I became to pay close attention to district politics in 1997 when the
district mandated gifted classes in grade 2 if any parent in a school wanted
gifted programming. Many site councils were opposed. I got copies of the
teacher edition of curriculum guides for all subject areas. For English
language reading instruction in early elementary grades, K-3 and up "ability
grouping" was advocated. And I saw how students were assigned to separate
classrooms for reading instruction with radically different objectives. Most
white students in grade 1 were assigned to the reading class for high ability
learners, "the smart kids." Kids in the low ability learners' class were
divided into groups who engaged in learning activities under direction of the
teacher for about 10 minutes out of a 50 minute class period. The focus was on
whole word recognition strategies along the lines of the discredited "look-say"
approach adopted in the 1930s. In that school, about 60% of African American
students continuously enrolled in grades K-4 fell behind at least two grade
levels in the 4th grade.
A recent delegation of gifted and talented advocates complained that the
1997 ability grouping policy in still on the books but not enforced. Schools
such as Kenwood elementary are allowed to not offer the gifted programming, and
some parents who want the programming are threatening to pull their kids out of
the district's schools. To my knowledge, the district has never done a balance
sheet on the 1997 ability grouping policies. But I have spoken with teachers
who consider the implementation of that policy to have been a disaster for the
district. In reviewing student enrollment data for 1994 and subsequent years
around 2004, I noted a sharp decline in enrollment of African American, Native
American and Asia students from 1997 to 1998 and subsequent years in grades 1,
2, and 3. The number of these students of color steeply declined from year to
year for each cohort of student. Grade one enrollment also declined far more
than average. Grievances about the effects of high turnover, the tracking, the
enforcement of a draconian attendance policy that flooded the Hennepin County
court system and finally many losing bus transportation in 2002 as the district
shifted funds to the classrooms cause a collapse of student enrollment in 2003.
Many teachers were laid off before the end of 2003, class sizes were greatly
increased. And the flight of marginalized students of color from the district
and into charter schools continued.
I had written a research paper on ability grouping in 1994 that I modified
and self published as a pamphlet in early 1998 and distributed hundred of
copies in and around the NAACP. I am not a fan of ability-grouping, and never
was. I attended public schools in South Washington County during the 1960s
which did not ability group at all at any grade level. I encountered
ability-grouping in St. Paul Public Schools that sorted and grouped students in
junior high. Kids who attended an elementary schools that mostly served a very
affluent residential area in St. Paul were invariably assigned to advanced
courses, and kids who attended an elementary school serving a working white
working class neighborhood were invariable assigned to regular classes. I was
initially enrolled in "regular" then transferred to "advanced" that were
equivalent to the courses taken by nearly all students in South Washington
County.
I became active in the education advocacy committee of the Minneapolis NAACP
branch soon after I joined the NAACP in December 1997, and was recruited as a
plaintiff in Xiong v. State of Minnesota in early 1998. Xiong v Minnesota was a
companion lawsuit to NAACP v. Minnesota, which was filed in 1995 and eventually
combined with Xiong et al v Minnesota. I also began to work with Evelyn
Eubanks, who had been the president of the citywide Parent-Teacher-Association
when she came out in support of the NAACP lawsuit in 1995. That led to her
being ostracized by many persons she had worked with in the district for many
years. However, she was in high demand as a volunteer advocate, which got her
into many schools and she was an awesome public speaker. Together with some
NAACP members and non-NAACP members, we established the Parent Union, which
focused on public policy advocacy. We showed up to most board meetings and
spoke on policy issues. Eubanks advanced to the general election ballot in 2001
and I advanced to the general election ballot in 2002. I was her treasurer in
2001 and she was my treasurer in 2002.
Through my involvement in the NAACP, I learned about the district Community
School Plan, which was supposed to be about assigning kids to schools that were
close to home, and cutting bus transportation costs. However, the district drew
attendance boundaries, sited new schools and spent over $200 million on
converting elementary and middle schools into more racially pure K-8 schools.
The board had passed a resolution in 1995 cleverly titled "Closing the Gap:
ensuring that all students can learn" which argued that assigning students to
schools in or near their neighborhoods would get parents more involved. Parent
involvement was allegedly the key to "closing the gap, but plan didn't get the
expected results." The resolution also promised to do more to equalize school
facilities. But, according to long-time members of the NAACP branch education
advocacy committee, the school board had long turned a deaf ear to their
concerns about the "churn" of teachers in high poverty schools, in many cases a
majority of teachers had not completed their 3 year probationary period. A
large majority of newly hired teachers left the employ of the district before
they completed their 3 year probationary period. A lay off notice enables
teachers to take jobs with other school districts, and a layoff notice
effectively terminates the employment of probationary teachers in first class
cities (population over 100K).
The 2002 district improvement plan set as its strategic goal having low teacher
turnover rates in all schools by increasing retention of new teachers. The
district took some steps to increase retention, such as a mentoring program,
but continued to issue layoff notices to all probationary teachers every year.
In the early 1990s, in conjunction with class size reduction in Minneapolis and
elsewhere, the pool of probationary teachers was greatly increased. Veterans of
the NAACP education advocacy committee pointed out that this led to increased
exposure of students to newly hired, inexperienced and provisionally licensed
teachers, with the lion's share of newly hired teachers being assigned to
high-poverty, "racially identifiable" schools.
Lawyers representing the NAACP in its lawsuit against the state argued that
many students in Minneapolis were not getting an adequate education because of
racial segregation. They embraced the idea that schools were doomed to failure
when enrollment of marginalized students of color reached a "tipping point,"
and that the Minneapolis school district as a whole was doomed to failure
because only about 30% of students were white. The hyper-segregation of the
school district caused by the Community School Plan was not something over
which the NAACP wanted to sue the school district. Nor did they want to sue the
district for discriminatory practices, including "color blind" policies with a
disparate impact on students of color. The remedy initially proposed was an
"unlimited," metro-wide school choice plan for students in high poverty,
"racially-identifiable schools" as defined in Minnesota Administrative Rules,
chapter 3535 related to equality of educational opportunity in K-12 schools.
I published and distributed a written critique of the settlement proposal, and
the NAACP branch rejected the settlement proposal on the recommendation of the
branch education advocacy committee and the executive committee. The NAACP's
lawyers formally withdraw as my legal counsel in retaliation for my role in
shooting down their settlement proposal. What the NAACP eventually settled for
was a limited, urban-to-suburban busing. But not before a hostile takeover of
the Minneapolis NAACP branch by the DFL and its allies. Many white politicians
who never set foot in an NAACP branch meeting bought $10 memberships and cast
their votes to replace a branch leadership that kept the DFL at arms length,
even daring to criticize actions of a Black mayor, Sharon Sayles Belton, and a
black school superintendent, Carol Johnson. The outgoing branch president,
Leola Seals was defeated by a very narrow margin. Most of her supporters were
excluded from committees by committee chairpersons and many left the
organization before the NAACP education adequacy lawsuit was eventually
settled. Katherine Williams, a former education advocacy chair and I were the
only persons to vote against the settlement. About a dozen persons walked out
of the meeting rather than vote for or against the settlement.
My purpose in standing for election to the school board is to advocate changes
in policy needed to provide all students a quality public education on an equal
basis. As long as the district continues to maintain a large pool of newly
hired teachers, there will be large racial disparities in exposure of students
to newly hired, inexperienced and provisionally licensed teachers. Retention
rates for teachers of color are also quite low because they are heavily
assigned to schools where they are at greatest risked of being performance-laid
off and perhaps more likely to quit because of poor working conditions.
On a year to year basis, the added payroll costs related to increasing
retention of new teachers (letting more climb the pay ladder) are less than the
cost of hiring and training their replacements. The added payroll costs related
to more teachers climbing the pay ladder will exceed the cost of hiring and
training replacements in the longer term. However, this mounting cost (plus
more teachers becoming eligible for retirement) will come in relatively small
increments. There are other downsides to maintaining a large pool of
probationary teachers, such poorer outcomes for students, more kids getting
dumped into special Ed, especially those labeled with social, emotional and
behavioral disorders. That drives up special Ed costs. The district has been
segregating rather than integrating many special Ed students into mainstream
classes, and the "churn" of teachers in high poverty schools and tracking
policies throughout the district are driving this exclusionary dynamic.
Declining enrollment, especially of kids who are follow by Title 1 and
compensatory money is adding mightily to the districts fiscal problems.
Why isn't the teachers union receptive to policy changes that will shrink the
pool of newly hired teachers? Superintendents and school board members have
alleged that the district can't afford to increase retention rates without
cutting teacher pay or increasing class size. It is argued that I must be in
favor of cutting teacher pay because I call for steps to increase teacher
retention rates. I have heard that objection to my candidacy from some teachers
over the years. There is evidently a perceived self-interest of teachers that
is being threatened. I don't know how else to explain it. However, the
continuation of this inequitable cost containment strategy is fueling the
growth of charter schools, is weakening public support for public schools and
it is accompanied by the de-skilling, de-professionalization and
de-unionization of the teaching profession.
-Doug Mann