Based on a post to the Minneapolis Parents' Forum
Re: New topic: The Forum and the upcoming elections
Michael Atherton writes,
"American public education has failed and continues to
fail to adequately educate children of color. The primary
difference between now and the period prior to the 1960s
is that earlier discrimination was explicitly
enforced by laws and regulations, whereas contemporary
academic failure is perpetuated passively by the
maintenance of ineffective policies and the failure to adopt
effective ones. In the face of such impotence, it is not
surprising that responsible individuals outside of the
education might promote alternatives."
Doug Mann responds:
By many measures, including testing by the National
Assessement of Educational Progress, the racial test
score gap was being closed from the late 1960s to late
1980s. I believe the widening test score gap is a result
of more racial segregation and the disparate impact of
harmful policies on students of color, including watered
down curriculum tracks and the firing and replacement
of most teachers before they complete their post-hire
probationary period (three years in MN)
I disagree that racial discrimination is no longer a consequence
of laws and regulations. For example, there is a special teacher
tenure act that allows 3 school districts in Minnesota to fire and
replace every teacher employed for less than 3 full years: The
Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth school districts. Nearly all
African Americans in Minnesota were confined to those cities
at the time this law was enacted. Elsewhere in Minnesota, there
is a tenure law that permits the firing a teacher employed for less than 3
full years for misconduct or poor performance. There is no
way that school districts elsewhere in the state can create
a revolving door for new teachers. The difference in the tenure
law accounts for most of the difference in teacher turnover
rates.
No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top grants do NOT call for the
modification of tenure laws as needed to end the practice of arbitrarily
firing and replacing teachers on probationary status in big city
school districts. In fact, No Child Left Behind / Race to the Top
calls for repeal or modification of tenure laws that will enable
all school districts to drive up teacher turnover rates by the same
means and with the same discriminatory effects.
Michael Atherton writes,
"And it is not just suburban schools who enjoy the benefits
of "good" students. Through "passive" discrimination a select
set of Minneapolis Public schools function as privileged
enclaves. This has occurred because of passive discrimination
that has allowed for teacher expertise and stability,
as well as middle-class students, to become entrenched while
other schools struggle."
Doug Mann responds,
There are certainly huge disparities in terms of teacher expertise
and stability between schools. On that point we agree. However, there
is nothing passive about the discrimination that produces those disparities.
The racial discrimination is a product of definite actions with predictable
results.
Michael Atherton writes,
"Mr. Mann if you have no plan to redistribute teacher
quality, I suggest that you, and everyone else in
Minneapolis, allow students to attend whatever school
they want. Anything less is unjust and discriminatory.
Won't get you elected though."
Doug Mann responds,
Students are not allowed to attend whatever school they
want. There was rhetoric about the No Child Left Behind agenda
giving students unlimited choice. But it wasn't true.
School choice remained quite limited. The better public schools
could limit enrollment and turn away students who wanted to
escape the poor performing schools. For student attending
the worst public schools, the alternative is usually a charter
school, and some are homeschooled or go to a private or
suburban public school.
What do you mean by a plan to redistribute teacher
quality? I once favored a redistribution of teachers
in such a way that every school site and program
would have a similar balance of teachers with high,
low and medium levels of experience and education.
But I put this forward as a one-time realignment of teaching
position, with an ongoing restriction on the assignment of newer
teachers to any established school program,
which means that some of the vacancies in schools
with the most stable teaching staff would be reserved
for newly hired teachers, or a recently hired teachers
through a bidding process in the event that the district
does not have enough new hires to go around.
I no longer support a massive realignment of teachers
for reasons already outlined in a previous post.
See: Don't drink the corporate school reform Kool-Aid
https://educationright.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/2001005/dont-drink-the-corporate-school-reform-koolaid/
The linchpin of my plans to eliminate disparities in
teacher quality has always been an end the practice of
firing and replacing teachers for reasons other than
misconduct and poor performance. No more terminations
in the spring based on the pretext of uncertainties about
funding that result in the replacement of fired teachers.
I still favor a restriction on the assignment of new teachers
to all established school programs in conjunction with an
end to the practice of firing and replacing teachers for reasons
other than misconduct and poor performance.
Current law does not allow the district to put probationary teachers on
an unrequested leave of absence, with recall rights, as
an alternative to termination for possible or actual declines
in enrollment and financial shortfall. Unless that changes,
the administration should refrain from firing any teachers in
the spring unless the budget calls for a deep workforce
reduction that would require some terminations, but the number of
teachers fired should not exceed the number of positions to
be eliminated. Even with the downsizing that has gone on
in the past decade, there were only two or maybe three years
where the firing of any teacher was justified on the grounds
of projected or actual financial shortfalls and enrollment declines.
I agree that the status quo is unacceptable. However, the
reforms being promoted by the Obama administration
are the same reforms promoted by the Bush administration
that failed to upgrade the quality of education in poor
performing schools, and failed to reduce the racial
test score gap.
Posted by educationright
at 12:51 PM CDT
Updated: Saturday, 20 March 2010 12:53 PM CDT
