Michigan Precollege Education, Inc. (MPE, Inc.): Corporate Statistics Circa 1996
A state's system of public education has some characteristics of a very large corporation. Selected statistics on that business provide a context for the performance indicators which follow.
Statistics on Michigan Precollege Education, Inc. (MPE, Inc.) - an invented name for Michigan's K-12 system of public schools - relate to Michigan citizens through age 24. Clearly, the precollege education of some Michigan citizens was secured entirely outside of MPE, Inc. However, many received all or part of their K-12 education within MPE, Inc., an organization with the following characteristics. (NOTE: All figures have been rounded off.)
| Independent divisions (districts) | 690 | ||
| Plant sites (schools) | 3450 | ||
| Top managers (district) | 2250 | ||
| Middle managers (principals) | 5100 | ||
| Craftsmen (teachers) | 85,600 | ||
| Customized units/day (students) | 1,600,000 | ||
| Defect rate | 11% (18- to 20-year-olds lacking a diploma) | ||
| Annual budget | $11,070,000,000 (80% of which is from state funds) |
The CEO of MPE, Inc. is the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction. However, MPE, Inc. is an organization in which the CEO has limited control of policy and budget; decision-making power is distributed throughout the organization, with final authority resting with the citizen-shareholders of the communities that govern the 690 independent divisions.
Caveats: These figures from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) are for public schools only and are for the 1995-96 academic year. [NOTE: While MPE, Inc. stockholders may view the 1996 figures as outdated, they are the most recent available in national reports. NCES does not gather the relevant data every year (a cost consideration), and two to three years is the standard lapse of time between the gathering of US-wide data and its publication. International studies can take up to five years to process data because, prior to the release of any information, they require review of cross-country analyses by all participating countries and the preparation of all country-specific reports.] The 1996 statistics on MPE, Inc. do not include private schools (180,000 students) or home schools (2300 students). They do not reveal the distribution of resources across schools or variations in local involvement in management of the system. Finally, the 1996 data provide a statistical snapshot of MPE, Inc. for but a single year, whereas generating a final product takes 13 years. [NOTE: Assuming an annual cost-of-education increase of 3.5%, the final cost of a MPE, Inc. product exiting the system in the year 2009 is about $111,500.]
Content Standards
The State of Michigan has developed model content standards in mathematics and science for grades K-12. Defined in the Michigan Curriculum Framework as "descriptions of what a student should know or be able to do" relative to mathematics and science, Michigan's content standards draw upon national documents such as those produced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Research Council. The Framework also includes standards benchmarks (performance standards) at each of three grade-level clusters - examples of high achievement of the standards at each grade cluster. The performance standards were adopted by the Michigan State Board of Education in 1995. Any district seeking state accreditation of its schools must adopt performance standards that "consider" the state's performance standards.
The Michigan content standards in mathematics and science received unsolicited reviews by three national organizations: American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 1998), Council for Basic Education (CBE, 1997), and Fordham Foundation (1997). All three organizations evaluated Michigan's mathematics standards; only AFT evaluated the science standards. Fordham gave the mathematics standards a summary grade of F; CBE gave them a B+ for rigor and a C for clarity. AFT, in lieu of summary grades, gave check marks for standards that they judged to be clear, specific, and grounded in content, at each of three grade levels - elementary, middle and high school. AFT gave Michigan's mathematics standards and science standards check marks for all three grade levels.
Caveats: The wide range of "grades" assigned to Michigan's standards suggest differences in the focus or criteria of the evaluating organizations. Indeed, the three reports reveal diverse proposals as to what constitutes "quality" in content standards. AFT's grade was based on how well the standards addressed a "common core curriculum." Specifically, AFT's criteria for quality required that the standards be linked to specific grades or grade clusters, be detailed and comprehensive, be firmly rooted in the content of the subject, be stated clearly, and be explicit regarding what was required of all students. CBE split its attention between rigor and clarity, comparing each state's standards to a CBE-developed framework of what the curriculum should be. The Fordham criteria for mathematics and science standards were developed independently and stress different aspects, but the requirements of rigorous content, organization, and clarity are common threads. Fordham compared each state's standards to its own model standards; it also penalized states for inclusion of what it deemed "false doctrine" or "anti-academic qualities" that went against what Fordham viewed as being appropriate content and methods.
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)
The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) provides statewide assessment of mathematics (grades 4, 7, and 11) and science (grades 5, 8, and 11). MEAP science tests at all three grade levels have been aligned with the 1996 Michigan Curriculum Framework. The MEAP mathematics test for grade 11 also has been aligned with the 1996 Framework; tests for grades 4 and 7 will be aligned by 2002. Michigan's high school (grade 11) version of the MEAP includes 32 multiple-choice items and 5 constructed-response items in mathematics; it has 39 multiple-choice items and 7 constructed-response items in science.
In 1998, the percentages of Michigan grade 4 and 7 students achieving the Satisfactory level of performance in mathematics were 74% and 61%, respectively; the percentages of grade 5 and 8 students achieving that level in science were 40% and 22%. Beginning in 1998, a student's score on each high school subject-area test was converted to one of four performance levels (Exceeding Michigan Standards; Met Michigan Standards; Basic Level; Not Endorsed) based on cut-off scores approved by the State Board. The first three levels carry "endorsement" status. Results of the Spring 1998 testing were (when rounded off to the nearest whole percent):
| Mathematics: | 20% Exceeded | 39% Met | 17% Basic | 23% Not Endorsed |
| Science: | 9% Exceeded | 43% Met | 28% Basic | 21% Not Endorsed |
Although performances at the Basic Level result in subject-area endorsements on a high school diploma, neither a Basic Level nor a Not Endorsed performance meets the state's performance standards. Also, a discussion of the Spring 1998 results on the Michigan Department of Education website notes that "the State Board of Education and many Michigan educators believe that basic skills [the Basic Level] are no longer sufficient for student success following graduation." Eventually, school accountability legislation will require that 70% of the students who take the test must reach endorsement status or the school will be marked as a low-performing school and state actions will follow. However, state policy allows parents to exempt their children from taking any portion of the grade 11 MEAP. In Spring 1998, 12.5% of grade 11 students were granted exemptions from one or more subject areas.
In 1997, FairTest (a nonprofit testing and assessment reform advocacy organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts), evaluated the state assessment systems of the 50 states. Only one state (Vermont) was designated a model system (FairTest's highest of five ratings) and six were designated as needing only modest improvement (FairTest's second highest rating). The Michigan Student Assessment Program (MEAP), under development at the time of FairTest's review, was among seven state assessment systems judged in need of significant improvement (FairTest's third highest rating). While generally positive toward Michigan's intent to develop standards-aligned assessment instruments and to use test results as only one component of the evaluation of students and schools, FairTest expressed two principal concerns regarding MEAP: (a) heavy reliance on multiple-choice items, and (b) failure to engage Michigan's classroom teachers in scoring the tests' few extended-response items. Also, FairTest urged improved reporting to the public regarding assessment, including reports in languages other than English. [NOTE: Michigan's Statewide Systemic Initiative recently released Math+Science+Parents=Your Child's Success, a booklet to help parents understand and engage in the state's efforts to improve mathematics and science education.] FairTest praised Michigan's provision that allows parents to review tests and to exempt their children from testing.
Caveats: FairTest employed a carefully-designed set of principles and procedures in conducting the assessment. However, MEAP was under development at the time of its evaluation; evaluation of the fully-developed MEAP could be more - or less - favorable. Also, the FairTest principle that "the broad community" should participate in assessment development could be applied to assessment evaluation. That is, there is need to examine carefully the criteria on which FairTest's evaluation of MEAP is based in order to ensure that those criteria are compatible with Michigan's expectations of its system of assessment.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results: Mathematics
The 1996 National Achievement of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in mathematics assessed public school students in grades 4, 8, and 12, and reported results for each grade in terms of four achievement levels.
Advanced: Superior performance
Proficient: Solid academic performance; demonstrated competency in knowledge of mathematics, application of mathematics to real-world situations, and analytical
skills appropriate to mathematics
Basic: Partial mastery of mathematical knowledge/skills appropriate to the grade level
Below Basic: At grades 4 and 8, sample sizes of Michigan public school students participating in the testing were large enough (2382 students at grade 4; 2155 students at grade 8) to permit state-level reporting of results. The percent of sample groups of Michigan public school students reaching each of the four achievement levels on the NAEP mathematics test were:
| Grade 4: | 2% Advanced | 21% Proficient | 45% Basic | 32% Below Basic |
| Grade 8: | 4% Advanced | 24% Proficient | 39% Basic | 33% Below Basic |
Performance at both grade levels varies widely by ethnic group. The percentages of Michigan public school students achieving ratings of Advanced or Proficient in mathematics were:
| Grade 4: | 28% White | 3% Black | 7% Hispanic |
| Grade 8: | 34% White | 5% Black | 12% Hispanic |
The percentages of public school students failing to achieve the Basic level of achievement in mathematics were:
| Grade 4: | 22% White | 70% Black | 58% Hispanic |
| Grade 8: | 23% White | 71% Black | 63% Hispanic |
In its 1998 report, the National Education Goals Panel cites Michigan as the state making the largest (and statistically significant) gain between 1990 and 1996 in the percentage of students achieving Proficient or above ratings on NAEP mathematics tests for grade 8 (rising from 16% to 28%). Still, Michigan's 1996 mathematics performances were, nationally speaking, average. That is, Michigan was not among the four states that performed significantly better than the U.S. as a whole at grade 4 (CT, ME, MN, WI); neither was it among the nine states that performed significantly better than the U.S. as a whole at grade 8 (AK, CT, IA, ME, MN, MT, ND, NE, WI).
Also in 1998, the National Center for Education Statistics released a report in which 1996 NAEP mathematics scores were used to estimate how each of 41 states would have ranked had they joined the 41 countries that participated in the grade 8 mathematics portion of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Based upon Michigan's NAEP mathematics score for grade 8, it is estimated that the state's public schools students would have scored significantly higher than students in 10 countries, would have performed on a par with students in 21 countries (including the U.S.), and would have scored significantly lower than students in 10 countries.
Caveats: The NAEP sample sizes permit only state-to-state comparisons on entire test scores. They do not reveal any specifics about what mathematics students know and are able to do -- that is, NAEP reports on mathematics as a whole, not on specific concepts or skills. In fact, NAEP reports only at the state and national levels because, owing to both the law and the construct of the test itself, NAEP cannot provide information on schools or individual students. And in interpreting the state-level comparisons of NAEP performances, attention should be given to the comparability of the demographics of states that performed significantly better than MI at grades 4 and 8. The NAEP-projected ranking of Michigan among TIMSS countries will be measured more precisely in Spring 1999 when the state participates as a "country" in the TIMSS retesting. In association with that retesting, Michigan will examine student performance in a sample of schools that are using "reform" curricula.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results: Science
The 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test in science provided state-by-state assessment of grade 8 students for 40 states. In Michigan, 32% of the grade 8 students achieved a level of Proficient or above. Eleven states had larger percentages, ranging from 34% to 41%. The 1998 report of the National Center for Education Statistics also used the 1996 NAEP grade 8 science scores to estimate how each of 40 states would have ranked had they joined with the 41 countries in participating in the grade 8 science portion of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Based upon Michigan's NAEP science score for grade 8, it is estimated that the state would have scored significantly lower than only two countries (Czech Republic and Singapore), would have performed on a par with 23 countries (including the U.S.), and would have scored significantly higher than 16 countries. Had it been outperformed by Singapore alone, Michigan would have joined the 14 states singled out in the 1998 National Education Goals Panel report as having achieved "world-class standards in 8th grade science."
Caveats: The 1996 NAEP provided state-level science scores for the first time - and only at grade 8. As in the case of the mathematics NAEP, the sample sizes permit only state-to-state comparisons on entire test scores. They do not reveal specifics about what science students know - that is, NAEP reports on science as a whole and in three general fields, but not on specific concepts or skills. Also, NAEP reports only at the state and national levels; both by law and by the construct of the test itself, NAEP cannot provide information on schools or individual students. [NOTE: The 1999 state-level NAEP will test science at grades 4 and 8, thus providing a state baselines for grade 4 science.]
National Assessment Results: College-Bound Students
About two-thirds of Michigan's graduating class of 1997-98 participated in the American College Testing (ACT) Program. Students had an average composite score (English, mathematics, reading, and science reasoning) of 21.3 on the 36-point scale, exceeding the national average composite score of 21.0. Michigan's average score on the mathematics subsection of the test was 21.2 (up 0.6 points from 1996-97); its average score on the science subsection, 21.6, was unchanged from 1996-97. In 1996, 5% of Michigan's grade 11-12 students took the Advanced Placement (AP) Examination in mathematics, and 6% took the AP Examination in science; according to 1997 figures, about 25-30% of those students achieved a score of 3 or higher on the examination (mathematics or science) taken.
Teachers
The 1997 State-by-State Report Card of the Commission on Teaching and America's Future assessed each state on 12 indicators of attention to quality teaching. Michigan was assessed as having achieved "high quality" (as defined by the Commission) on 4 of the 12 indicators. Those indicators are marked with asterisks below.
Caveats: Commission indicators 2 and 3 addressing the content preparation of teachers are restricted to teachers of grades 9-12, yet full-year courses in algebra and geometry often are taught in grades 7 and 8. Commission statistics regarding Michigan (e.g., "40% of the teachers completed at least 9 clock hours of professional development...") are taken from reliable public resources such as the National Center for Education Statistics, but some date back to 1993-94. And although those 1993-94 statistics note that 22% of Michigan's secondary school teachers who taught one or more science classes did so without at least a minor in science, the Commission limits its attention to mathematics teachers. Also, the research bases of the Commission's criteria of "high quality" are unstated. (Why does the Commission restrict "Professional Accreditation" to membership in NCATE? There are other accreditation agencies. How many of Michigan's teacher education programs are accredited by those alternative agencies? Also, might it be more to the point to know what percent of Michigan's teachers are graduates of accredited teacher education programs? Why a criterion of 9 clock hours of professional development for 60% of the teaching force rather than, say, of a minimum of 40 clock hours for a selected 30% of the teaching force? What is the evidence that 20 nationally certified teachers - or 56 , or even 63 (Michigan's updated count in 1998) - is an valid indicator of quality when applied to a total Michigan teaching force of over 85,000?)
Teacher Salaries and Teacher Supply
In 1996, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that teacher salaries (measured in constant 1993-94 dollars) declined steadily each year between 1971-72 and 1980-81. Salaries then rose through 1990-91 before becoming flat. In 1997, the average salary (in constant 1993-94 dollars) was very close to the 1971-72 level. In Michigan, the average salary of teachers rose approximately 1% between 1995-96 and 1997-98 to about $47,200. During that same period, the average salary of teachers in Detroit fell about 8.5% to approximately $39,700 (and to a ranking of 423rd among Michigan's school districts). Across the state in 1998, the average teacher salary for a school district ranged from $15,400 to $71,800, with the lower salaries being typical in rural districts.
In September 1998 and again in February 1999, U.S. Secretary of Education Riley pointed to a pending critical shortage of qualified teachers. One-third of U.S. teachers have been teaching for 20+ years. Projected increases in student enrollment, coupled with the retirement of an aging teacher force, will require the hiring of over two million teachers by the year 2010, by which time 75 percent of the current teaching force will have left the classroom. [About a quarter of Michigan's mathematics teachers and biology teachers were 50 years old or older in 1990.] But the potential pool of teachers is shrinking, in part because other professional opportunities have opened to women and minorities, Michigan's State School Aid Act (PA 142) is seeking to reduce class size in grades K-3, and more students are being encouraged to take more mathematics and science. As a result, some schools are employing teachers who have as little as one year of college education.
Caveats: The statistics on teacher supply are national in scope and, hence, do not provide information specific to the State of Michigan, areas of the State of Michigan, or teaching fields. For instance, Michigan produces more teachers than any other state; it is an "exporter" of teachers. However, research has shown that the shortage of qualified teachers is a function of subject area, geographic region of the U.S., and specific locale (e.g., inner-city schools).
Detroit
Detroit Public Schools, with over 183,000 students, is the nation's tenth largest school system. The city accounts for 10% of the state's population, 12% of the state's children, 11% of the state's public school students, 7% of the state's spring 1994 graduates, 44% of the state's minority students, 31% of the state's poor children, and 61% of the state's children living in extremely impoverished neighborhoods. About 90% of Detroit's K-12 enrollment is African-American. While 33% of the state's 8th graders scored below the Basic level on the 1996 mathematics NAEP, 70% of Detroit's 8th graders fell below the Basic level. The percentages of Detroit student meeting or exceeding state standards expectations on the Spring 1998 MEAP tests in mathematics and science were 19% and 13%, respectively; for the entire state, the achievement rates were 59% and 52%, respectively. Caveat: While Detroit is the largest city in Michigan, it is not the only large city in Michigan. Education profiles of other large cities in the state may be quite different from Detroit and from each other, suggesting the need for different strategies to improve performance in mathematics, science, and technology education. Some may have similar profiles, highlighting avenues of profitable collaboration.
Sources of Information
American Federation of Teachers. (1998). Making standards matter 1998. Washington, DC: Author.
Archbald, D. A. (1998). The reviews of state content standards in English language arts and mathematics: A summary and review of their methods and findings and implications for future standards development. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1997). Mathematics and science content standards and curriculum frameworks. Washington, DC: Author.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (June 1997). State education profiles: science and mathematics indicators (electronic state education profile). Washington, DC: Author, http://www.ccsso.org.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1997). State indicators of science and mathematics education 1997. Washington, DC: Author.
Education Commission of the States. (1999). Future trends affecting education. Denver, CO: Author.
Educational Testing Service. (1996). NAEP 1996 mathematics: Report card for the nation and the states. Princeton, NJ. Author.
Educational Testing Service. (1997). Toward inequality: Disturbing trends in higher education. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Education Week. (1998). Quality counts '98, the urban challenge: Public education in the 50 states. Washington, DC: Author.
Ellis, A. E. (1999, February). Report to the state board of education: 1997-98 biennium action plan progress [A report by the Michigan Superintendent of Public Instruction to the Michigan State Board of Education]. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education.
Jennis, M., Barley, Z. A., Dodson, S., and Holaday, K. (1998). Capacities for sustaining system reform: A review of mathematics and science education in Michigan at the conclusion of the 5-year Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative (MSSI). Kalamazoo, MI: Michigan State University.
Joftus, S., and Berman, I. (1998). Great expectations? Defining and assessing rigor in state standards for mathematics and English language arts. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Lerner, L. S. (1998). State science standards: An appraisal of science standards in 36 states. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Michigan Department of Education Web Pages. (Updated on 11 September 1998). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, http://www.mde.state.mi.us.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997). NAEP 1996 mathematics report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1997). State-by-state report card: Indicators of attention to teaching quality. New York: Teachers College.
National Education Goals Panel. (1997). The national education goals report, 1997: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1997). The national education goals report summary, 1997: Mathematics and science achievement for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement state by state, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1998). Promising practices: Progress toward the goals, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neil, M. (1997). Testing our children: A report card on state assessment systems. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing.
Raimi, R. A., and Braden, L. S. (1998). State mathematics standards: an appraisal of math standards in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Japan. Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
U. S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Digest of education statistics, 1997. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.