after getting permission to do so by the MN Board of Education in 1996. The
mechanisms include redrawing attendance boundaries and converting elementary
and middle schools into K-8 schools. For example, instead of an elementary
school and a middle school that serve two neighborhood, you get two K-8
schools, each serving one neighborhood. In 1995 there were 8 schools where
enrollment of students of color was more than 15% above the district average
for grade levels serve. By 2005 there were 23 schools where enrollment of
students of color was more than 90%, or more than 20% above the district
average for grade levels served. The effort to segregate the students by race
and income went far above and beyond what was required in order to implement
the Community School Plan.
By the year 2000, the Legislature had enacted administrative rules
related to Equal Opportunity in Education that allowed school districts to
operate "racially identifiable" schools, provided that the school districts
submitted annual reports showing whether there are measurable racial
disparities in educational inputs, such as teacher experience and teacher
turnover rates. If disparities exist, the Districts have a duty to continue to
monitor the disparities and come up with plans to eliminate the disparities.
The MN commissioner of Education must request, and School Districts provide to
above-mentioned annual reports as a matter of compliance with Title 6 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Education clause of the Minnesota Constitution,
and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The Minnesota Department of Education and the Minneapolis School District (and
many other school districts) have been non-compliant all along. We have gotten
a more racially segregated and unequal system of education.
On the issue of racial disparities in exposure of students to
inexperienced teachers, the district improvement plan of 2002 set a goal of
reducing teacher turnover rates in all schools to low levels by retaining more
teachers. However, high teacher turnover rates and high exposure to
inexperienced teachers persisted in high poverty schools because the district
administration, with the School Board's approval, fired all probationary
teachers every spring and selectively rehired or replaced them in the fall.
Despite a huge reduction in the teacher corps in a period from 2001, about 25%
of teachers in regular Ed programs, and about 33% of special Ed teachers were
on their 3 year, post hire probationary period.
The District's lawyers told the school board members that the District
was required by law to fire all the probationary teachers every year. I asked
the district's lawyers to cite the laws the district to fire all its
probationary teachers every year. No such law exists. This was always done at
the Board's discretion. The Teacher Tenure Act for Cities of the First Class
arguably allows, but does not require to send lay off notices to all
probationary teachers every spring. The Tenure Act that applies to all other
school districts give probationary teachers recall rights if laid off, but not
the Tenure Act for Cities of the first (population 100,000 or more).
For the past several years, the Minneapolis School District stopped
firing all its probationary teachers every year, but has continued to maintain
a large pool of probationary teachers via "performance layoffs." A large
percentage of probationary teachers, especially in their 2nd and 3rd years are
fired every year. Perhaps with the assistance of test score-driven evaluations,
probationary teachers are being ranked and yanked.
A problem with the rank and yank strategy to improve teacher quality, keep
the best and fire the rest, is that high poverty schools continue, as always,
to have a high concentration of inexperienced teachers (on average). Another
problems is that teacher competency and effectiveness cannot be reliably
measured by student test scores because of sampling errors and variables other
than "teacher quality" that can deviate from predicted levels. A third problem,
especially for new teachers with long duty days, as in "Priority Schools," is
that the evaluation system (and long work day) motivate new teachers to rely
heavily on the scripted curriculum provided to them. The scripted curriculum is
focused on test prep and aligned to the standards develop by testing companies
(the Common Core). The curriculum is narrowed and watered-down, and their is a
heavy reliance of teacher centered instruction and drill and kill typical of
watered-down curriculum tracks.
Also several years ago, the District obtained an important concession
from the teachers union: The end of "forced placement of experienced teachers"
if their happen to be experienced teachers applying for an open position.
Exposure of students in high poverty schools to inexperienced teachers had
decreased and test scores and other outcomes improve as the open positions were
being filled with experienced teachers. With the end of "force placement " of
experienced teacher, low-poverty schools continued to hire the experienced
teachers, and the high poverty schools generally hired inexperienced teachers.
What role did teachers' rights and job protections play in establishing
and maintaining a high inequitable system of public education. Almost none. I
can only fault the teachers union for not opposing, and even supporting
policies of the administration and Board that got us into this situation.
By failing to take the necessary steps to fix the public schools, the
School Board and administration helped to generate support for charter schools
as an alternative to people who are poorly served by the public schools. And in
recent years, the Minneapolis School District has been promoting and even
sponsoring charter schools.
I stand for compliance with Civil Rights laws as presented in Minnesota
Administrative Rules, chapter 3535, related to Equal Opportunity in Education.
I advocate elimination of disparities in measurable educational inputs
between high and low poverty schools, including racial disparities in exposure
of students to inexperienced teachers, as the law requires. Toward this end I
endorse the goal of the 2002 District Improvement Plan of increasing teacher
retention rates. However, the district administration must take all necessary
steps to reduce the pool of probationary teachers, including putting checks on
the power of principals to fire and replace the probationary teachers. The
primary purpose of evaluations should be to help teachers improve their
practice, not to rank and yank.
I call for an end high-stakes testing, and to reduce the amount of
standardized testing and test-prepping that is being done.
Instead of longer school days for students in high poverty schools, we
should reduce exposure of students to inexperienced teachers and reduce teacher
turnover rates. The approach that I advocate was tried as an experiment
beginning in the late 1990s at North Star Elementary and Elizabeth Hall
elementary schools. There is clearly a strong correlation between student test
scores and other outcomes and teacher experience. Experience as a big factor in
instructional quality was also finding of fact in the Statement of Need and
Reasonableness of Minnesota Administrative Rules, chapter 3535, related to
Equal Opportunity in Education.
I also oppose District promotion and sponsorship of charter schools.
Let's fix the system so that a quality, public education is available to all on
an equal basis.
Doug Mann for School Board (Facebook Community)
https://www.facebook.com/mannforschoolboard
Doug Mann for School Board (Blogspot)
http://mannforschoolboard.blogspot.com
-Doug Mann, Folwell neighborhood, north side of Minneapolis