Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!
Opinion | Michigan must commit to shift from seat time to learning in budget process
Share this:
Michigan’s seat-time requirements make it harder for schools to respond to how students learn. When success is defined by hours logged rather than skills mastered, schools are pushed toward one-size-fits-all pacing that ignores individual needs. That structure is not just outdated; it actively limits what educators can do for students who need something different or deeper.
The consequences show up in Michigan’s outcomes. Fourth-grade reading proficiency and eighth-grade math proficiency stood at roughly 24% in 2024 – both trailing national averages. These gaps persist despite rigid requirements to track 1,098 instructional hours and 180 seat days annually, which is why hundreds of districts each year pursue seat-time waivers, navigating complex pupil accounting rules just to offer modest flexibility. Schools spend time proving compliance rather than designing learning, and the very mechanisms meant to enable innovation instead generate more paperwork and constraint.
Michigan has tried improving student achievement through additional mandates and prescriptive laws that force districts into uniform compliance. What’s needed now is greater local autonomy — paired with clear guardrails like state standards and accountability metrics — to unlock more personalized, effective learning.
Other states are already moving in this direction. New Hampshire eliminated the Carnegie unit in 2005, requiring high schools to award credits based on competency mastery by 2008–09 and expanding options like online courses and apprenticeships. Oregon has allowed proficiency-based credit since 2003, tying coursework to demonstrated standards by 2009. Vermont’s 2013 Flexible Pathways Initiative mandates graduation through demonstrated proficiency, not fixed seat time. These states give schools room to meet students where they are, redefining credit around skills rather than instructional minutes.
Research reinforces that there is no reliable relationship between time spent in a seat and meaningful learning gains. What matters is how time is used, not how precisely it is counted. High-performing systems around the world vary widely in calendars and schedules, yet consistently outperform us because they prioritize instructional quality, personalization, and mastery over compliance.
Michigan’s own work points in the same direction. Launch Michigan, the Michigan Education Guarantee, the Future of Learning Council, and other statewide efforts all reflect a shared recognition that rigid, industrial-era structures no longer serve today’s learners.
Superintendent Maleyko’s “Students First” focus provides a through line connecting Michigan’s Top 10 Strategic Education Plan with broader efforts across the state. Together, these efforts call for flexibility, coherence, and student-centered design–none of which align with a system that assumes learning happens at the same pace for everyone.
With Governor Whitmer’s FY 2027 budget now before the Legislature, Michigan has an opportunity to amend the School Aid Act and replace seat-time mandates with competency-based measures. If Michiganders are serious about putting students first, lawmakers must use this budget cycle to let go of a structure built for factories, not classrooms.
Mastery, not minutes, must define what it means to learn.
Related
Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.