous with achieving “effective learning outcomes” as stated in Target 4.1.

• Target 4.c: Substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher development.

  This target is central to the article’s main argument. The author posits that “ensuring students learn from high-quality teachers is the best way to improve their academic outcomes” and that “the quality of a teacher influences student achievement more than any other factor.” The proposed solutions—such as robust evaluation systems and performance-based personnel decisions—are all aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of the teacher workforce, which aligns with the goal of increasing the supply of “qualified teachers.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 4.1 (Implied): Measurement of student learning outcomes.

  The article repeatedly refers to metrics of student success. It mentions that “achievement has stagnated or declined, according to the Michigan Department of Education.” Furthermore, it advocates for a teacher evaluation system that “incorporates objective and standardized student achievement data.” This implies the use of an indicator similar to Indicator 4.1.1 (Proportion of children and young people achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in reading and mathematics).

• Indicator for Target 4.c (Implied): Measurement of teacher quality and effectiveness.

  The article argues against policies that “dilute the quality of the teacher workforce” and advocates for systems to “distinguish the best teachers from the less effective ones.” The proposal for a “robust, evidence-based teacher evaluation system” serves as a mechanism to measure teacher quality. This relates to the principle behind Indicator 4.c.1 (Proportion of teachers who have received at least the minimum organized teacher training), as the evaluation system would serve as a proxy for identifying qualified and effective teachers within the state.

• Indicator for Education Spending (Explicit): Per-pupil expenditure.

  The article explicitly mentions a financial indicator to argue against the current spending strategy. It states, “The state’s per pupil spending has increased by 35% in the past 10 years, while achievement has stagnated or declined.” This use of per-pupil spending data is a direct indicator of financial resource allocation in education.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: mackinac.org