“I believe we need to bring back the department to the stature that it once had and give the Department of Education back the duties that the Constitution has given it,” said Quarles. Under the Gov. John ENGLER administration several duties once handled by the Department of Education, such as the administration of the Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) test have been given to the Department of Treasury.

Quarles said her goal is “to work with the board to implement their strategic goals, along with ensuring policies that will yield a quality education system for Michigan students and a gratifying environment for the employees.”

She said she also hopes to encourage young adults to become educators to address the teaching shortage, target the Department of Education to become a model education system for the country and develop strategies to improve academic achievement in underperforming schools.

The MEA picked up the roughly $40,000 in production costs and another $5,000 in posting. The Department of Education picked up the other $35,000.

Department of Education spokesman T.J. BUCHOLZ said the school choice and business communities have criticized public education as needing to use a successful business model from which to operate. Part of a good business model is the notion of marketing and for far too long, the work teachers, administrations and support staff have done has not been recognized enough.

“The bottom line is that a lot of what we all contribute to our society can be traced back to the work our public schools have done and we should take the time to recognize their achievement,” Bucholz said.

Dan Quisenberry, president of the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, questioned whether the State Board of Education should be spending money on this type of marketing effort during this time of shrinking state budgets. Businesses typically do not plunk down a lot of money during tight times and Quisenberry questioned whether now is the time to do it.

Republicans argue that when Democratic gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Jennifer GRANHOLM says she wants to "tweak" Proposal A, she means allowing school districts to ask local voters for property tax increases. Apparently Granholm, backed by the Michigan Education Association (MEA), isn't about to pledge that the GOP accusations aren't accurate.

In the meantime, the state's education community has been opposing GOP legislation to consolidate school elections in a manner that would allow such votes to take place on regularly scheduled dates and no longer be operated by school officials.

Put these elements together and Republicans could argue that Granholm and the MEA want to return to the "bad old days" of pre-Proposal A. Under the "bad old days" system, property owners could come home fresh from a vacation (or fresh from spending the winter in Arizona or Florida) to discover their neighbors had just voted to raise their property taxes in an under-publicized school millage election.

The GOP could also argue that the state's spending on education is now up to $6,700 per pupil and this mitigates the need to tweak Proposal A. In addition, Michigan is one of a very few states that hasn't, as yet, had to cut K-12 spending to deal with revenue shortfalls.

Add to this the fact that, as Gov. John ENGLER keeps reminding everyone, Granholm supports binding arbitration for school employees, and defending the status quo on Proposal A could put Lt. Gov. Dick POSTHUMUS in the Governor's Mansion.

But the Democrats may be able to scoff at the GOP accusations. Many political observers argue that Oakland County is the key to the election. In Oakland County, the most affluent Michigan county, residents supposedly are irked about their inability to spend more tax dollars on their local schools.

What's more, polls show that voters favor having the opportunity to vote on school millage issues. Exactly what percentage of the voters view such elections as opportunities to put the kibosh on school spending plans isn't certain. But, politics is not a science that demands very much specificity. In fact, Granholm might pick up votes from those who want to give school districts the chance to ask for further revenues, just so that they (as voters) can take an active role turning them down.

Oddly, the fact that the Democrats aren't likely to take control of the Legislature may help Granholm on the entire Proposal A issue as well. "So what if Granholm wants to tweak Proposal A," the argument will go. “The Legislature won't let her do it anyway."

This dynamic already seems to work to a certain extent in regard to the abortion issue. Many voters argue that it doesn't matter whether a candidate is "pro-choice" or "pro-life" on the state level, since Michigan officials aren't going to have an impact on Roe v Wade regardless.

Granholm doesn't need to be crystal clear on exactly what the "tweaking" of Proposal A means. She holds a double-digit lead, in part, on the centralist stance that government fat should be reduced before anyone even considers raising any taxes. Why should she complicate this message by needlessly raising the specter of Proposal A tweaking?