Fallacy and immorality are the defining
characteristics in the saga of the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS)
Comprehensive District Design.
Aimee Fearing joined Eric Moore on the panels
that during meetings of January-March 2020 presented the five possible models
of the Design, proving just as much the dissembling Graff functionary as did
Moore.
Over summer 2019, the
position of Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) Executive Director of the Department
of Teaching and Learning was bestowed upon Aimee Fearing.
Eric Moore had been acting as
Interim Chief of Academics, Leadership, and Learning since losing the permanent
position that he had occupied for the short period of October 2018- January
2019. Deputy Chief of Academics,
Leadership, and Learning Cecilia Saddler occasionally acted as the spokesperson
in appearances before the school board for the academic program as proposed in
the emerging MPS Comprehensive District Design;
her jargon was as empty as that of the Design, and she was a nervous
wreck, knowing that her days at the MPS were numbered.
By winter 2019-2020 Aimee
Fearing had emerged as the interim leader for the position that had been
occupied by Moore. As the community
meetings presenting the five models of the Design transpired during
January-March 2020, Fearing acted as Superintendent Ed Graff’s mouthpiece for
the academic program, proving herself to be just much the sycophantic,
dissembling Graff toady as had Moore.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Sometimes on the name-plaque
identifying her at this meetings she would laughably be given the appellation,
“Dr.”
Although those who do not know
any better, which is to say almost everyone at these gatherings, the “Dr.”
title might be impressive. But while a
Ph.D. (as opposed to an Ed. D.) does confer the status demanded of today’s
professors in the key academic disciplines and is generally expected of college
and university presidents, no one who has obtained an Ed. D., as did Fearing,
would be considered for president at reputable colleges and universities. The degree is typically borne by education
professors, who are as much a campus joke as are the flimsy doctorates
conferred upon them.
Fearing’s credentials are as
follows.
Academic
Credentials for Aimee Fearing
Minneapolis
Public Schools
Executive
Director, Teaching and Learning
Degrees
Earned Field in
Which
Institution at
Which
Degree Was Earned
Degree Was Earned
Bachelors
Degree ESL Education
University
of Northwestern
13 May 2000
Masters
Degree Education
Hamline University
23 May 2003
Doctorate
Degree Education
Hamline University
30 April 2015
Other Credentials
Professional
Licensures
K-12 Principal
Licensure
Expiration, 30
June 2023
K-12 ESL
Licensure
Expiration, 30
June 2023
5-12
Communication Arts Licensure
Expiration, 30 June 2023
Thus, Fearing has the typical
profile for an academic decision-maker at the Minneapolis Public Schools:
Her training is entirely in
education rather than in an academic discipline (mathematics, natural science,
history, social science, literature, fine arts) that should be at the core of
the curriculum of a locally centralized school district. Fearing is not a scholar. She is not a subject area specialist. She should not be making decisions pertinent
to academics. And yet she leads a
department that has the official responsibility for the academic program of the
Minneapolis Public Schools.
Again, we have the phenomenon of
non-academicians bearing the responsibility for the academic program of the
Minneapolis Public Schools.
…………………………………………………………………………………..
Fearing is ill-qualified as an
academic leader.
And she was called upon to
present and defend the academic portion of the MPS Comprehensive Design that
ironically and immorally, is the weakest part of the Design. The sub-document is a jargon-infested
substantively empty abomination.
The paramount goal of
the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) Comprehensive Design should be to improve
academic proficiency rates for students.
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.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
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 of 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.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The MPS Comprehensive District Design
presents 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.
That Aimee Fearing served as Graff’s
spokesperson for such a program as embedded in the Design demonstrates that she
is either clueless or cowardly.
Her means of recouping her dignity would be
to resign and tell the public that Graff needs to hire a university based
scholar to construct the knowledge-intensive curriculum needed for the
provision of an excellent education---
and to design a program for
training teachers capable of imparting such a curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment