Facing Reality as We Embrace the Challenge of Overhauling K-12 Education, Part Five

Part Four: The University of Minnesota’s School of Mathematics Center for Educational Programs (MathCEP) as a Model for Developing the Teaching Talent That Our K-12 Students Deserve

“As I finished my undergraduate degree,” reflected Carraig Hegi, “I wanted to pursue a career in education, but I also wanted to build my math skills. To my delight, I found that the University of MInnesota had a program that would do precisely that: the M. S. in Mathematics with an Emphasis in Education."

So Mr. Hegi is quoted as saying on the website of the School of Mathematics at the University of Minnesota that pertains to the School of Mathematics Center for Educational Programs (MathCEP).

Mathematics instruction at the University of Minnesota is expansive enough that mathematics professors offer courses in what is designated a “school,” rather than a “department,” of mathematics.

For prospective teachers living in the Twin Cities area who are serious about the study of mathematics as an academic discipline, the options for in-depth training at the graduate level are limited. If they want to take courses somewhere in the Metro area, in fact, the option is one: The master’s in mathematics offered by the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities).

And to be sure, there is a great difference in a master’s degree in mathematics education and a master’s degree in mathematics as an academic discipline.

The Essential Difference Between a Degree in Mathematics Education and a Degree in Mathematics as an Academic Discipline

Typically, the college or university student who aspires to be a math teacher gets a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, in combination with courses taken in a school, college, or department of education. This combination earns the prospective teacher certification to teach math in Minnesota. Several universities in the area offer graduate training for math teachers, but the resulting master’s degree is in education, not math.

The only academic institution at which the serious student of mathematics can take rigorous courses at the graduate level is the University of Minnesota, in the School of Mathematics located in Vincent Hall, on the quad running southward from Northrop Auditorium.

The University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) School of Mathematics actually offers four different master’s degrees (all of them M. S.). One of these degrees, the Master’s Degree in Mathematics, offers Plan A and Plan B options. These plans entail the same level of mathematic rigor; in Plan A, the student specializes in a given area of mathematics and writes a thesis; in Plan B, the student studies a greater array of subfields of mathematics and does not write a thesis. Both of these plans require 30 academic credits, about half of them in each case coming in math courses, the other half coming in related fields necessitating the use of mathematics: disciplines such as physics, chemistry, economics, and some areas of business.

Both plans of the Master’s Degree in Mathematics most typically lead to the Ph. D., but the student gets an M. S. and may stop at that point if she or he decides to do so. The student who does stop at this point, therefore, has opted for a rigorous academic route to what is known as a “terminal degree.” Up to the point at which the master’s degree is conferred, the course of study mirrors in difficulty the curriculum of the aspiring Ph. D. candidate.

The three other degrees offered by the mathematics department at this campus of the University of Minnesota follow the Plan B type. The options include the M. S. Degree in Mathematics with Emphasis in Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the M. S. Degree in Mathematics with an Emphasis in Actuarial Science, and the M. S. Degree in Mathematics with an Emphasis in Mathematics Education. Courses are all at the upper (5000 and 8000) level and include offerings such as Theoretical Neuroscience, Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Stochastic Processes, Manifolds and Topology, and Calculus of Variations and Minimal Surfaces. This M. S. Degree with an Emphasis in Mathematics Education is the option for Twin Cities Metro area teachers with a serious interest in graduate level mathematics.

The website quotes Professor Harvey Keynes, who established this program in 1995, as saying,

“Students aren’t accepted into the program unless they are qualified for a T. A. position in the School of Math.”

This means that they must have been highly successful undergraduate math students and have a primary focus on mathematics. Students have a strong interest in teaching, but since the courses that they take are the same as those taken by Ph. D. aspirants, these scholars have impressive credentials as mathematicians and great professional flexibility. Most do in fact take positions in high school, as professional mathematicians who love teaching.

The mathematic rigor of the curriculum leading to this M. S. math degree for prospective teachers means that recipients are fully qualified to continue on to the Ph. D.

Says program graduate John Hall,

“After receiving an M. S. in Mathematics and high school teaching licensure, I decided to return to school to pursue the Ph. D. in Mathematics. The department was very supportive in helping me make the transition, and I feel that the two years I spent in the M. S. program was invaluable. I believe that I am much better equipped to handle the rigors of the Ph. D. program now than I was when I had just completed my undergraduate degree.”

Students considering applying for acceptance into the program administered by the math department are cautioned,

“Please be aware that the Mathematics Education program is, first and foremost, a Mathematics Master’s Program. It would provide significantly more than the background needed to be certified to teach. Students who do not meet admission requirements for this program might wish to consider, instead, a program in Curriculum and Instruction [Department of the College of Education and Human Development].”

The master’s program for math teachers administered by this college of education requires no courses at the level of mathematical rigor pertinent to courses taken in the programs administered by the School of Mathematics.

For this autumn of 2013, the complete education school course offerings in mathematics education are the following: Learning Theory and Classical Research in STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math] Education, Algebraic Structures in School Mathematics, Teaching and Learning Mathematics, Mathematics for Diverse Learners, Directed Studies in Mathematics Education, and Problems: Mathematics Education.

The offerings for spring are similar, with additional courses in Geometric Structures in School Mathematics, Rational Number Concepts and Proportionality, Technology-Assisted Mathematics Instruction, Student Teaching in Mathematics, and Seminar: Mathematics Education.

All math students at the University of Minnesota who aspire to teach must get a master’s degree. Students in the college of education typically do their coursework during the summer and fall terms; they student teach in the spring, also taking two education courses online.

Students in the math department, by contrast, take a full load of strictly mathematics courses during one year and spend another year taking education courses and doing their student teaching. The time commitment for the two programs is therefore another difference: The route to the master’s in education takes just three semesters; the path to the master’s in mathematics requires four semesters.

One can observe the lack of rigor in mathematics education programs at other institutions of the Twin Cities, also contrasting with the strong academic training offered in the School of Mathematics at the University of Minnesota.

In the manner of the program at the College of Education and Human Development, math education programs offered at other major teacher preparation centers in the Twin Cities have a pedagogical, rather than mathematical, emphasis. The universities of Hamline, St. Catherine, and St. Thomas offer programs for prospective middle and high school teachers that require a bachelor’s in math, accompanied on the transcript by education courses and a semester of student teaching. Certification is granted along with the bachelor’s degree.

Those three institutions each offer a master’s in mathematics education but no master’s in mathematics. Augsburg College has a limited number of options for teachers seeking master’s degrees, but does not offer a master’s program explicitly for math teachers, even in mathematics education.

The Genuine Interest in K-12 Education Witnessed in the University of Minnesota’s School of Mathematics

Thus, the University of Minnesota Department of Mathematics is unique for having professors interested in training true scholars of mathematics who also aspire to teach in K-12 schools. This interest in K-12 education is demonstrated in other ways than offering the Master’s in Mathematics with Emphasis in Mathematics Education.

Each year an average of five hundred fifty middle school and high school students are enrolled in the University of Minnesota Talented Youth Mathematics Program (UMTYMP) administered by the School of Mathematics Center for Educational Programs (MathCEP). This program offers an opportunity for highly motivated, talented students in grades 5-12 to attend a two-hour session each week after school.

Students congregate with similarly motivated peers to pursue a highly accelerated math course of study designed both to advance their mathematic knowledge far beyond the typical for their ages and to stimulate their interest in mathematics. Students enroll for a five-year sequence that takes them up through high school level and into courses normally taught at the college level.

“So what does this mean for a student who enrolls at Grade 5?” I asked a math professor at the University of Minnesota in late summer 2013. “At what grades are they taking high school and college courses?”

“A student who enters in the fifth grade would typically have mastered high school math--- algebra, geometry, and precalculus--- by the eighth grade year,” he replied.

“So, then, for their final two years in the five-year sequence, they will be taking college level math, meaning that they will be doing this at Grade 9 and Grade 10?”

“That’s right,” he said.

“And that would typically include what courses?” I asked.

“They would of course take the calculus sequence, then differential equations, linear algebra, number theory, multivariable and vector calculus, and topology.”

“Wow,” I began in admiration. “That’s quite an advancement over the typical K-12 experience. What kind of reaction do you get from personnel at high schools? “

“Mostly, we have excellent relationships with our contact people at high schools. Occasionally, we get the complaint that we are taking their best students, because they do not take regular math courses at their schools once they have enrolled in our program. They get their math credits through us. But this is just a matter of keeping the communication lines open. Usually the complaints fade away when middle school and math teachers realize the benefits that their students are getting through their enrollment in UMTYMP.” …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Powerful Potential Recognized and Developed in Grade 5 through Grade 12 Student Participants in the University of Minnesota Talented Youth Mathematics Program (UMTYMP)

A major advantage for a math teacher in pursuing the master’s degree through the University of Minnesota Department of Mathematics is the opportunity to work with these students. It speaks volumes about the ability of the students at grades 5-12 who enter UMTYMP that they are often working at a level beyond the capability of most people teaching at the high school level. Even for graduate students who have themselves committed to the master’s in mathematics program, the challenges are great and the intellectual stretch is notable.

The challenge and the stretch may also be in evidence for those master’s candidates who assist in the residential summer enrichment institutes, also sponsored by MathCEP. Students at these institutes advance their mathematics skills and interest by conducting experiments that apply mathematics to problems posed in science and engineering. Mathematics faculty and graduate students work with undergraduate mentors to help the young people, also drawn from grades five through twelve, to gain a sense of what it would be like to be a member of the professional science, engineering, and mathematics community.

The Need for More Mathematics Teachers Who Can Recognize and Develop the Talents of K-12 Students

The quality of math teacher required to work with highly motivated and talented students recalls the level of talent observed in alternative programs such as Teach for America (TFA) and the American Board of Certification of Teaching Excellence (ABCTE). Teachers in the latter programs typically produce better results on objective measures of student math performance than do those teachers who have matriculated in traditional teacher preparation programs.

One suspects that, given the opportunity to train under mathematics teachers who are themselves highly accomplished mathematicians, many more students would rise to a level associated with gifted and advanced students such as those who are served in the MathCEP programs.

The success of the TFA, ABCTE, and MathCEP programs strongly suggests that our K-12 students in Minnesota are best served by teachers who are highly trained in their subject areas, and that quality master’s degrees in departments pertinent to specific academic disciplines are preferable to master’s degrees pursued through schools, colleges, and departments of education.

Facing Reality as We Embrace the Challenge of Overhauling K-12 Education, Part Four

Part Four: Very Few K-12 Teachers Earn Master’s Degrees from Departments in Academic Discipline

A key member of the Department of History at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) looked away for a moment, searching her memory bank. “No, I can’t think of any in the last ten years or so.”

This answer came in response to my question, “Can you think of any graduate students who aspire to be K-12 teachers who have been in your program in recent memory?”

In the case of the history department, her answer was fully anticipated. For at least ten years, the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) Department of History has had no terminal master’s degree. This means that all graduate students in history enroll with the intention of seeking the Ph. D., typically for the purpose of gaining the expertise expected for one teaching at universities or four-year colleges. If these aspirants have their programs interrupted for some reason, and have studied sufficiently into their programs, professors in the department may agree to grant such a student a master’s degree. But no graduate student in the history department starts out seeking the master’s.

This is now a common situation at the University of Minnesota. The same essential situation prevailing for history applies to the departments of political science, sociology, and chemistry. The departments of biological sciences, economics, physics, and English do have terminal master’s degrees, but no one connected to graduate studies in the those departments remembers any student in recent memory who was aspiring to, or proceeded to, teach in a K-12 system.

“Why would a graduate student seek a terminal master’s degree, since all universities and four-year colleges these days require their professors to have the Ph. D.?” I asked an administrator for the graduate program in English at the University of Minnesota.

“Usually, our master’s students want to get editing positions for journals or businesses. They are seeking positions for which advanced training in English is helpful.”

“But you can’t remember any master’s students who were intending to teach in K-12 schools?” I continued.

“Not in our program. Those students get their master’s degrees in the College of Education and Human Development,” she replied.

An Exceptional Case of High Quality--- But Not Often Sought--- Master’s Degree for Teachers

An interesting situation exists in the math department. In that department at the University of Minnesota, there are actually four different terminal master’s programs. One is for students who will eventually go on to the Ph. D.; conceivably, a student might stop at the M. S. level, but this is rare. Unlike the situation prevailing in many other departments, though, doctoral students are given a master’s of science (M. S.) degree before they advance to the doctoral level. Two other degrees are for clearly professional purposes: an M. S. in industrial and applied mathematics, and an M. S. in mathematics for finance.

And then there is the M. S. granted through the Center for Education Programs, also part of this math department. This program was established almost twenty years ago to give aspiring K-12 and community college teachers an authentic, scholarly training program in mathematics.

“We typically have two to five students in this program,” a math faculty member replied to a question of mine about the annual enrollment. “Right now we have four.”

“How many of those intend to teach in K-12?” I asked.

“Two of the four,” he responded.

“Where do most aspiring K-12 teachers get their master’s degrees in math for the purpose of improving their credentials and place on the pay scale?” I continued.

“The College of Education and Human Development,” the professor replied.

He went on to describe a very mathematically rigorous program for prospective teachers, a course of study that includes numerous 5000 and 8000 level courses that range far beyond calculus and differential equations in difficulty. Those courses include, for example, Theoretical Neuroscience, Dynamical Systems and Chaos, Stochastic Processes, Manifolds and Topology, and Calculus of Variations and Minimal Surfaces.

The course of study in the mathematics education program granted from the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at the University of Minnesota is very different from that in the program in the math department. A graduate studies administrator in the CEHD described that program for me, citing courses such as “algebraic structures for teachers” and “geometric structures for teachers” that were as mathematically rigorous as the education college program gets.

Typical Route to a Master’s Degree for Teachers--- Lacking in Academic Rigor

For people matriculating at the University of Minnesota, those aspiring to be high school teachers first get a bachelor’s degree in a major disciplinary field such as math, biology, physics, anthropology, or English. Then, upon graduating, students must enter the master’s degree program, which runs three semesters in duration. The first two semesters feature coursework with a mostly pedagogic emphasis. The third semester finds the prospective teacher in a fulltime internship (practice teaching), taking just a course or two (typically online). Upon successfully completing this program, the person is granted both a master’s of education (M. Ed.) degree and a teaching license.

This helps to explain why the number of terminal master’s degrees is diminishing at the University of Minnesota. Prospective high school teachers essentially must enter the M. Ed. program to gain licensure. The only case of an academic department that works in cooperation with the College of Education and Human Development to provide its own teacher training program is the math department, M. S. recipients of which also are approved for teaching licensure.

Thus, there is much incentive for aspiring teachers to move into the education college upon getting a bachelor’s degree, and either much disincentive or curtailed possibility to pursue a master’s degree in an academic department.

Corroborating Data from the Minneapolis Pubic Schools

One sees the impact of this in today’s centralized K-12 districts such as the Minneapolis Public Schools. Data provided by that school district’s department of human resources for the seven high schools of Edison, Henry, North, Roosevelt, South, Southwest, and Washburn indicate that there are 248 staff members teaching math, English, science, and social studies. Of those 248 teachers, 132 hold master’s degrees, almost all of them granted in schools, colleges, or departments of education.

Personnel in the human resources department at the Minneapolis Public Schools have not heretofore made any distinction as to the department granting the master’s degree for teachers. Since any accredited master’s degree, whether in education or an academic discipline, gains a teacher advancement up the “step and lane” system, those working at human resources have simplified their tasks to what is absolutely necessary.

That 132 teachers at these schools hold master’s degrees of some kind is as close to specificity as human resources data get. Teacher websites at five of the mainline high schools, though, provide useful information in distinguishing master’s degree by department in which coursework was completed. The websites at Henry and North high schools are not helpful, but those at South, Southwest, and Washburn are serviceable, and those at Edison and Roosevelt are quite good.

Data at teacher websites for those five schools show eight (8) teachers who indicate that they hold master’s degrees from subject area departments relevant to their teaching fields, rather than holding the more typical master’s degree from a program in education; a teacher at Edison actually holds a Ph. D. in chemistry. There may be teachers holding master’s degrees in academic fields who did not record this information, but the data on the websites is highly suggestive.

At the five indicated high schools, there are a total of 210 teachers, 101 of whom (48.10% of the total) have master’s degrees. If just nine (9) of those teachers hold master’s degrees (or above) from academic departments, that would mean that just 4.29% of all teachers hold academic graduate degrees, and that of teachers holding a master’s, only 8.91% hold academic master’s (or above) degrees.

A situation in which not even 10% of all teachers hold master’s degrees granted in university departments such as math, physics, history, economics, and English, rather than in education schools, colleges, and departments seems entirely consistent with the graduate studies situation currently manifest at the University of Minnesota. Prospective teachers cannot hold degrees that do not exist (because of the trend away from terminal master’s degrees).

Further, in a system that overwhelmingly encourages teachers to pursue licensure through an education program, rather than through completion of an academically rigorous degree program such as that in the department of mathematics, also strongly indicates that most teachers hold their master’s degrees (typically M. Ed.) from education programs rather than holding master’s degrees (typically M. A. or M . S.) from academic departments.

For those interested in teacher quality in the Minneapolis Public Schools and other districts, questions related to the type of master’s degrees held by teachers are likely to produce intense discussion.

K-12 Students Deserve So Much More in Terms of Academic Preparation of Teachers

The weakness of master’s degrees typically sought by teachers means that those pursuing these academically insubstantial degrees move into a more favorable position in the “step and lane” system of remuneration, which rewards teachers merely for years of experience and additional academic credentials acquired.

These formal additional credentials are acquired in weak programs, gain colleges and universities overseeing the relevant programs great sums in tuition revenue, and allow the educators acquiring these non-rigorous degrees to gain more remuneration. But they add very little, if any, content knowledge that a degree in a legitimate discipline (biology, math, literature, art, history) would provide, and they enhance teacher efficacy not one whit.

Our students deserve academically more knowledgeable teachers. They deserve so much more.

Facing this circumstance is one of the many hard realities that we must confront as we turn from the normal distractions and focus on the real issues that will move the revolution in K-12 education forward as we advance through the Second Stage of the Civil Rights Movement.

Facing Reality as We Embrace the Challenge of Overhauling K-12 Education, Part Three

Part Three:  The Power of Entrenched Interests in Opposition to Alternative Pathways to Teacher Certification in Minnesota

“If Barack Obama wanted to teach government in the state of Minnesota, could he do so under teacher certification laws in Minnesota?" I asked a teacher licensing official at the Minnesota Department of Education in a telephone conversation during late summer 2013.

“He would have to seek what’s known as ‘limited licensure,’ “ she replied.

“The reason I’m asking is because the way I read the information on your website and elsewhere,” I continued, “there are as yet no alternatively licensed teachers under the law that went into effect in early March of 2011. As I understand it, there can be no such teachers, because no alternative licensure program has yet been approved.”

“That’s right,” she responded. “Actually, no applications for approval of an alternative licensure program have been submitted.”

“And Barack Obama has not been through a traditional teacher preparation program,” I said, “so that with no alternative licensure program yet in place, this means that the limited licensure option would be the only way that he could teach government in Minnesota, correct?”

“That’s right.”

“And what does limited licensure entail?”

“The President would have to submit a portfolio and evidence of his academic credentials in the subject area.”

“It would seem that the President would have a strong portfolio, with his position as Chief Executive and having graduated with bachelor’s and law degrees from Harvard University,” I opined.

“Yep,” the official chuckled in agreement.

“So for how long could the President teach in Minnesota under limited licensure?” I asked.

“Three years in all. He’d have to reapply every year, and after three years Mr. Obama would have to demonstrate that he’d earned 20 credits in an approved teacher preparation program.”

“And if by that time he had not accumulated those hours and gained certification through a traditional program, the President of the United States could no longer teach in a public K-12 school in Minnesota?”

“That is correct.”

Formally, We Do Have Alternative Teacher Certification in Minnesota

President Barack Obama would have an easier and more secure path to teacher certification in Minnesota if the matter were simply a legislative formality. By law, we could have many alternative routes to teacher certification.

In March of 2011, the state legislature passed a law that was supposed to make it easier for supremely qualified teaching candidates such as Barack Obama to gain certification. Minnesota Statute 122A.09 provides that a teaching candidate could gain certification from an alternative teacher preparation program approved by the Minnesota Board of Teaching.

Under the provisions of the law, a college or university can create an alternative certification program; officials at any school district or charter school who want to include alternatively certified teachers in their teacher candidate pool could then partner with the college or university program. Nonprofit corporations organized under Minnesota Statute 317A for an education related purpose can also submit applications for alternative teacher licensure programs for consideration by the Minnesota Board of Teaching.

Candidates must avail themselves of one of these two options (either the college/university or the nonprofit corporation program). They may not apply directly to the Board of Teaching. Such candidates must have a bachelor’s degree and a transcript that records a cumulative 3.0 GPA. They must pass exams demonstrating mastery of basic skills, content-based pedagogy, and content-based subject area exam, in addition to presenting content-based performance assessments. Candidates seeking alternative teacher licensure must have completed 200 instructional hours, with evidence of student teaching, mentoring, induction, and evaluation.

To gain the desired certification, a candidate must be a member of a collective bargaining unit, abide by all requirements for new teachers in a local school district, and be recommended by a school site team for licensure.

When Minnesota Statute 1224A.09 was passed, there was excitement in a number of quarters over the prospects of the new law for invigorating the teacher corps in the state:

This “is about putting the best and the brightest qualified teachers in the state of Minnesota into the classroom,” said Representative Patrick Garofalo (R-Farmington). “Both parties recognize that “the current system is broken. It’s not controversial. It works. It helps kids. It’s the right thing to do.”

And indeed, although most affirmative votes came from Republicans, Democratic governor Mark Dayton signed the bill, and there was a certain amount of bipartisan support. 

Carlos Mariani (D-St. Paul) noted that “The Garofalo bill is not perfect, and I still have a number of concerns.” But he also said that, “This bill is a small step forward toward improving our education system and closing the achievement gap.”

These and other direct quotations from here on in this article have appeared in coverage by reporters for the Star Tribune.

But Education Minnesota, the teachers union in the state that wields a great deal of power at the advent of new legislation and in the implementation phase, opposed the measure. The union’s stance was that any alternative licensure program should have a firm link to an institution of higher education.

The union’s opposition to alternative licensure, and the daunting prospect of gaining approval before the Board of Teaching, could well explain the lack of applications for establishing alternative pathways to teacher licensure. The Board of Teaching is dominated by members closely associated with Education Minnesota.

Here, the experience of Teach for America becomes instructive. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Power of Entrenched Interests in Opposing Changes Prospectively Beneficial to Students

Teach for America is the organization founded in 1989 by Wendy Kopp, a graduate of toney Highland Park High School in the Dallas, Texas, area; and of Princeton University. Kopp proposed the creation of Teach for America in an undergraduate thesis and went on to do just that, establishing an organization filled with idealistic young people much in her own image.

The idea is that graduates from Ivy League and other first-rate institutions will commit at least two years to teaching in challenged rural and urban environments. The teachers in Teach for America feature unquestionably bright young people. 

A Teacher License Certification Officer at a well-regarded institution in St. Paul told me, “My figures show that Teach for America members average 20 points higher on the exams required by the state to gain teacher licensure by comparison with students enrolled in our traditional teacher preparation program. Some of our students struggle to pass the exams, and some fail. In my observation, all Teach for America candidates in Minnesota have passed these exams with ease.”

But Teach for America has faced much opposition in gaining a foundation in Minnesota. In a 2009 article published in the Star Tribune, Carleton College professor Deborah Appleman asserted that,

“Implicit in Teach for America’s approach is the insidious notion that anyone who knows a subject and is willing to be with kids can teach--- with little training.”

Appleman also said,

“The story of TFA becomes a kind of master narrative, a story of heroic and altruistic young people that focuses much more squarely on them that it does on the lives of the children they are committed to serve. There is an elitist tone to the structure of TFA, a belief that the best and the brightest can make a difference in the lives of children who are less fortunate, even when they are not professionally prepared to do so.”

In May of this year, Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a $1.5 million biennial appropriation that would have provided funding for 25 additional Teach for America members. The following month, the Minnesota Board of Teaching denied an application by the organization for blanket license exemptions that the board had granted in previous years.

Upon presentations of support by many building principals and other school district officials, though, individual applications for teaching positions were approved by the Board of Education in July. More than 70 corps members are teaching in 26 metro area schools during the current academic year, with representation in the classrooms of numerous charter schools and the Minneapolis Public Schools.

In September, Teach for America forged an agreement with the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development (UMCEHD), whereby the university would offer an alternative teacher licensure program tailored to TFA. Teaching corps members of TFA would undergo eight weeks of training (an increase of three weeks in the training typically rendered to TFA members), then enter classrooms with the understanding that TFA teachers will take on credit-based coursework and additional training after placement in schools.

This agreement has further fueled the debate over the presence of TFA in Minnesota, and the level of preparation received by TFA members. Three hundred students and alumni of UMCEHD have signed a letter of opposition to TFA, expressing the view that the organization’s teachers are unprepared to enter classrooms filled by many impoverished children and do so at the latter’s expense. When news of a forthcoming agreement spread in the months before finalization and the expansion to eight weeks of training, UMCEHD doctoral candidate Erin Dyke asserted,

“Basically, they are creating two tiers with this partnership. One serves the elite few who are guaranteed a job after five weeks of training and another who will spend thousands of dollars getting an education, who will study for years and have no guarantee of a job.”

Teach for America/ Twin Cities executive director Crystal Brakke remained optimistic, though, that the Minnesota Board of Teaching would approve the proposal, saying: “I know that they are eager to continue our conversation about alternate pathways to teaching.” ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The National Trend Toward Alternative Teacher Certification: There May Be Hope for Barack Obama’s Teaching Prospects in Minnesota, After All

Nationally, the trend toward alternative certification is definite and increasing. During academic year 1985-1986 there were 300 alternative route teachers; the National Center for Alternative Certification reported 59,000 alternatively certified teachers in the nation during 2008-2009. Between the years 2003 and 2013, the number of incoming Teach for America corps members increased from 1,646 to over 6,000; the number of regions with TFA teachers increased from 20 to 48.

If the Minnesota Board of Teaching does approve the alternative teacher licensure program agreed upon by the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development and Teach for America, this will be the first of its kind to gain approval under Minnesota Statute 122A.09 since the law was passed in 2011.

If this does in fact happen, Barack Obama could aspire to a more permanent gig teaching government in the K-12 schools of Minnesota, after all.

Facing Reality as We Embrace the Challenge of Overhauling K-12 Education, Part Two

Part Two:  Inadequacy of Traditional Teacher Preparation and the Need for Alternative Pathways

The inadequacy of traditional teaching training is one of the hard realities that we must face in order to proceed with the needed overhaul of K-12 education. Understanding how poorly K-12 teachers are prepared, and grasping the importance of alternative pathways to teacher certification, is necessary if we are to meet the educational needs of all of our young people in the Second Stage of the Civil Rights Movement. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Given the assertive efforts of Teach for America to establish a presence in Minnesota, and the provision in Minnesota Statute 122A.09 for an alternative path to licensure, we need a better understanding of the prevailing traditional pathway to teacher certification for judging comparative value of the emerging competitive routes.

An Overview of Teacher Training Programs in the Colleges and Universities of Minneapolis and St. Paul

There is a rough similarity among the major teacher preparation programs offered by colleges and universities in the Twin Cities. Programs that train large contingents of prospective teachers include the University of Minnesota/ Twin Cities, Augsburg College, and the universities of Concordia, Hamline, St. Catherine, and St. Thomas. At most of these institutions, prospective elementary school teachers major in elementary education; those who aspire to teach in secondary schools (middle school or high school) typically get a major in a relevant field such as history, political science, math, biology, or English while also taking a certain number of education courses to attain certification. But at some of the institutions that train teachers through the traditional route, getting a major in secondary education, with a specialty in one of the relevant disciplines, is also possible.

Once the college or university certification program is complete, prospective teachers must take exams that include a basic skills exam, a content-focused pedagogic exam, and a mathematics exam. Upon passing these exams, licensure is granted. The license is permanent, given the teacher’s ongoing demonstration of professional development through certified participation in teacher-in-service days, workshops, conferences, and the like; and with the option to pursue an advanced degree, typically a master’s of education in teaching elementary education or teaching a subject area such as math, social studies, science, or English.

Hamline is unique among the metro area institutions offering teacher preparation programs in requiring its aspiring elementary school teachers to get a degree in a discipline other than education. At Hamline, both prospective elementary and secondary teachers get majors in subjects such as economics, psychology, chemistry, math, or English literature while also getting a co-major in education. There is a certain similarity in the required courses for elementary and secondary aspirants, with both taking courses such as Educational Psychology, Diversity and Education, Theory to Practice, Schools and Society, and Exceptionality. A key difference is that those training to become secondary teachers take a course in Teaching Literacy in the Secondary School, while those preparing to be elementary teachers additionally take courses in Teaching Social Studies [Mathematics, Science] in the Elementary School. In the other institutions, any route similar to the one pursued at Hamline would come through the attainment of a double major, but this is not required.

The required education courses are similar from institution to institution. Elementary level aspirants at the University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development, for example, take courses called Social Studies [Language Arts, Mathematics, Science] Instruction in the Elementary Grades that parallel those given for Hamline. Courses at the University of Minnesota also include Schools and Society and those that incorporate matters of educational psychology, exceptionality [individual differences], and diversity. For both elementary and secondary teaching aspirants, a semester of student teaching is required, and courses include additional hours in the field, visiting and assisting in classrooms. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Comparing Teachers Trained Traditionally With Those Training Alternatively

How well trained are teachers who prepare for jobs in K-12 classrooms through such traditional teacher preparation? How does their performance compare to that of teachers who have gained licensure through alternative routes? Recently, a number of academic studies have pointed toward some summary statements about the relative efficacy of traditional versus alternative pathways.

Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2006) studied alternative pathways in New York City. There, mid-career professionals and recent college graduates in the NYC Teaching Fellows program (Fellows) did not do as well initially but over time did as well as traditionally prepared teachers. Teach for America (TFA) teachers tended to get better results in math, even initially, and over time made up an initial unfavorable differential in teaching language arts.

Another group of researchers (Kane, Rockoff, and Steiger, 2008) examine the same kind of data for New York City over a longer period of time, finding similarly few differences over time between traditionally prepared teachers and those who had pursued alternative pathways to licensure. And once again, the research team found that Teach for America members are more effective in math.

The research team of Xu, Hannaway, and Taylor (2011) focused on TFA teachers at the high school level in North Carolina, finding that TFA members outperformed traditionally prepared colleagues in math, science, and language arts by at least 13 standard deviation points; results were again particularly striking for TFA teachers in math, and even better for science.

In 2011, Georgia State University Department of Economics Professor Tim R. Sass focused on three of the multiple alternative paths to teacher certification in the state of Florida, amassing his data around school district alternative certification programs, the American Board of Certification of Teaching Excellence (ABCTE) program, and educational preparation institutes (EPI, generally located in community colleges).

The school district-based programs do not require participants to work toward an education degree, instead providing for an initial assessment of skills, an individualized training plan, mentoring, a training curriculum, and summative assessment. District programs also require candidates to take standard general knowledge and professional education certification exams.

The EPI programs do not result in a degree. They typically consist of seven required classes and a field experience component. Candidates must pass the standard certification exams to receive professional certification.

The ABCTE option requires a professional teacher knowledge exam and a subject area exam administered by the ABCTE. Candidates must also demonstrate professional competence in the classroom. They take no education courses at all.

In his study, which assessed value added to student performance by teachers who had undergone various types of training, Sass found that participants in the school district-based programs performed about the same as traditionally prepared teachers. Those who had prepared in the EPIs generally performed worse. Those who had exercised the ABCTE option in the aggregate got better results in math than did those of traditional preparation while not getting significantly different results from traditionally prepared teachers in reading.

For all of the alternative pathways studied by Sassman in Florida, the aspiring teachers had stronger academic credentials than did those who had gone through traditional programs. They had graduated from more competitive colleges, and they scored better on the certification exams. Teachers who had come through school district and EPI programs also had attained on average about 100 more points on the SAT than had traditionally prepared teachers; the differential for those who had pursued the ABCTE option was even greater, an average of 150 points.

Traditionally prepared elementary school teachers in Florida tend to have bachelor’s degrees in elementary education, whereas their counterpoints from alternative pathways tended toward degrees in business administration, criminal justice, and political science. Traditionally prepared high school teachers tended to have a degree in a sub-discipline of education such as mathematics education or social studies education; alternatively certified teachers were likely to have earned their degrees in a relevant subject area such as math or history.

Sass notes the similarity in results produced by Teach for America (TFA) and the American Board of Certification of Teaching Excellence (ABCTE), and also similarities in the nature of training and the participants in the programs. In both cases, candidates tend to graduate from highly competitive colleges and universities, and to have high test scores. They often outperform traditionally prepared teachers, producing particularly impressive results in math and science. Sass concludes with two highly provocative statements, backed up by the rigor of his regression analyses and other statistical measures.

Given the fact that the ABCTE program requires no coursework in education at all, and the TFA program does not (except as necessary to meet requirements for licensure in particular states) entail taking conventional courses in education, Sass says,

"It appears that the low entry requirements of both programs attract individuals with greater intellectual ability and (at least for math) this trumps any human capital enhancement that may accrue from coursework in education."

Sass continues,

"It does appear that certification programs with low entry requirements can produce teachers that are as productive, or more productive, than traditionally prepared teachers. Given the opportunity costs of a four-year degree in education, this implies that allowing some low-cost portals into the teaching profession would appear to be an efficient mechanism for increasing the supply of teachers."

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

C. Emily Feistreitzer, president and CEO of the National Center for Education Information, has noted that multiple surveys show teachers reporting that what is most valuable to them in developing competence to teach are their actual teaching experiences, their work with other teachers and colleagues, and life experiences in general--- in that order. Courses in education methods, college faculty, and professional development activities are far down the list in such rankings. One-third of teachers currently gaining certification have pursued one of the 600 alternatives now available in the United States as a whole.

These alternatives, as Sass notes in conclusion upon his own work, are much cheaper than the traditional training rendered in schools, colleges, and departments of education. Feistritzer comments that the mere fact that the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) and U. S. News and World Report are preparing to investigate the efficacy of about 1,400 traditional training programs is causing quite a stir among those involved in traditional teacher training.

"The uproar," Feistrizer says, "is undoubtedly related to the fact that colleges of education are big enterprise, leading some analysts to call them the 'cash cows' of many a big university."

Indeed, the traditional teacher preparation programs of the University of Minnesota, Augsburg College, and the universities of Concordia, Hamline, St Catherine, and St. Thomas draw hundreds of students each year, first to undergraduate programs leading to certification, then to master’s of education programs. Total costs to students who prepare to teach by matriculating in these programs run to the tens of thousands of dollars.

These Twin Cities-based programs have not fared well when compared in national research reports to traditional programs in other states. And traditional programs in numerous locations have failed to demonstrate greater efficacy than alternative pathways. In fact, programs such as ABCTE and TFA have consistently produced better results in math and science, while performing on a par with traditional programs in language arts and reading.

All of this suggests strongly that in Minnesota, teachers and students, as opposed to the entrenched economic interests of adults who have roles in the traditional programs, have much to gain from the flourishing of Teach for America and the greater availability of other alternative teacher certification programs through accelerated recourse to the provisions of Minnesota Statute 122A.09. .....................................................................................................................................

Facing the Reality of Inadequate Traditional Teacher Preparation---  and Taking Action

There are some truly excellent teachers instructing our students in the Minneapolis Public Schools. But truly excellent teachers in my observation occur as only ten percent (10%) of the total teaching force. This is not enough. Mediocrity is the standard. Our children deserve better.

Facing the reality of a prevailing standard of mediocrity in our teaching force is necessary if we are to proceed with the revolution in K-12 education that we need so as to succeed at the Second Stage of the Civil Rights Movement.  Getting better quality teachers in the classroom is imperative. In the long run we need to overhaul teacher training programs in colleges, schools, and departments of education.

But we cannot wait in what will be a long and laborious struggle in overcoming entrenched interests. Therefore, we must immediately do the following:

1) recognize the value of alternative pathways to teacher certification;

2) undertake massive teacher retraining at the school district level.

Facing Reality as We Embrace the Challenge of Overhauling K-12 Education, Part One

Part One:  The Inadequacy of Prevailing Conceptions of What Constitutes an Excellent Education--- With a Definitional Corrective

In order properly to prepare ourselves as we embrace the challenge of overhauling K-12 education, we need to proceed on the basis of a firmer conceptual framework and with a plan that addresses the real problems. We need to face reality, be bold, and act accordingly. At the present, few people are facing reality, acting with courage, or constructing the necessary framework for implementing a viable plan. The next series of essays offers the necessary conceptual framework and required plan of action.

The Inadequacy of Prevailing Conceptions of What Constitutes an Excellent Education

In response to an email that I sent to her, Michelle Rhee (the founder and chief executive officer of the education reform organization, StudentsFirst) defined an “excellent education” as follows:

>>>>>

An excellent education equips a person with the skills and inspiration necessary to follow their passions, achieve their dreams and become a productive member of society.

First and foremost, this requires a firm command of the foundational skills upon which our society and economy are built: reading, writing, mathematics, science and problem solving.  Our schools must be rigorous—through testing and other means—in demanding that every child is proficient in these core subjects.

An excellent education, however, must move beyond the basics. Just as a command of the fundamentals of basketball—shooting, dribbling, passing—are necessary to become an effective player, an excellent player also has the ability to work well with others, analyze and strategize, and think quickly and creatively.

Our schools must foster creativity and exploration, and allow children to develop social and analytic skills. Every student should have the opportunity to learn a second language and participate in arts, music, sports and after-school programs.

Finally, in addition to arming kids with a broad and robust array of skills, an excellent education motivates kids—no matter their socioeconomic background—to use those skills to reach for the stars. This is why an excellent education cannot exist without excellent teachers, who have the special ability to identify and cultivate the potential within every child. Recruiting, rewarding and retaining great teachers must be the centerpiece of any education reform agenda.

An investment in our schools is an investment in our nation’s future; we cannot stop fighting until every student receives the excellent education they deserve.  

<<<<<

The response from Ms. Rhee is wholly in accord with the main themes that she elucidated in her book, Radical: Fighting to Put Students First (New York: HarperCollins, 2013). One of the things that struck me in reading that book, though, was the absence of the kind of explicit definition that she offered in her emailed response to me.

I find this to be the case time after time. Steve Perry, for example, never gets around to defining an excellent education in his own book, Push Has Come to Shove: Getting our Kids the Education They Deserve--- Even If It Means Picking a Fight (New York: Broadway Paperbacks (Crown/ Random House, 2011).

Michelle Rhee is a passionate advocate for a quality of change in K-12 education that puts the interests of students ahead of adults in education-related jobs. With grit, courage, and the backing of an equally steel-spined mayor (Adam Fenty, who lost an election and his job as a reward for his own efforts in behalf of students), Michelle Rhee took on the education establishment as chancellor of schools in Washington, D. C., during 2007-2010. As an advocate for policies and the quality of teachers capable of improving student achievement in some of the theretofore worst schools in the United States, one can extrapolate from Rhee’s book (and the documentary, “Waiting for Superman”) principles that consider math and reading skills essential to an excellent education, which also includes a strong liberal arts curriculum. But a focused and specific definition is lacking in her book and speeches.

Focus, for that matter, is lacking in the definition offered by Ms. Rhee in her emailed response. A definition as lengthy as the one she offered fails to provide a central focus around which other, desired components may be ordered. Her definition fails to provide any conclusive comment on the relative importance of subject area knowledge versus the processes by which one acquires knowledge, a matter of great debate and dissension among those who concern themselves with change in K-12 education.

At a “Soup with the Supe” event last February, Minneapolis Public Schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson responded to a question from me on this matter of the definition of an excellent education with the laundry list approach taken by Rhee. In the course of a 30-second ramble, the superintendent ticked off a definition that included the importance of educational technology, engaged students, lively teaching, critical thinking, and an amorphous reference to general knowledge and skills. As with the Rhee definition, there is nothing in Johnson’s definition that comes as a surprise, and little to which one might object--- but also not much around which to build an approach to educational excellence for a K-12 public schools system. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thus far, I have tendered the same question as to the definition of an excellent education to many people working for educational change in Minnesota. Several notable advocates, frequently heading organizations that purport to advocate for major changes in K-12 education, could not muster a compelling definition of an “excellent definition,” and in fact most seemed dumbfounded. One could only bluster forth with:

“Ah, that is such a profound question.”

Whatever the level of profundity of the question posed, we need to give a clearer and more concise definition of an excellent education before we race madly to achieve it. And the definition is not at all a matter of consensus among thoughtful observers and commentators.

Omission of a working definition for an excellent education may also be noted in the work of prominent authors, commentators, and founders of large organizations articulating ideas for change in K-12 education. Although I find their omissions part of the noted and regretted phenomenon, one can extrapolate from the publications of some of the best-known commentators working definitions that these notables would recognize as synchronous with their key emphases.

Three educators who would be properly placed in the “progressive” camp of articulators of K-12 change are Alfie Kohn, Howard Gardner, and the late Maria Montessori. Definitions culled from their works would viably gain expression as follows:

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of students and teachers collaboratively investigating topics of intense mutual interest through engaging cooperative projects, demonstrating their knowledge in portfolios, presentations, and demonstrations. [Alfie Kohn]

<<<<<

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of students disciplining their minds in pursuit of deep understanding of the true, the beautiful, and the good while utilizing linguistic, musical, mathematic, spatial, kinesthetic, and personal intelligence as appropriate. [Howard Gardner]

<<<<<

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of preparing a learning environment wherein children will acquire common skill and knowledge sets at their own pace, according to the means most appropriate at each developmental stage. [Maria Montessori]

<<<<<

What unites these progressive commentators is an emphasis on process. For progressive educators, the process by which one acquires subject area knowledge supersedes what is learned. Most extreme in this regard is Alfie Kohn. His vision of “the education our children deserve” embraces the “learning how to learn,” “lifelong learning,” and “constructivist” approaches that overwhelmingly dominate professorial pronouncements in our schools, colleges, and departments of education. This approach devalues knowledge for definite, sequenced acquisition and promotes the notion that facts can always be looked up when one needs them. What is important to progressive educators is a classroom driven by the particular and passionate interests of students and a teacher who acts more as facilitator than disseminator of factual knowledge.

At the other end of the spectrum, one finds the politically conservative William Bennett and the politically liberal E. D. Hirsch. The latter deserves a lot of credit for disentangling the term “progressive,” which holds sway in so much of the education establishment, from “liberal,” which often metamorphosed into “progressive” as the other term became the pejorative “L” word from the Reagan era forward. One who emphasizes a content-focused education may be politically liberal while considering as anathema the principles that undergird the approach to education commonly known as “progressive.” As distinguished from the progressive educators Kohn, Gardner, and Montessori, the content-focused Bennett and Hirsch present ideas in their publications and public talks that can be distilled into the following definitions of an excellent education:

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of parents modeling a love of learning and an enthusiasm for knowledge that is then tapped by teachers who engage students with a rich and rigorous core curriculum in grade by grade sequence. [William Bennett]

<<<<<

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of transmitting specified skill and knowledge sets mastered to the point of automaticity, broadening and deepening core knowledge in careful grade by grade sequence throughout the K-12 years. [E. D. Hirsch]

<<<<<

Thus, for Bennett and Hirsch, strong liberal arts content knowledge is the heart of an excellent education. I have heard Hirsch comment that he considers lively teaching and student engagement important; for him, though, the process is that which delivers the subject area content. It is content, not process, around which he centers the Core Knowledge books under his editorship, the foundation of the same name, and his conception of the schools that he says we need but rarely get. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The definition of an excellent education is important. The widespread tendency for upholders of the status quo and advocates for educational change alike to avoid clarity and specificity in defining an excellent education is notable and lamentable.

If we agree that process is paramount, then those whom we want to hire to preside over our children’s classrooms should be good facilitators, asking good questions for students to ponder critically, eliciting articulations from students as to their most passionate interests, and guiding them toward sources of information on those personally chosen topics for study. Educational facilitators (teachers) in the progressive conception need not be experts in subject areas; rather, they should be reliable human portals to a world of knowledge open for exploration rather than mastery.

If we agree, on the other hand, that content is paramount, what we want is a specified, sequenced, grade-by-grade curriculum across key areas of the liberal arts. Adapting Hirsch’s presentation of subjects to be studied for Core Knowledge acquisition, we could define these prioritized subject areas as math, science (chemistry, biology, physics), history, economics, literature, and the fine arts. Teachers in this conception of an excellent education should be broadly and deeply knowledgeable at the K-5 level and experts in their fields at the secondary level.

So it matters. Our failure properly to educate so many of our children lies to a large extent in our own failure to decide what being an educated person means. In the hope that I have represented both the progressive and core knowledge views fairly, let me now be clear that I come down unequivocally on the latter side, emphasizing the knowledge acquired over the process of delivery.

Accordingly, in line with my conception, I assert the need for a revamped and upgraded curriculum that specifies in definite sequence what students should learn at each level from kindergarten through Grade 12. We have little curriculum at all now at the K-5 level. We consider middle school a time primarily for socialization. We wait until high school to deliver anything approaching a content-rich curriculum, and we try to do this with too many teachers who are not knowledgeable enough to deliver the content.

Having revamped, upgraded, and sequenced the curriculum, I would then hire teachers with the knowledge to teach specified skill and knowledge sets and the ability to transmit these sets to students.

A Firm Statement as to What Constitutes an Excellent Education

For the benefit of the large swaths of people, working variously to uphold or change the status quo, who have not been forthright in detailing the components of the education that they are either upholding or working to create, let me be clear as to my own definition:

>>>>>

An excellent education is a matter of excellent teachers imparting a rich liberal arts curriculum in specified, grade by grade sequence to all students throughout the K-12 years.

<<<<<

This brings forth another important definition:

>>>>>

An excellent teacher is a person of broad and deep knowledge, with the pedagogical skill to impart this knowledge to all students.

<<<<<

As we move forward to embrace the challenge of overhauling K-12 education, is it imperative that we grasp these definitions of an "excellent education" and an "excellent teacher."

Grasping these definitions and constructing a framework for the overhaul of K-12 education upon them would put us in a position boldly to wage the necessary revolution and achieve success in this, the Second Stage of the Civil Rights Movement.

Public Notions Regarding K-12 Public Education Are Very Confused--- But Take Heart Where Hope Exists

Floating in the ether of public discourse in Minneapolis at present are the notions that you care a great deal about public education and that Mayor-elect Betsy Hodges can do a great deal about the state of our K-12 schools. You don’t and she can’t.

I am extremely skeptical when I read assertions that the electorate in the recent mayoral contest was greatly concerned about public education. We have now traversed 30 years since the federal government published A Nation at Risk, which in 1983 sounded the alert as to the sorry state of education in the United States. During this time you sat in a haze of confusion as Outcome Based Education, Total Quality Management, the Profile of Learning, Minnesota State Standards, the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs), No Child Left Behind, Best Practices, and (now) Multiple Measurement Ratings System have filled the jargon-infested world of K-12 education without your taking time to investigate the exact nature of any of these. I consider any perception that now, after all of this time, you are finally getting religion on the need to educate all of our precious children an extremely dubious proposition.

What I know for sure is that you have no idea as to where the locus of change right now is in K-12 public education in Minneapolis. Most decidedly it is not in the office of the mayor. Hodges’s proposed initiatives to promote healthy prenatal experiences are worthy on their own merits, but they are only tangentially related to prospects for favorable change in the Minneapolis Public Schools.  And to the extent that you have invested heavy hope that the mayoral office can be a prime agent of change in K-12 education, your views are naïve and uninformed.

Actually, the amazingly good news is that change is taking place right before your eyes. Minneapolis Public Schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson has articulated a highly promising program to attract, retain, and remunerate truly excellent teachers--- particularly at High Priority Schools (those with the highest percentages of students on free or reduced price lunch and chronically lagging academic performance). She is also moving forward with a much higher quality liberal arts curriculum, ably assisted by such first-rate talents as Mike Lynch, Director of Teaching and Learning; and Sara Paul, Associate Superintendent for School Innovation. District officials are training teachers in the delivery of this curriculum through Focused Instruction, whereby teachers throughout the Minneapolis Public Schools impart coherent skill and knowledge sets to students at each grade level.

Since a proper definition of an “excellent education” would hold that it is a matter of excellent teachers imparting a rich liberal arts curriculum in logical grade by grade sequence to all students, the approach of Johnson and her staff on the matters of teacher quality and curricular coherence are right on target.

So those among you who take umbrage at my characterization of your actual interest and understanding of public education and sincerely want to prove me wrong can do the following things:

1) Internalize the above-given definition of an excellent education focused on excellent teachers and a rich, coherent liberal arts curriculum delivered in logical sequence.

2) Understand that an excellent teacher is a professional of broad and deep knowledge with the pedagogical ability to impart strong academic content to all students.

3) Go on the website of the Minneapolis Public Schools and learn all that you can about Focused Instruction and efforts to generate a quality staff to deliver a coherent curriculum.

4) Be aware that this Thursday (November 14) will bring the first all-day mediation session of officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools and representatives of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers to negotiate a new contract for the district’s teachers.

5) Become informed as to the key issues in these mediation sessions as they relate to teacher quality and the delivery of high-quality curriculum.

6) Be ready to support Superintendent Johnson and her staff as this contract becomes an issue in public forums.

Taking all of these steps toward better understanding of the truly important issues in public K-12 education would do far more than casting any ballot for mayor. They would show that you truly do care, and that you are willing to commit the time and personal effort that meaningful social change always requires.

In the meantime, pay no attention to gadflies buzzing through the ether, spraying insidious messages about the inadequacy of inner city families and the virtues of vouchers that would send prospective public school students to private schools:

Overwhelmingly, families at all economic levels love their children and respond to professionals who are genuinely working in their best interests.

Revitalized central school districts are the best-positioned to serve students at the quantity and with the quality that can define a K-12 system based on excellent teachers and a rich liberal arts curriculum.

Your hope for the future of education in the city of Minneapolis lies in what you yourself, as a matter of personal interest and effort, can do to support a visionary superintendent and encourage her to make this the permanent locus of her career.