As a result–well, no one has a clue yet. But it is possible that rather than racing off a cliff, the buffaloes, gasping and blinking, have wandered into a lush, high policy meadow. They may have liberated themselves, as Senator Stabenow suggests, to start over, to spend the next year (before the new tax law becomes effective) rethinking not just the way schools are funded in Michigan, but how–and whether–they are working. The governor certainly is playing it that way. He has appointed a commission to redesign the system. “Once we decide what sort of schools we want and how much it will cost, then we’ll figure out how best to pay for it,” says Gleaves Whitney, an Engler aide. “But we’ve got to break out of this ossified, ancient way of providing education.”
Although no decisions have been made, the commission seems to be moving toward a radically decentralized system of publicschool choice. Parents would be given the equivalent of a voucher, which they could “spend” for tuition at any public school, providing there is room (neighborhood kids would get first crack). The schools would, in effect, be autonomous, free to create their own curriculum (within limits), make their own deals with the union or to subcontract out for food and janitorial services (which, studies show, are often cheaper when provided by the private sector). The assumption is that privatization, a diminished educational bureaucracy and a limitation on the union’s power to control every aspect of school life will produce a less expensive, more flexible, equitable and productive system. A combination of sin, sales and, yes, local property taxes would pay for the new system. Affluent communities would still be able to spend more per pupil; but poorer communities would receive augmented state support. Almost all of which has the teachers’ union apoplectic. The union in this case is the Michigan Education Association (MEA), which is the flagship chapter of the National Education Association (NEA), which has quietly become the largest and, arguably, the strongest labor union in the country. The NEA routinely sends more delegates to Democratic Party conventions than any other organized interest group (almost one out of eight delegates in 1992). It has virtual veto power over the congressional committees that supervise education; it is the most powerful lobbying force in most state legislatures (GOP and Democratic alike) and has de facto control of a great many local school boards. It also has a record unblemished by support for any recognizable form of educational creativity or accountability. it opposes teacher testing (as Bill Clinton found out in Arkansas), standardized tests for students, merit pay, more flexible certification of teachers, any whiff of privatization and–most vehemently–any meaningful form of school choice.
The MEA has issued “parameters” that preclude almost every reform Engler’s commission is considering. “Choice is a Band-Aid,” says Beverly Walkow, the MEA’s executive director. “The question is, how do we change education to give every student what they [sic] need to compete in a more complex…world?” The notions that students might have different needs, that parents might prefer one curriculum to another, that schools might benefit from having to compete against each other, that the more innovative teachers might benefit from creating their own programs (as has happened in New York’s East Harlem)–all are alien to the union’s party line, which is, in effect, there isn’t any problem more money won’t solve.
This union’s intractable–and utterly self-interested-position has forced a spurious national debate: more choice vs. more money Choice is no panacea, but East Harlem has shown that students can be energized when real choices are offered: more money can also be helpful, but only when spent in a system that works. (Ultimately, both choice and money are side issues. For 25 years, almost every serious study has found only one variable that has a significant impact on the educational success of children: their parents.)
The situation in Michigan is heartening, though, because it suggests a creative compromise. A conservative like John Engler seems ready to provide more financial support to poorer communities if liberals like Debbie Stabenow are ready to explore ways to make the system more flexible and accountable. Stabenow seemed enthused about the possibilities last week-but she is now very much a pariah to her former friends in the MEA. The union will fight this to the last tuna surprise. It has lost few battles in recent years; but if it loses in Michigan, it can be beaten anywhere.
