Education Policy in Review
We are pleased to announce a series of publications for educators and policy makers in the state of Michigan who are interested in bringing current research to bear on recent, relevant policy conversations. In Michigan as in other places, there is both a great deal of research being conducted and a number of important policy decisions being made at any given time. We view the two as complementary enterprises that when utilized effectively and coherently, can result in better policy, more local impact and improvements in the educational outcomes for Michigan citizens. More...
Education Brief One:
Achieving the Vision: The Cherry Commission One Year Later (PDF file)
This first brief in our series is particularly timely. It commemorates the one year anniversary of the date at which the Cherry Commission finished its work and provided a report to the Governor. The enclosed brief summarizes what the commission recommended in comparison to similar commissions convened in recent years from a number of other states, considers Michigan’s history of responding to higher education commission reports, provides a progress report of several efforts designed to implement the Cherry Commission’s recommendations, and reviews the research literature that describes best practices surrounding successful education commissions in other settings. In closing, this brief considers the factors that may lead to successful educational innovation in the state of Michigan.
Education Brief Two:
Data Tracking Systems: Rethinking the Purposes and Benefits (PDF file)
In December of 2004, the Lt. Governor’s Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth in the state of Michigan recommended within its final report that the state develop a “lifelong education data tracking system.” The recommendation actually reinforces an effort that was already underway and it reflects an effort to do three things: (1) coordinate existing data structures for K-12 education and the workforce, (2) create an individual record data collection system for higher education, and (3) integrate the three data sources. Data systems of this sort are not entirely new, but they vary by state and differ with respect to how they are constructed, how far students are followed, and who has access to that data.
In this brief we review the critical dimensions of the data system debate and consider the spread of states with individual unit record data tracking systems beginning nationally and then focusing in on the state of Michigan. We also explore the following four challenges facing the creation of individual unit record (UR) data systems: (1) the structure of the system, (2) the cost of creating and maintaining that system, (3) the political dimension of data tracking, and (4) the personal and privacy related issues for students and parents.