As I wrap up
a busy academic year in the New Salem Educational Initiative, running 17
small-group, academic sessions a week, overseeing the New Salem Tuesday
Tutoring Program, writing an abundance of articles for this blog, producing a
monthly academic journal, recording my weekly television show, and making
numerous public appearances, I will in the course of the early summer put the
finishing touches on Understanding the Minneapolis Public
Schools: Current Condition, Future
Prospect, and by October will have written the final four chapters for Fundamentals
of an Excellent Liberal Arts Education.
Thus, the day of reckoning for staff at the Minneapolis Pubic Schools (MPS) is fast approaching.
Understanding
the Minneapolis Public Schools: Current
Condition, Future Prospect will feature a damning assessment of the
policies and programs of the Minneapolis Public Schools, while providing
insight into the overhaul of curriculum and teacher training that will provide
hope for the future.
This book
proceeds in three parts: Facts; Analysis;
and Philosophy.
Part One constitutes a rigorous
presentation of the facts while providing comprehensive coverage of all aspects
of the Minneapolis Public Schools:
>>>>> staff composition by position and
remuneration at the Davis Center (MPS central offices, 1250 West
Broadway);
>>>>> programmatic initiatives of the Department
of Teaching and Learning, Department of College and Career Readiness, Office of
Black Male Achievement, Department of Teaching and Learning, and Department of
Student, Family, and Community Engagement;
>>>>> most recent data from the District
Report Card pertinent to the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs)
and the Multiple Measurement Rating System (MMRS);
>>>>> presentation of documents for Strategic Plan: Acceleration 2020 and Educational Equity Framework
>>>>> display of credentials of key central office
administrators;
>>>>> composition of the Minneapolis Public
Schools Board of Education, with party affiliations and endorsements by the
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT);
>>>>> structure, membership, leadership, teacher
contract, and policy positions of the
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers;
>>>>> school by school summary of student body by
ethnicity, programmatic emphases, and academic achievement;
>>>>> the wider context of K-12 education in which
MPS functions, with salient representations of charter schools, parochial schools,
alternative schools, and elite private schools;
>>>>> MPS budgetary allocations.
While the
staff of the Minneapolis Public Schools will damn itself through this
relentless revelation of facts, in Part
Two I will subject those facts to rigorous analysis, with emphasis on
certain themes. I will issue a scathing
assessment of the process for deciding on a new superintendent, a highly
negative review of Superintendent Ed Graff’s performance, a similarly
unfavorable view of the MPS Board of Education, and most especially a
penetrating rebuke for the district as to matters of curriculum, teacher
training, remedial instruction, family outreach, and monetary resource
allocations.
But in Part Three, I will provide a way toward a better future for the Minneapolis Public Schools. I will lay out a comprehensive program for curricular overhaul, plan for the thorough retraining of teachers; design for a coherent program of remedial instruction; program for the direct provision of services and resource referral to economically and functionally challenged families; and a plan for a dramatic shift in budgetary allocations.
Thus will I be in the publication of this book, depending on the response of MPS staff, the worst nightmare or the sweetest dream of the Minneapolis Public Schools. With the publication of Understanding the Minneapolis Public Schools: Current Condition, Future Prospect, I will reveal a school district of irresponsible chronic failure, with prospects for a future of excellence in the impartation of knowledge-intensive education to all of our precious children, of all demographic descriptors.
I hope you have an opportunity to add a few items to your facts. Student population and needs (ELL, Special Ed with level, Homeless and Highly mobile, how long the students have been in our school system, suspension rate compared to other schools, push-out rate) -and please provide this with context of the rest of the environment in which the MPS operates-in salient charters, private and parochial schools as well. all of them. If you are going to discuss the staff at davis, then please also include the federal programs that they must comply with (don't get me wrong, Im for reducing davis staff, but have come to realize we have overburdened public schools with form-filling) Perhaps you will compare this Davis staff list, in fact all of your points, with the other non-district schools' staff list.... oh, wait, you can't because they do not need to provide that staff list to you. They don't need to show you budget. They do not need to show you their strategic plan. They don't publish their school allocations, they don't publish their capital spending, they don't stream their board meetings. Many don't post minutes. They do not need to tell you how much they spend on Special Ed... (but it won't be as high, because they don't provide services for the severely disabled, they can "un-enroll" kids who have been tardy 10 times.) If you are going to address accomplishments, I hope you look beyond testing. But as you look at testing, please pay attention to the % of students taking the test. Please look at the average score of the ACT (all students took this), and other pertinent data. Also consider the time and money it takes to collect this data, at the expense of learning. If you are going to imply that the board is doing the bidding of the union (based on your "count" of who was endorsed) perhaps you'd like to include which candidates were endorsed by other groups - Perhaps you remember postcards sent against one board member and others by the same quick-start org endorsing others. Maybe you've seen that TFA endorsed some candidates. I have had some negative thoughts about MPS as well, but find it irresponsible to not list the "other side" with balanced reporting. I also find it less than helpful to provide a "scathing" list of all the failures in a proud way. Perhaps just publish your Part 3, and decide to be helpful rather than hurtful.
ReplyDelete