The paramount goal of the Minneapolis
Public Schools (MPS) Comprehensive Design should be to improve academic
proficiency rates for students.
Despite particularistic complaints from
community members that schools identified for immersion and dual language
programs are undergoing changes of program location; and that redesign of transportation routes
will find many students attending different schools; these are actually favorable features of the
Design. Overall, Superintendent Ed Graff
and staff, while taking too long (Graff’s tenure as superintendent is
approaching four years), have designed a thoughtful plan that will encourage
students to attend community schools unless they matriculate at one of the
proposed centralized magnet locations or the language immersion or dual
language schools--- while rationalizing
transportation routes and capturing resources for purposes that go to the core
mission of the district while creating more ethnically diverse schools.
But that is the problem. The core mission is the impartation of
knowledge-intensive, skill-replete curriculum by excellent teachers to students
of all demographic descriptors. Those
captured resources cannot be properly directed unless a promising academic plan
is in place.
And the proposed academic plan is
ultimately full of jargon of the sort to which the education establishment
always resorts and the lack of substance that inevitably characterizes academic
initiatives of that establishment’s devising.
This is going to require a great amount of
concentration on the part of readers, but give the following presentation of
the academic achievement goals in the MPS Comprehensive Design a reading, then
afterwards read my own analysis following that rendering of the academic
portion of the plan as district officials themselves have written:
………………………………………………………………………………..
Minneapolis Public Schools
Comprehensive District Design
Improved Academic Achievement
Overview
Academic Achievement Goal
MPS will graduate students with a
well-rounded
education regardless of zip code
>>>>> PreK-12 curricular offerings will
support MPS’s academic goal
>>>>> Programming and pedagogy will be academically rigorous and culturally relevant
>>>>> Students will have equitable access to
high quality academic offerings
>>>>> Students and families will experience
safe, welcoming, and respectful interactions in
all MPS schools, sites and services
ESSA Definition of a Well-Rounded
Education
>>>>> MPS supports the federal definition of a
well-rounded education
>>> …..
courses, activities, and programming in subjects such as English,
reading, or language arts, writing,
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, global languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history,
geography, computer science, music,
career and technical education, health, physical
education, and any other subject, as determined by State of local educational
agency, with the purpose of providing all students access to abn enriched curriculum
and educational experience.
(Every Student Succeeds Act: S. 177-298)
New
to ESEA, and included in ESSA’s well-rounder definition:
>>>>> Writing
>>>>> Engineering
>>>>> Music
>>>>> Health
>>>>> Technology
>>>>> Computer Science
>>>>> Career and Technical Education
>>>>> Physical Education
MPS Instructional Model
All students will be able to demonstrate
and articulate to parents their
>>>>> Classroom Theory of Action
>>>>> Multi-Tier Systems of Support
>>>>> Level 1-3 Special Education Services
>>>>> Level I-III Advanced Academics in All
Schools
>>>>> The integration of Social and Emotional
Learning
and career/life skills in the instructional
design
>>>>> Individualized learning options for all
students
Improved Academic Achievement Planning
Recommendations
Academic Strategies
The Design will support academic strategies
that specifically promote
>>>>> Individualized approaches to instruction
>>> begins with pre-kindergarten with differentiated
high-quality coursework ligned to state
standards
>>> enriched to result in a well-rounded
education
>>>>> Equitable access to academic, arts,
athletics, activities, service learning, and career/college programming
MPS will support academic strategies that
promote
>>>>> Foundational academics for elementary
students
>>> Build creative, critical thinkers, with
access to accelerated learning opportunities and music education during and
after school
>>>>> Rigorous coursework for middle grade students
>>> Builds on their foundational skills, with
continued access to accelerated learning and at least one world language
>>>>> Challenging options for high school students
>>> Relevant core instruction, rigorous and
meaningful elective options, and access to career and technical exploration,
PSEO, and accelerated learning options
Four Core Priorities
>>>>> Equity
>>>>> Multi-Tiered System of Support
>>>>> Social Emotional Learning
>>>>> Literacy
Academic Strategies
Deeper Investment and Expansion of Effective
programming (K-12)
>>>>> Continue focus on four core
priorities: Literacy, MTSS, SEL, and
Equity
>>>>> Greater alignment and consistency of
Multilingual programming
>>>>> Implement restorative practices
system-wide
>>>>> Expand ethnic studies courses at high schools
>>>>> Explore project-based learning in
selected 9th grade ELA classrooms
>>>>> Launch CTE redesign and
expansion for secondary
>>>>> Continue focus on four core
priorities
Pilot innovative programming; focus on students facing the most significant
academic disparities
>>>>> Explore new optons and rethink the
Technology offerings in the district, whether through
CTE or district-wide technology programs to
include world-relevant experience in education and careers, especially in the
field of Cyber Security
>>>>> Explore technology based personalized
learning partnership for middle grades (pilot at Franklin, Olson, Northeast,
and Sanford)
>>>>> K-2 literacy initiative for African American
and American Indian students not proficient
>>>>> Launch American Indian Achievement
Initiative cohort (Anishinabe, Northeast, Sanford, South, and Edison)
>>>>> Explore partnership with Children’s Defense
Fund to develop and pilot Freedom School model into full-year program setting
(pilot in Region 1 and Zone 1 elementary)
……………………………………………………………………………………
My Analysis of the
“Improved Academic Achievement Overview”
of the
MPS Comprehensive Design
Under “Academic Achievement Goal” there is
nothing that instils confidence that
“MPS will graduate students with a
well-rounded education regardless of zip code.”
Terms such as “academically rigorous’ and
“culturally relevant” are frequently
used but ill-defined throughout the document.
The vow to assure “equitable access to ‘high quality’ academic
offerings” assumes that curriculum is in place to deliver high quality academic
offerings and that teachers are trained for the delivery of such a
curriculum--- but, emphatically,
curriculum at the Minneapolis Public
Schools is weak, with no plan for improvement;
and
average teacher quality is low.
We have no details as to how “Students and
families will experience safe, welcoming, and respectful interactions in all
MPS schools, sites and services,” a very acute current problem that sends
students to options outside the district.
The “ESSA Definition of a Well-Rounded
Education” is fine but there is no plan in place at the Minneapolis Public
Schools to deliver knowledge-intensive education across the liberal,
technological, and vocational arts in the spirit of the ESSA definition.
And there are abundant problems with the “MPS
Instructional Model”:
Terms such as “Classroom Theory of Action”
and “Multi-Tier Systems of Support” are just vague verbalizations that are not
undergirded with any substance; and
typically anything that is offered by the education establishment as a
“Classroom Theory of Action” is a repackaged version of an abidingly bad
idea.
I do have confidence in Rochelle Cox and
staff at MPS Special Education to make promising changes, but there is very
little in the way of preparation to deliver “Advanced Academics in All Schools.”
Social and Emotional Learning should be a
given, not a core academic strategy and “individualized learning options for
all students” is one of those phrases that rings appealingly in the ear but
tends to undermine the delivery of common knowledge and skill sets to students
of all demographic descriptors.
Much of the section, “Improved Academic
Achievement Planning Recommendations,
Academic Strategies” utilizes previously
cited jargon and is likely to run counter to the delivery of
knowledge-intensive, skill-replete curriculum to students of all demographic
descriptors:
The phrases, “individualized approaches to
instruction” and “differentiated high-quality
coursework” are education establishment euphemisms that connote a lack of
confidence that students of all demographic descriptors can master the common
knowledge and skill sets that describe excellent education across the liberal,
technological, and vocational arts. And
the vow to provide “equitable access to academic, arts, athletics, activities,
service learning, and career/college programming” lacks substantive details,
thus yielding no confidence in MPS strategies for providing educational
excellence.
In asserting that “MPS will support
academic strategies that promote foundational academics for elementary students,”
those constructing the Comprehensive District Design fail to provide for that highly
intentional skill acquisition program that would give students languishing
below grade level the chance to establish “foundational academics”; or to detail the methods by which all
students will acquire grade level proficiency in mathematics and reading.
To “build creative, critical thinkers,” students
would have to have a strong knowledge base to establish their positions on key
issues and arrive at seminal solutions,
but there is no curriculum identified for attaining that knowledge base; likelihood of promoting accelerated learning
opportunities is dim for the same lack of knowledge-intensive curriculum. And music education during and after school
depends entirely on the quality of planning and instruction; such assurance of quality cannot be assumed
in the absence of a track record of success or convincing articulation of
changes that will be made to provide such programming.
In the same way, claims that “rigorous
coursework for middle grade students” will be provided and that there will be “access
to accelerated learning” are not achievable with curriculum and teaching as
they are and gives no confidence that what has not heretofore existed will now
be evident. Providing opportunities to
study “at least one world language” will have little utility if instruction
does not rise to the level of excellence needed but not now prevailing in the
Minneapolis Public Schools. Failure to
convincingly demonstrate how curriculum and teacher quality are going to
improve also casts doubts on the vows to provide “challenging options for high
school students,” “relevant core instruction,” and “rigorous and meaningful elective
options.” And ability to take advantage
of access to career and technical exploration or exercise PSEO (Post-Secondary
Educational Options) depends on a strong knowledge and skill base that most
Minneapolis Public Schools students do not now have and have no prospects of
having in the absence of specified changes in curriculum and teacher quality.
And problems abound in counting on
Superintendent Ed Graff’s four core priorities of Equity, Multi-Tiered System
of Support, Social Emotional Learning, and Literacy. Equity, literacy, and social and emotional
learning should be givens, not core priorities that should be presented in a
section focused on academic achievement.
Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) would if effective identify any
academic, social, health, or economic struggles of a student and offer the
array of services needed; no specific
plans for implementing such a wide-ranging array of services has been put
forward.
And nothing in the “Deeper Investment and
Expansion of Effective programming (K-12)” section inspires much
confidence. There is a restatement of
focus on the four core priorities and multilingual programming. Restorative practices should be assumed for
dealing with behavioral issues but are not at the core of the academic
program. Expansion of ethnic studies
courses is fine for the provision of engaging electives but will not be
meaningful in the absence of proper preparation in knowledge-intensive history
and literature instruction during the preK-8 years.
Project-based learning is not as effective
as whole class impartation of information and discussion but is a long-failed
favorite of the education establishment produced by those academic
lightweights, education professors.
I have more faith in aspirations to “launch
CTE redesign and expansion for secondary” students because Sara Etzel and Paul
Klym are better trained for the design and provision of Career and Technical
Education than Aimee Fearing and staff at the Department of Teaching and
Learning are prepared to provide an academic program of excellence.
The vow to “pilot innovative programming” focused
“on students facing the most significant academic disparities” makes an array
of false assumptions. Careful reading
reveals an assumption that students struggling with the gravest life challenges
need to be engaged via technology, personalized learning, ethnic-specific
programming, and open-ended approaches such as found in the Freedom School.
All of this is insulting in the extreme to
students whose families struggling with dilemmas of poverty and
functionality.
Such students need strong knowledge bases
and a full array of knowledge and skill sets in mathematics and reading. They need to learn vast amounts of
information in mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, history, government,
economics, geography, literature, English usage, music, and visual art. This can only happen with the provision of
knowledge-intensive education from the preK-5 years through middle school and
high school. Provision of such knowledge-intensive,
skill-replete curriculum is only possible if teachers are themselves
knowledgeable and capable of directly imparting such knowledge and skill sets
and conducting vigorous whole-class discussions focused on issues for which a
strong knowledge base is vital.
Technology can be a useful adjunct if used by teachers and students with
strong knowledge bases. Personalized
understanding is more germane to an excellent education than is personalized
learning; the former condition exists
when a teacher is aware of particular life struggles of her or his students, so
as to impart to them all the common knowledge and skill sets that are germane
to an excellent education.
Ethnic-specific programming should be incorporated into all courses,
particularly those in the fields of history and literature; but the assumption should be that attention
to ethnic-specific subject matter is important for all students to learn in
core courses. The Freedom School
approach should be utilized only in optional extracurricular programming; such an approach can never result in the
acquisition of well-defined knowledge and skill sets across the liberal,
technological, and vocational arts.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Thus does the MPS Comprehensive District
Design present logical changes pertinent to the location of language immersion
and dual language programs and magnet schools and result in greater, more
ethnically and economically diverse student populations in currently
underutilized buildings, particularly in North and Northeast Minneapolis.
But the advantages accruing from these
favorable features will be undermined by the failure of the Design to provide
for a curriculum overhauled for knowledge intensity and teachers trained to impart
such a curriculum.
On the matter of providing academics of
substance, the core mission of any public school system, those responsible for
the MPS Comprehensive Design have failed miserably.
No comments:
Post a Comment