Report: State leaders ‘not working well together’ on education policy – Detroit Free Press

Report on Michigan’s Education Governance and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Executive Summary

A comprehensive, yearlong study commissioned by the Michigan state Legislature and conducted by the University of Michigan has identified significant structural deficiencies in the state’s education governance. The report concludes that a lack of cohesion and collaboration among key state-level entities is negatively impacting student academic outcomes and impeding progress toward critical Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education).

The research highlights that the current framework, involving the governor’s office, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), the State Board of Education, and the state Legislature, operates in a disjointed manner. This fragmentation has resulted in inconsistent educational strategies and a decade-long decline in key academic metrics, such as reading scores.

Analysis of Governance Deficiencies and Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The core finding of the report is the failure of state institutions to work in concert, which directly undermines the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The lack of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions in the education sector has led to a series of abandoned reform efforts and worsening performance, moving the state further from its goals.

This institutional weakness has a direct and detrimental effect on SDG 4 (Quality Education). The absence of a unified, long-term vision for education prevents the implementation of consistent, evidence-based practices necessary to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all of Michigan’s students.

Key Recommendations for Institutional Reform and SDG Alignment

The University of Michigan report outlines several sweeping changes required to reform the state’s educational landscape. These recommendations are designed to create stronger institutions and foster an environment where educational goals can be met.

1. Restructuring Governance for Accountability (SDG 16)

   To build more effective and accountable institutions, the report recommends a significant shift in governance. This includes granting the governor more authority in education policy, such as appointing some members of the State Board of Education and having direct input in the selection of the state superintendent. This change aims to create a clearer line of accountability for educational outcomes, a central tenet of SDG 16.

2. Enhancing Educational Quality and Equity (SDG 4 & SDG 10)

   A series of recommendations focus directly on improving educational delivery and outcomes, aligning with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

   • Adopt Structured Academic Strategies: Implement a clear, statewide approach to improving reading and math proficiency, emphasizing evidence-based classroom practices.
   • Improve Charter School Oversight: Institute measures for greater scrutiny and accountability for charter schools with consistently poor student performance to ensure equitable standards across all publicly funded schools.
   • Invest in Key Educational Areas: Increase funding and resources for teacher recruitment, special education, and school infrastructure improvements. These investments are crucial for reducing inequalities and ensuring every student has the opportunity for a quality education.

3. Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Workforce Development (SDG 8 & SDG 16)

   The report identifies the need to bolster the state’s educational infrastructure to support both students and educators, contributing to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 16.

   • Increase MDE Funding: Provide the Michigan Department of Education with sufficient funding to ensure it has the staff and resources to adequately support the state’s school districts.
   • Clarify Regional Roles: Restructure intermediate school districts to provide more defined and consistent support services to local districts.
   • Fund Career Technical Education (CTE): Prioritize investment in CTE programs to equip students with skills for future employment, directly supporting the goal of productive employment and decent work for all.

Conclusion: The Imperative for Collaborative Partnerships (SDG 17)

The report from the University of Michigan serves as a critical call to action. It underscores that achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education) is contingent upon establishing effective governance as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The current discord among state leaders must be replaced by a unified strategy. Moving forward, progress will depend on the state’s ability to foster robust SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), uniting government, academia, and communities around a shared and sustained commitment to providing every child in Michigan with a high-quality education.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The entire article focuses on the challenges and potential reforms within Michigan’s public education system. It explicitly mentions that “key reading scores, among others, have declined over the past decade” and discusses the need for “a consistent strategy to improve academics among students.” The recommendations aim to improve educational outcomes, funding, and teaching quality, which are central to SDG 4.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article heavily critiques the state’s education governance, describing it as a system where “too many cooks in the kitchen” are “simply not working well together.” The report’s recommendations for “sweeping changes to education governance at the state level,” such as giving the governor more influence, are aimed at creating more effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, which is the core of SDG 16. The criticism of the State Board for being “too political” and the MDE for being unsupportive further highlights the focus on institutional reform.

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

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Target 4.1: By 2030, 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 by highlighting “students’ worsening performance in key metrics” and the decline in “key reading scores.” The recommendation to “adopt a more clear and structured approach to improving outcomes in reading and math statewide” is a direct attempt to meet this target.
• Target 4.4: By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. This is identified through the recommendation to “invest in… Career Technical Education.”
• Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable. The article touches upon this by recommending better funding for “special education,” which aims to provide equitable access for students with disabilities.
• Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. This target is directly addressed by the recommendation to “invest in teacher recruitment efforts.”

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article’s central theme is the failure of the current governance system. The report finds that the main players “are simply not working well together,” and it recommends structural changes, such as altering how the state superintendent is chosen, to create a more effective and accountable system. The criticism of the MDE for having an “onerous grant process” and the State Board for being ineffective (“I don’t even know what they do”) points to a lack of accountability and effectiveness.

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

Indicators for SDG 4 Targets

• Indicator for Target 4.1: The article explicitly mentions “key reading scores” and “students’ worsening performance in key metrics” as problems. It also refers to the need to scrutinize charter schools where “students consistently perform poorly on state testing.” Therefore, student achievement data, particularly reading scores and state test results, are the primary indicators.
• Indicator for Target 4.4: An implied indicator is the level of investment in and the number of students enrolled in “Career Technical Education” programs.
• Indicator for Target 4.c: The success of “teacher recruitment efforts” can be measured by tracking the number of qualified teachers entering and remaining in the profession in Michigan.

Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

• Indicator for Target 16.6: The article implies several indicators for institutional effectiveness. One is the level of funding and staffing for the MDE, as the report recommends sending “more funding to MDE to ensure the agency has the staff and resources.” Another is the implementation of governance reforms, such as changing the appointment process for the state superintendent. The satisfaction of school district leaders, who currently “get frustrated every time I call MDE for support,” could also serve as a qualitative indicator of institutional responsiveness.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: freep.com