Contributing
to the environment of wretched K-12 education at the Minneapolis Public Schools
is the mediocrity of coverage by reporters and most of K-12 commentary that
appears in the Star Tribune. The past several reporters at the Star Tribune covering the Minneapolis
Public Schools have been Steve Brandt, Alejandra
Matos, and Beena Raghavendran; Faiza
Mahamud now seems to have replaced Raghavendran, with Anthony Lonetree now
covering the St. Paul Public Schools.
Articles written by these journalists are at best serviceable; often, their articles betray their misinformation
and naivete.
Star Tribune writers Mila Koupilova and Maryjo Webster are
now also covering K-12 education for the Twin Cities Metro and the state; they joined Faiza Mahamud in writing the
first of three articles that I posted in the course of last week, asking
readers to look for meaning in subtext and to analyze the articles for quality
of reporting.
The problem that is highlighted by my comments
interspersed with the article by Peter Hutchinson below concerns the analytical
acuity and activist commitment of most of those whose articles are published as
commentary in the Star Tribune:
Please now read this third of the articles again,
paying careful attention to my own comments interspersed with and at the
conclusion of the text; the article was
written by Peter Hutchinson and published in the Star Tribune on 2 March 2018.
>>>>>
Star Tribune, Quality
of Reporting, Assessment #3
From
Star Tribune, Opinion Pages, March 2,
2018
“No,
Learning Isn’t Booming. Our Diplomas are
Still a Fraud.”
Peter
Hutchinson
“You
lied to me!”
I
was running for governor in 2006, and this young woman was on my case before I
even got a word out. Once I regained my
composure, I asked her what she meant.
“I
did everything you adults told me to do,” she said. “I went to school every day, did my homework
every day, got good grades. I got a
diploma from a five-star Minnesota high school.
I enrolled in community college.
When I got there, they told me I had to take math and English all over
again because I had not really learned enough in high school. You adults told me that high school
graduation meant that I had learned. But
you lied to me!”
I was stunned, mad, embarrassed. I went to find the facts. In 2006, 28 percent of high school graduates
who went to college in Minnesota (two- or four-year) ended up taking high
school (remedial) classes in college. We
lied to them. We gave them a diploma
that was a fraud.
Now, over 10 years later we read in the Star Tribune that high school graduation
is at an all-time high, according to a new report from the Minnesota Department
of Education (“Graduation rate at high mark, Feb. 28”). The data seem to point in that
direction--- the percentage of students
graduating from high school is up significantly (from 75 percent in 2006 to
over 82 percent in 2016), while the percentage of those going to college
requiring remedial education is down( from 28 percdent in 2016 to 21 percent in
2015).
………………………………………………………..
My Comment
Peter
Hutchinson notes that his reading of the Star Tribune’s article, “Graduation
rate at high mark, Feb. 28,” the first of those posted in this series, came
over ten (10) years after he ran for governor, a point at which he found that
at that juncture “28 percent of high school graduates who went to college in
Minnesota (two or four-year) ended up taking high school (remedial) classes in
college. We lied to them. We gave them a diploma that was a fraud.”
I
note here that Peterson’s run for governor came just over ten (10) years after
his 1993-1997 term as Superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools came
to an end. What he does not hasten to
convey to you, though, is that during his own tenure as superintendent student
achievement rates were just as abysmal as they are now and students went off to
college needing remediation in mathematics and reading at similar rates to
those that he cites, because the diplomas that he passed out to students were
just as much of a fraud.
Note
also that Peterson represents one of many cases of what I label the “Corey
Booker Phenomenon.”
Booker
forged a substantially deserved reputation as a mayor who made significant
progress in making the very challenged city of Newark, New Jersey, into a more
cohesive urban community with greater hope for the future; but Booker departed before he had gotten
anywhere close to completing his avowed goal of making Newark a peaceful and
thriving urban center. He now serves in
the United States Senate, with designs on the presidency; from neither of those political perches can
Booker or anyone do as much to address the problems of people living at the
urban core as effectively as can a city official positioned to make policy at the
local level. This is especially true
given that in the United States we have a mania for local control in education,
and education is central to solving the problems of people living at the urban
core.
A mayor could do much to create a social and economic environment abetting the efforts of a visionary and philosophically astute superintendent to advance a program of educational excellence. Hutchinson also departed a local post, in this case that very role of superintendent, before his work was done; the gubernatorial position that he sought in 2006 has limited impact on academic programming at the level of the locally centralized school district, despite campaign claims and public perception.
A mayor could do much to create a social and economic environment abetting the efforts of a visionary and philosophically astute superintendent to advance a program of educational excellence. Hutchinson also departed a local post, in this case that very role of superintendent, before his work was done; the gubernatorial position that he sought in 2006 has limited impact on academic programming at the level of the locally centralized school district, despite campaign claims and public perception.
If
Hutchinson had been serious about improving public education, he would have
continued to work for change at the level of the locally centralized school
ditrict.
I
have never seen him at a meeting of the Minneapolis Public Schools Board of
Education.
…………………………………………………………….
Hutchinson’s opinion piece continues >>>>>
All true and on the face of it pretty fantastic. The message:
In Minnesota we have done what few other places have done: We have gotten more of our students to
learn--- and to learn at ever-hbigher
levels. It’s unbelievable!
Indeed, it is not believable. These two measures--- graduation and remedial course-taking--- tell us about events in the experience of students
but not what they learned.
We have three pieces of very reliable data on student
learning that got left out.
First, in elementary and middle school, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress measures the proficiency of our students in
both reading and math. In the last 10
years, there has been no significant improvement in student learning--- with only 40 to 50 percent of our students
being rated as proficient or better.
These are the students enrolling in our high schools.
Second, the ACT measures the degree to which our high
school graduates are ready for college.
Over the last 10 years, the average score has remained virtually
unchanged--- with only 30 percent of
students meeting all of the ACT’s benchmarks for college readiness. Nevertheless we graduate over 80 percent of
students from high school, and the vast majority of them (75 percent) go on to
college--- and especially to our
two-year colleges, where about one-third of the enroll.
So then what happens?
The Department of Education argues that the reduction in remedial
course-taking means that our students are better prepared. The data on student achievement in
elementary, middle, and high school say otherwise. And so do the outcomes for college students.
Over 80 percent of all remedial course-taking is done by
students enrolled in our two-year colleges.
For them, it is accurate to say that remedial course-taking has
dropped. But that is largely because our
two-year colleges have redefined and redesigned how to support underprepared students,
steering them away from old-style remedial classes.
What’s more important is that the percentage of students
successfully graduating from our two-year institutions has dropped--- only 49 percent now get a degree and transfer
to another college.
Yes, we are graduating more students from high school,
and enrolling more in college, and then we are letting them flounder and leave
without getting a degree. That is a
scandal.
We should put a warning label on our high school
diplomas saying: “This is not a
certification that you are ready for college.”
Our system is failing students by lying to them. Reports and stories like these only
perpetuate the lie and keep the rest of us in the dark.
And in the dark, things look a lot better than they really
are.
………………………………………………………..
My Concluding Comment
Hutchinson
did his own generous amount of lying to students when he was Superintendent of
the Minneapolis Public Schools.
He served
the three to five (3 to 5) years typical of the superintendent of the locally
centralized school district.
He
did not advance policies pertinent to curriculum or teacher training central to
the attainment of educational excellence.
Ironically,
he did nothing to advance a program of academic enrichment that would have
included tutoring for students languishing below grade level in mathematics and
reading, thereby maximizing prospects that colleges and universities would have
to provide remediation, whether in remedial courses as such, or in some other
way. Hutchinson did not create a
professional force of staff comfortable on the streets or in the homes of
students living in families facing challenges of finances or
functionality; he did not emphasize resource
provision or referral of the kind needed to ensure that students of all
demographic descriptors arrive at school in emotional and physical states
conducive to learning.
Hence,
Peter Hutchison is correct to question the significance of improved graduation
rates in view of the wretched K-12 education that yields pieces of paper
constituting diplomas in name only.
But
Hutchinson is himself deeply culpable for his own part in sustaining the system
that he correctly derides during his tenure as Superintendent of the
Minneapolis Public Schools; and for
failing to commit his post-tenure energies to addressing the problems that he
left behind.
The
failure of people who have professed to care about K-12 education to
demonstrate staying power is among the many reasons why we have made no
progress toward a system of excellence in public education in the United
States.
The
overhaul of K-12 education in Minnesota and across the United States will
take sustained activism.
It
must take sustained activism.
This
is the activism of which you read on this blog.
It is
the activism to which I challenge you, my readers, to commit.
No comments:
Post a Comment