Every year, the state administers standardized tests to all fourth, seventh, and 11th grade students, and then it compares individual school districts by the test results. Engler would appoint state administrators to supervise 10 public schools that scored low last year in several cities, including Detroit, Flint, Highland Park and Muskegon.
The schools need help - that is obvious. However, revamping the present administrations to fall under the state's domain is not the answer - running a school district is a local issue and should remain a local issue. Local administrators often start at the lower levels of management and work their way up. They have the advantage of experience and understanding the dynamics of the school's relationship with the surrounding community.
A state appointee may not know or understand the specific problems each school faces, making it difficult for them to improve the situation. Engler's appointees would follow his political ideals and come into the job with a pre-determined agenda. Introducing a foreign philosophy to an unreceptive community would not foster productive working relationships.
In addition, the appointed replacements would be responsible to Lansing, not to the local citizens. The state administrators could act without considering the will of those affected by their decisions. Engler's plan would lead to educational administrative despotism.
Engler made several attempts to reform the state's education system during his six years in office. In his speech, he stated that he wants to further expand the role of charter schools - a clear attack on community-oriented public schools. Appointing state administrators is another stab at public schools' autonomy. Many of the institutions affected are inner-city schools, a group already hard hit by other state cutbacks in educational expenditures and programs like the voucher system.
Rather than sending in state officials, Engler should focus on helping the people who are already working to solve the problem. Funding problems can prevent a school from giving as good an education as it could. The state should provide the schools in trouble with sufficient resources instead of trying to dismember them. Giving the schools more money would allow for more faculty and more individual student-teacher contact - students at risk could get the help they need. In addition, better facilities would provide students with a more education-friendly environment.
Engler has presented the state with an ill-conceived solution to a long-standing problem. It is important to address the issue of at-risk schools, but his methods would likely increase the severity of the problem. To remove experienced, community-savvy administrators and replace them with politicos - with one narrow goal in mind - would hinder schools' improvement, and hurt the students' educational welfare.