WORKING PROPOSAL
Innovation in Education:
Economic Development & Post
Secondary Success
-A Plan for Michigan-
Michigan Association of Intermediate School
Administrators
1001 Centennial Way, Suite 300
Lansing, MI 48917
Washtenaw Intermediate School District
-1-
Committee Membership
2011-12
Name
William C. Miller
District
Michigan Association of Intermediate Schools
Association
Holly Heaviland
IgnitED: Michigan New Tech Network
Brandy Johnson
Michigan College Access Network
Chery Wagonlander Michigan Early Middle College Association
John VanWagoner
Michigan Department of Education
Leonard Burrello
Educational Consultant
-2-
Title
Executive Director
Director
Executive Director
Director
Director, High School Unit
Michigan Innovation Network for Post-Secondary Success
Working Proposal
State Context
Innovation has emerged as one of the most popular buzz words in the K-12 education
today, rivaling accountability in terms of capturing the attention of policymakers
(Lefkowits & Martinez, 2010). Michigan has numerous initiatives focused on creating or
transforming schools and systems into 21st century learning environments, such as MIExcel (statewide system of support for schools struggling to meet academic achievement
goals), MEMCA (Michigan Early Middle College Association), New Tech Network
(school development model that focuses on culture creation, technology infused, and
relevant and engaging instructional model), EdWorks implementation sites, & Ford
Partnership for Advanced Studies model sites. There has also been a large growth in the
number of International Bacculaurate programs in the state, mainly at the secondary level
(Okma, 2011).
While this list is not meant to be exhaustive of the systemic innovation in our state, it
signals the level of interest and local need to think differently about our school systems,
especially at the secondary level. Much of this work connects directly to the Lieutenant
Governor’s Commission on Higher Education & Economic Growth (2004) report and we
propose several strategies to advance many of the educational policy recommendations in
a systemic manner.
In Michigan, 35.6% of the state's 5.3 million working-age adults hold a college
degree. This compares to a national average of around 38%. Our BIG GOAL is to
increase Michigan's rate to 60% by 2025. If Michigan continues at its current pace, we
will only have a college attainment rate of 43% in 2025, falling short of our big goal. By
increasing degree production by 9,722 degrees each year between now and 2025 (6.3%
annual increase), Michigan will reach the big goal. This is imperative to serving the
needs of Michigan's future economy. A recent analysis by the Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce predicts that 62% of Michigan's jobs will require
postsecondary education by 2018.
In order to close this degree production gap, we must to work to ensure that every
secondary student enters a postsecondary institution prepared to successfully complete a
degree - socially, academically, informationally, and financially. The Michigan
Innovation Network is designed to ensure that students participate in secondary school
options that prepare them for a seamless transition to a postsecondary credential.
Overview and Purpose
How is innovation defined as it relates to teaching and learning? In general, models must
focus on meeting the requirements of a 21st century education that will prepare all
Michigan students to succeed in a global economy. It is argued that Michigan consider
the following as non-negotiables for innovation:
 customized
 technology infused
-3-





choice
equity
collaborative & boundary spanning
skill based
early college credit
Additionally, this work must be financially sustainable in the long-term, aligned with the
community’s own economic development strategy, and supported by various community
stakeholders.
What are the lessons learned from innovation in the social sector?
Crutchfield & Grant (2008) write in, Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact
Nonprofits, that great organizations work with and through others to create more impact
than they could ever achieve alone. These groups use the power of leverage to create
tremendous change, which translates into the ability to influence people, events and
decisions. They influence and transform others in order to do more with less. They are
not only focused on themselves but also on the relentless pursuit of results. High-impact
nonprofits leverage impact with government, business, individuals and other networks.
Crutchfield & Grant (2008) found patterns in the ways these organizations worked.
1. Advocate & serve. They combine great programs with advocacy the leverage
greater impact.
2. Make markets work. They influence business practices, build corporate
partnerships, and developed earned-income ventures—all ways of leveraging
market forces to achieve social change on a grander scale.
3. Inspire evangelists. They create meaningful ways to engage individuals in
emotional experiences that help them connect to the group’s mission and core
values. They build and sustain strong communities to help them achieve their
larger goals.
4. Master the art of adaptation. They have mastered the ability to listen, learn,
and modify their approach based on external cues—allowing them to sustain their
impact and stay relevant.
5. Share leadership. CEOs are exceptional strategic and gifted entrepreneurs; they
distribute leadership throughout their organization and their network—
empowering others to lead. They cultivate a strong second in command, build
enduring executive teams with long tenure, and develop highly engaged boards in
order to have more impact.
Lefkowits & Martinez (2010) analyzed lessons learned from innovation in the state of
Indiana and offer seven key lessons for state leaders, including policy makers, business
people, community leaders, intermediary agencies & philanthropic organizations
interested in introducing and scaling up educational innovation in Michigan.




Lesson #1:
Lesson #2:
Lesson #3:
Lesson #4:
Develop a Broad Vision for Change
Anchor the Vision to Principles
Secure Public and Private Financial Support
Utilize Intermediary Agencies
-4-



Lesson #5: Identify and Emulate Effective Models
Lesson #6: Align Policy to Encourage Innovation
Lesson #7: Nurture and Maintain Stakeholder Support
Current Reality for Michigan
In completing an environmental audit of stakeholders in Michigan, the graph below is
attempting to provide a description of the current state of innovation as it relates to
creating learner-centered secondary school options for all students. Again, this draft is
not thought to be exhaustive, but rather a beginning dialogue to identify the needs for
education, tied to economic development in Michigan.
Key Lessons for Innovation
Current Reality

Various visions for change with
different stakeholders, depending on
context.

Re-Imagine Districts
2. Anchor the vision to principles.

Proposed draft of non-negotiable
principles: (customized, technology
infused, choice, equity, collaborative
& boundary spanning, skill based and
early college credit experience)
3. Secure public & private financial
support.

Private support focusing on MCAN as
investor to increase college access.

MEMCA has long history of
partnership with MDE & Mott
Foundation funds.

IgnitED funded initially by MDE
Educational Technology, 21st Century
funds, with local match.

MAISA, MCAN, MEMCA, IgnitED
convening some of the innovative
networks.

IB & Ford PAS-unknown

Early/Middle College

Ford PAS

New Tech High

EdWorks

International Baccalaureate
1. Develop a broad vision for change.
4. Utilize intermediary agencies.
5. Identify & emulate effective
models.
-5-
6. Align policy to encourage
innovation.

MEMCA has provided leadership and
partnership with MDE in this area. IB
as well.
7. Nurture & maintain stakeholder
support.

MSU Principals & Coaches
Fellowship

High School Dropout Challenge

School Improvement, MCAN &
MEMCA Conferences
Implementation (What is it going to take to make this happen?)
It is apparent that in order to re-imagine teaching and learning to create learner centered
secondary options that help Michiganders reach the goal of 60% of our population
obtaining a career certificate, 2 year or 4 year degree by 2025, we must work
collaboratively across various sectors to strategically use our human, intellectual and
financial capital. Additionally, four barriers to post secondary attainment exist: academic
preparation, social capital needed to navigate post secondary, college knowledge, and
financial. All areas must be addressed to increase our percentage of Michigan residents
with a post secondary credential.
With the reality of substantial per pupil funding loss for the 2011-12 school year, local
districts need to work collaboratively and strategically with networks and leadership
organizations to support their development, implementation and sustainability of
innovative practices and programs. There exists a need to work with innovation
stakeholders at the state level, in partnership with MDE, to provide the coordination,
collaboration & communication needed to help sustain and seek creative solutions to
implementation issues.
It is important to recognize that many local districts have already begun innovation in
their communities. Additional recommendations include:




Identify stakeholder membership.
Review the Key Lessons learned from Indiana and determine work plan.
Identify options for an organization to serve in the coordination, collaboration &
communication role regarding innovation in the state.
Determine assets of stakeholder members to be aligned and coordinated.
It is proposed that an intermediary, Michigan Innovation Network (MIN), be created to
create learner-centered secondary school options starting in seventh grade through
college for all Michigan students through the coordination of the college acceleration
networks. This network would be organized around the Local College Access Networks
(LCAN), which are cross sector, community lead local networks focused on aligning
resources and creating solutions to community-based post secondary completion needs.
Thirty-six LCANs currently exist with additional sites in the planning stages; the nonprofit sector, specifically Kresge & regional Community Foundations, has been an
instrumental leader and funder of this work in Michigan.
-6-
Michigan Early Middle College Association has 20 current sites that overlap with the
LCAN regions, as well as 10 New Tech High implementation sites as of fall 2012. Mott
Foundation has invested funding to support a Technical Assistance Center, located at
Mott Community College to serve the state with implementation. Many of the early
college models overlap with existing LCAN regions. These regions will focus on school
improvement to help re-build the Michigan economy and refocus schools and
communities on pursuing the quality of life Michigan resident’s desire.
MIN Solution
MIN begins it work with current statewide networks that are supporting innovation and
will start building capacity that is regionally organized to deliver articulated curricular
and instructional programs informed by the ACT suite of tools and other reliable
measures that allows families and students during middle schools to determine their
college readiness. Students and families will create personalized learning plans with a
target in mind and begin to plan school programs with the end in mind. Student plans are
continued or revised according to student and family goals and data on student progress.
These newly created local and regional networks working inter-dependently, developed
what Ban (2011) calls research high schools to lead their peers in the design,
implementation, and evaluation of programs and practices that allow for multiple
pathways for success using the Career & College Core Standards as their guide.
Research high schools, with network leaders from MEMCA, MCAN, IgnitED-New Tech
High Schools & Re-Imagine Districts, become the learning laboratories for regional civic
and economic development. Private & public funding of these networks is needed over
time to build and sustain organizational and individual leadership in schools and
communities to create the effort needed to reduce and eventually, eliminate achievement
gaps grounded in social class, race, gender, ethnic, and disability sub-groups.
We are proposing a new non-profit entity be established and partner with either a public
state university (to conduct program evaluation studies) or the Michigan Association of
Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA) to deliver on the future for all Michigan
students and communities.
Values
Equity of access and equity of outcome is a criterion of success for all projects with the
MIN; inequities are the engine of school reform. School reform starts with school staff
and community voices, partnerships, and participation in determining what and how
education is to be transformed. MIN is a fundamental inclusive strategy to school and
organizational development of districts, as well as individual schools. Personal effort is
required of students, parents, teachers, principals, districts, and community actors if
school reform is to be launched and sustained (Mulligan & Kozelski, 2009). Reform of
schooling requires time for collaboration for all stakeholders and should be lead by
school and community leaders, including parents, community members, teachers,
administrators, and whenever possible, students themselves. Multiple measures of
student and adult learning is crucial to guide decision making and make implementation
adjustments through the reform process.
-7-
Vision
The vision of MIN is to create just and equitable educational opportunities that benefits
all students, families, and communities throughout the state of Michigan.
Mission
The purpose of MIN is to assure a coordinated system of community resources and
support to assist all Michigan schools and communities in preparing students to be
college and career ready, critical, independent thinkers, who are socially and ethically
responsible, and able to do meaningful and valuable 21st century work.
System
MIN envisions a network of public & private services working together to support
community development, as well as district and school capacity. As with any system,
there is needed infrastructure that ensures coherence and sustainability and key policies
that drive programmatic efforts. Organizational Infrastructure needs:
 Critical policy analysis & development
 Collaborative governance
 Accountability and responsibility for desired outcomes
 Inclusive networking structures
 Student driven inquiry and post-school evaluation
 Data and information systems
 Professional development and technical assistance
 Parental and community engagement
 Communication and public will building
 Service system integration
 Financing and fund development
 Program evaluation.
Key components of this system are proposed below:

Student academic preparation through personalized, learning planning starting in
7th or 8th grade through college and post school employment and careers.

21st century skills with an emphasis on critical inquiry, argument, comprehension,
writing across the curriculum, and application to substantive projects that are
meaningful and relevant to 21st century life.

Early and annual formative and summative assessments and just in time feedback
to influence curriculum and instruction, as well as community supports needed for
student learning.

College access through both early college course taking and socialization of
students towards college life, increasing their personal capacity for college
knowledge.
Results
The MIN is working toward the following:
-8-
Students who are critically engaged and assuming increasing responsibility for their own
learning while becoming college or career prepared – 65% of all students are college
prepared and 25% are equally prepared for post-school careers and employment.
Leaders and teachers are knowledgeable, critical, transformative, multicultural, and social
justice advocates.
Community leaders use their assets to connect and influence all aspects of socialeconomic-political policy and resource allocations that affect students and schools, civic
and economic development.
State policy makers coming to know how executive and legislative actions differentially
benefit students, schools, and communities.
Challenges/Issues
Two major challenges or issues must be addressed locally: owning the inequities in our
current systems and regions and re-aligning our school district orientations.
First, each community must own it lack of attention and infrastructure’s liabilities that
contribute to poor school and post-school outcomes from health services to transportation
and housing. This requires highlighting inequities in the system and culture of schools
and communities that requires increasing the availability and transparency of data across
all the dimensions that affect children and their families.
Research by Rorrer, Skria, & Scheurich (2008) suggested that successful districts
transcended the “all students can learn” rhetoric by (1) operationalizing an equity focus
planning that includes developing programs, policies, and consistent teaching strategies
that lead to high levels of achievement; (2) by decentralizing management and budget
and monitoring of results at the school, grade or department levels; (3) by aligning
curriculum with assessments; (4) and by committing to a research based planning
process. Research by Anyon (2005) and Smyth et al (2009) (5) requires the community
power structure to own the problems that prevent the pursuit of a quality life by all
citizens.
Second, where MIN comes into the design of contextually based solutions is the
modeling by districts, schools, and community partnerships. The design of a networking
process starts with successful schools and communities who have benchmarked their
programs and practices with external assessors who are ready to coach others in
determining how to achieve their desired outcomes. The starting point for transformation
is owning and planning forward to eliminate inequities, the political will to change, and
then the re-alignment of district purpose, values, infrastructure, community power forces,
resources and assessment criteria.
The school and district level transformation begins with three key components:
expectations, targets, and tools. The expectation that 60 to 90% of all students should be
prepared for college and careers post-school comes first (Ban, 2011). Targets and a set of
metrics to judge success come next. Schools and districts need a set of tools,
-9-
infrastructure and technology that provide all stakeholders, including students, teachers
and parents, a weekly or bi-monthly gauge of how they are learning what we want them
to learn. This all occurs in the context of regional civic and economic development.
When levels of student, teacher, school, district, community and state efforts are aligned
with clear goals, we will increase our attainment of college and career preparedness.
Conclusion
The MIN strategy is complex and requires a mix of local, regional, and state effort tied to
specific components of social-political-economic and cultural recognition of each one’s
role in the development of healthy communities that holds everyone accountable for their
level of effort. Each community must own inequity of access and achievement to quality
curriculum, instruction, and authentic assessment toward the valued outcomes proposed
above in the mission statement (See Appendix A).
In order to re-imagine teaching and learning to create learner centered secondary options
that help Michiganders reach the goal of 60% of our population obtaining a career
certificate, 2 year or 4 year degree by 2025, we must work collaboratively across various
sectors to strategically use our human, intellectual and financial capital. MIN can serve
as the state innovative network to build this capacity and foster collaborative
partnerships.
Summary
Lefkowits & Martinez (2010) analyzed lessons learned from innovation in the state of
Indiana and offer seven key lessons for state leaders, including policy makers, business
people, community leaders, intermediary agencies & philanthropic organizations
interested in introducing and scaling up educational innovation in Michigan.
 Lesson #1: Develop a Broad Vision for Change
 Lesson #2: Anchor the Vision to Principles
 Lesson #3: Secure Public and Private Financial Support
 Lesson #4: Utilize Intermediary Agencies
 Lesson #5: Identify and Emulate Effective Models
 Lesson #6: Align Policy to Encourage Innovation
 Lesson #7: Nurture and Maintain Stakeholder Support

It is proposed that an intermediary, Michigan Innovation Network (MIN), be created to
create learner-centered secondary school options starting in seventh grade through
college for all Michigan students through the coordination of the college acceleration
networks. This network would be organized around the Local College Access Networks
(LCAN), which are cross sector, community lead local networks focused on aligning
resources and creating solutions to community-based post secondary completion needs.
Thirty-six LCANs currently exist with additional sites in the planning stages; the nonprofit sector, specifically Kresge & regional Community Foundations, has been an
instrumental leader and funder of this work in Michigan.
Michigan Early Middle College Association has 20 current sites that overlap with the
LCAN regions, as well as 10 New Tech High implementation sites as of fall 2012. Mott
Foundation has invested funding to support a Technical Assistance Center, located at
- 10 -
Mott Community College to serve the state with implementation. Many of the early
college models overlap with existing LCAN regions. These regions will focus on school
improvement to help re-build the Michigan economy and refocus schools and
communities on pursuing the quality of life Michigan resident’s desire.
The MIN is working toward the following:




Students who are critically engaged and assuming increasing responsibility for
their own learning while becoming college or career prepared – 65% of all
students are college prepared and 25% are equally prepared for post-school
careers and employment.
Leaders and teachers are knowledgeable, critical, transformative, multicultural,
and social justice advocates.
Community leaders use their assets to connect and influence all aspects of socialeconomic-political policy and resource allocations that affect students and
schools, civic and economic development.
State policy makers coming to know how executive and legislative actions
differentially benefit students, schools, and communities.
In Michigan, 35.6% of the state's 5.3 million working-age adults hold a college
degree. This compares to a national average of around 38%. By increasing degree
production by 9,722 degrees each year between now and 2025 (6.3% annual increase),
Michigan will reach the big goal. This is imperative to serving the needs of Michigan's
future economy. A recent analysis by the Georgetown University Center on Education
and the Workforce predicts that 62% of Michigan's jobs will require postsecondary
education by 2018.
In order to re-imagine teaching and learning to create learner centered secondary options
that help Michiganders reach the goal of 60% of our population obtaining a career
certificate, 2 year or 4 year degree by 2025, we must work collaboratively across various
sectors to strategically use our human, intellectual and financial capital. MIN can serve
as the state innovative network to build this capacity and foster collaborative
partnerships.
Additional Resources:
www.cherrycommission.org
www.micollegeaccess.org
www.newtechnetwork.org
- 11 -