For the last time... at least until next month, when the whole race begins anew, the candidates vying for Todd Courser's former seat took the stage together to field questions from their potential constituents. Republican Gary Howell, Democrat Margaret Guererro DeLuca, and Libertarian Tracy Spilker all attended Tuesday night's forum, in which virtually all the questions were about education. As always, you can watch the video here if you have about 90 minutes to spare, and I'd highly recommend that you do. But as an ongoing public service for those of you who don't, once again we have every question asked of the candidates, and their responses.
First, the candidates were asked for one specific solution they'd offer to fix any of the current issues with education in the state. DeLuca wanted to look at providing proper funding for schools, noting that the money the state gave to schools over the last four years is going primarily to legacy costs. Spilker claimed "the government shouldn't be involved in forcing parents to send their child to school if they don't want to" and that the state shouldn't be as involved in education as it currently is. Howell stated that he'd like to see the legislature step in and increase their contribution towards legacy costs so local districts aren't so burdened by them.
Next, they were asked what school funding should look like in the future. Spilker once again called for less state involvement, acknowledging "I know I sound like a broken record." It's hard to disagree with that self-assessment. Howell, noting that the legislature can't do much, if anything, to change Proposal A, and that he doesn't foresee the state opening up more funds to schools, also stated he would be in support of allowing local school districts to propose millages as a way of increasing additional funds. DeLuca called him out on that immediately after, pointing out that the state legislature has indeed changed the state constitution of late, specifically the senior pension tax. She went on to state that Proposal A needed to be reformed, noting that there's about 50 wealthy school districts that are exempt from its regulations.
The Detroit Public Schools mess was the next subject addressed, as candidates were asked whether the state should be allowed to appoint emergency managers to school districts, and how they would avoid putting schools under state management. Howell noted that Detroit has seen ten superintendents in the last seven years, and that "no school district could operate in that kind of a situation." He went on to add that while no school district in Lapeer County was in danger of that happening anytime soon, whether or not state management is warranted depends on the situation. DeLuca came out firmly against state emergency financial management, pointing out that voters overturned the emergency manager law in 2014, adding that it's an issue of lack of proper funding, not mismanagement of funds. Spilker also argued against state management, going back to her primary point of local autonomy over education.
School district consolidation came up next. DeLuca stated that the state shouldn't be able to force a merger between school districts, but that local districts should be allowed to make that decision if necessary as an absolute last resort. Spilker agreed with DeLuca on those points, while going on to decry the very concept of taxation. Howell argued that there is a better solution, through the Lapeer County Intermediate School District helping individual districts to work together to defray their costs, noting that Imlay City, Almont, and Dryden districts have shared costs on certain programs, and in the case of Imlay and Dryden, a shared superintendent.
Candidates were then asked about using School Aid Fund money for public community college, career and technical education programs, which was. Spilker, naturally, was against, calling for privatization of the above, including college loans, following that with a tangent that went from teaching to standardized tests, to common core. Howell criticized Proposal 1 as a whole for being a "road proposal that had a hundred other things in it, that had no chance of passing," but offered that he would be in support of using school aid funds for vocational programs and community colleges, calling them "an integral part of the high school program." DeLuca was against the idea, blasting it as "robbing Peter to pay Paul," bringing it back around to her point that schools aren't being properly funded as it is.
When asked about separate funding for transportation costs, Howell was in favor of putting it to the voters. DeLuca pointed out the inequality of the current per-pupil funding, in that it doesn't take into account transportation and other costs. Spilker came back to local control, emphasizing that the state doesn't account for the needs of individual districts.
Unemployment was the next subject, as the candidates were asked what role schools districts can play in bringing more jobs to Lapeer. DeLuca gave particular praise to the Lapeer ISD's Ed-Tech program. Spilker touched on teaching job skills briefly before coming back to her ridiculous proposal to eliminate licensing requirements that are in place for certain professions, again using the electrician example from the last debate. Howell also mentioned the Ed-Tech program, particularly the three-year program that allows high school students to obtain an associate's degree at no cost through Ed-Tech.
From there, the topic turned to school safety, and what role the state should have in securing schools from armed intruders. Spilker defaulted to her standard position of letting local governments handle things. Howell was in favor of state appropriations to provide assistance or guards in schools. DeLuca started by informing the audience of pending legislature to eliminate gun-free zones and CPL training, before calling for the state to "put their money where their mouth is" and create appropriations to fund school liason officers.
Funding for charter schools was brought up next, with Howell asserting that charter schools should continue to be funded at the same level as public schools, using Lapeer's Chatfield School as an example, claiming that they are actually funded as a lesser rate already because they don't have access to the same funds to cover their building costs. DeLuca criticized the very idea of taxpayers supporting for-profit charter schools (she did note that the aforementioned Chatfield is a non-profit), bringing up the example of Muskegon Heights, where the emergency manager sold the school district to a for-profit charter school company which then turned around and shut the doors due to lack of profit. Spilker essentially repeated the same answer she has all evening thus far.
Next, the candidates were asked if they agree with policy that would ban or limit the sale of junk foods on campus. DeLuca and Spilker disagreed, saying that local administrators should make those calls. Howell took it a step further, saying there should be no federal regulations on the same. When asked about the increasing role of technology in the classroom, Howell warned of getting too far away from the traditional classroom setting, DeLuca stressed providing enough funding, and Spilker emphasized the importance of exposing children to technology in the classroom.
When asked about using standardized testing as measurement of student achievement, Spilker disagreed with schools being forced to teach to the tests, using a story about her kid's Halloween party that didn't exactly relate to the question. Howell pointed out that as a state representative, he won't have any effect on college admissions, and does not support using standardized test as a basis for teacher pay, but would support merit-based pay for teachers, blaming union contracts for not being able to do so. DeLuca also opposed the idea of using test scores to determine teacher pay, and supported merit-based pay, but also pointed out that schools are still waiting on test results from last year.
Non-traditional programs like virtual learning, year-round calendars, and the like came up next. DeLuca was in favor of the year-round calendar, but somewhat skeptical about virtual learning because of a lack of human interaction. Spilker naturally was in favor of all of the above, though she too expressed skepticism of the effectiveness of virtual learning. Howell made it clear he doesn't think the state should have any role in deciding on this issue. When asked about promoting training in the STEM fields in Lansing, Spilker once again stressed local control, Howell again emphasized not allowing Lansing to dictate local education. DeLuca strongly suggested her opponents' responses simply didn't reflect the reality of the current situation, explaining "In utopia... yes, the state should not be involved in local education, but that's not the case," and that voters should send someone to Lansing who will lessen the negative effects of the current state legislation.
When asked what recommendations they'd have for the state superintendent, Howell mentioned a lack of school funding and overabundance off bureaucratic red tape; DeLuca said she'd suggest ignoring the legislature altogether and listening to teachers and school boards, again citing Phil Pavlov as an example of that; and Spilker yet again advocated lessening government interference.
Next, candidates were asked how they'd fund the mandated-but-unfunded-by-the-state Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System. DeLuca suggested removing privatization from transportation, custodians, and school cooks, citing that as a reason the legacy costs have risen, as well as addressing the other issues that have caused teachers to flee. Spilker argued the opposite, calling for more privatization. Howell pointed out that this is one area in which the state does have authority, but that this mandate needs to be funded by the state instead of placing the burden on local districts.
Another question asked what can be done to reach parents of students that need help. Spilker, naturally, emphasized personal responsibility, and that this is an issue that shouldn't be the role of government, stating "You can't save everybody." Howell stressed doing as much as possible to identify early on students that will need more assistance. DeLuca pointed out that it's not always a case of parents just needing to do more, relating the story of a single mother of two children working two jobs and not having enough time to help the children with school work as much as she'd like to.
When asked how to fund any programs that they've suggested need more funding, Howell stated that there's only two ways to do that: tax increases and reallocating money in the budget, and that he'd choose the latter. DeLuca suggested that Proposal A needs to be reformed and reformulated to take inequalities between districts into account, and go closely over every line-item in the budget. Spilker -do I even need to say it?- emphasized more local control.
Once again, the two front-runners came off well in spots. Howell shined when he was able to point to his successes at the Lapeer ISD, but not so much when asked how he'd fund many of the programs he suggested, and was directly called out by DeLuca in regards to Proposal A when he claimed that legislators couldn't change the amendment. DeLuca came out strong in asserting that the amendment put into place via Proposal A can and should be amended, undermining the narrative that more privatization is a good thing for schools, and pointing out that while less involvement on the state level would be nice, it's at best a pipe dream that simply doesn't reflect the current reality. That would hit particularly hard at Spilker's platform, which is entirely based on less (ideally, nearly zero) involvement from the state on everything, and really showed just how unrealistic that platform is. Think about it: a candidate is running for a state government position whose stated goal is to effectively dismantle state government? While one almost has to admire the optimism required to conclude that such a candidacy could even be viable, it's not exactly crazy to suggest that such a legislator might actually be less effective than the last occupant of the position, who at least had an ally or two in his party.
And with that, election day is a little over three weeks away, and at long last, Lapeer County will actually have representation again for the first time in over a year.
Not that there'll be much time to recover, of course; the next election is only another eight months away.
No comments:
Post a Comment