A Note to My Readers>>>>>
The following six posts concern a compact book, running thirty (30) or so pages in manuscript format, that I have written concerning the contract negotiations currently being conducted by the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers.
Bernadeia Johnson has emerged as a courageous and insightful Superintendent of the Minneapolis Public Schools.
Lynn Nordgren leads a teachers union that is doing everything it can to obstruct the contract proposals that might in some cases challenge and inconvenience the most reactionary and least talented members of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers.
My articles copiously reproduce the Minneapolis Public Schools contract proposals and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers responses. My own analysis is most evident in Article #1 and Article #2, and, especially, Article # 4 and Article #5, in which I summarize the Minneapolis Public Schools and Minneapolis Federation of Teachers positions--- and then offer incisive commentary.
Some readers may find the latter two articles the most engaging and find satisfying a process of skimming the other articles for details of the school district contract proposal, with union responses, but going to the two specified articles for the most careful reading.
The immediately following post gives the front matter of the book (title, copyright, and contents), with the five articles then appearing in succession.
Oct 18, 2013
Front Matter>>> Title Page, Copyright, Contents
An Assessment of the 2013 Negotiations,
Minneapolis Public Schools
and
Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Or What I Would Tell Lynn Nordgren and Her Group If They Had the Courage to Let Members of the Public Speak
A Five Article Series
By Gary Marvin Davison, Ph. D.
Director, New Salem Educational Initiative
New Salem Educational Initiative
Minneapolis, Minnesota
An Assessment of the 2013 Negotiations, Minneapolis Public Schools and Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Or What I Would Tell Lynn Nordgren and Her Group If They Had the Courage to Let Members of the Public Speak
A Five Article Series
Copyright © 2013 by Gary Marvin Davison
New Salem Educational Initiative
Contents
Article #1>>>>>
The Prevaricating and Irresponsible Posturing of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Article #2>>>>>
The Highly Promising Initiatives of the Team Assembled by Minneapolis Public Schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson
Article #3>>>>>
Contract Language Proposed by the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Response from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Article #4>>>>>
My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response
Part One: Brief Overviews
Article #5>>>>>
My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response
Part Two: My Comments
Or What I Would Tell Lynn Nordgren and Her Group If They Had the Courage to Let Members of the Public Speak
A Five Article Series
By Gary Marvin Davison, Ph. D.
Director, New Salem Educational Initiative
New Salem Educational Initiative
Minneapolis, Minnesota
An Assessment of the 2013 Negotiations, Minneapolis Public Schools and Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Or What I Would Tell Lynn Nordgren and Her Group If They Had the Courage to Let Members of the Public Speak
A Five Article Series
Copyright © 2013 by Gary Marvin Davison
New Salem Educational Initiative
Contents
Article #1>>>>>
The Prevaricating and Irresponsible Posturing of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Article #2>>>>>
The Highly Promising Initiatives of the Team Assembled by Minneapolis Public Schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson
Article #3>>>>>
Contract Language Proposed by the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Response from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Article #4>>>>>
My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response
Part One: Brief Overviews
Article #5>>>>>
My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response
Part Two: My Comments
Article #1>>>>> The Prevaricating and Irresponsible Posturing of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Minneapolis Public Schools officials, spurred by the efforts of courageous and dedicated Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson, are fully focused on making changes in the educational delivery system of the district that will bring a higher quality of education to students, particularly at the schools most in need of improvement.
Lynn Nordgren and her group from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers are doing everything that they can to make sure that the needed changes are not made.
Nordgren and her group reveal much of their flawed approach in a glossy flyer distributed at one of the early meetings. Entitled, “Minneapolis Teachers --- Goals for Student Success,” the flyer goes on to emphasize a number of points that would ensure that such success will not happen. The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers union calls for the following:
1) a moratorium on standardized testing;
2) school leadership by committee with heavy teacher input;
3) achievement of teacher quality through teacher-led, peer-reviewed evaluations, peer mentoring, participation in residency programs, a rigorous tenure process, and strong pre-service education;
4) child-centered curriculum informed heavily by the talents and interests of students ;
5) a variety of social services, addressing problems that students bring with them to school; and
6) class sizes that would fix ratios of 1:15 for K-3 students, 1:21 for those at grades 4-5, and 1:24 for students at grades 6-12.
Some of these tenets of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers seem appealing but need to be decoded:
1)
The moratorium on standardized testing should not even seem appealing to anyone who thinks clearly about assessment. Standardized, objective testing such as that done through the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) is the best way to determine if students have achieved mastery in the major skill areas of reading and math.
Results of the MCAs and other standardized tests have deeply embarrassed the teachers of the Minneapolis Public Schools, so they want to avoid further embarrassment by jettisoning such tests.
But colleges and university officials know that such standardized tests as the ACT and the SAT are good predictors of success at the college level. Military officials know that tests administered by the armed services predict with a high degree of accuracy the skill and knowledge sets that prospective soldiers bring to their service.
2) and 3)
Lynn Nordgren and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers tend to use the verbiage of “collaboration” in anything that involves decision-making at school sites. But teacher hiring, evaluation, and dismissal should not be under the purview of teachers. Those are matters of administrative responsibility, for which administrators should then be held accountable as to the teacher quality represented by the professionals operating in each classroom.
4)
By child-centered curriculum, Nordgren and group mean a curriculum disastrously touted by education professors under the monikers of “progressive” and “constructionist” approaches that promote the interests of individual students and teachers as the drivers of curriculum.
In fact, anyone who truly loves children and wants them to thrive during and after the K-12 school experience should want them to learn specified skill and knowledge sets in grade by grade sequence; these inevitably go beyond the immediate personal inclinations of students and will in the long run make them well-informed citizens who actually know something about math, literature, history, economics, biology, chemistry, physics, the fine arts, and multiple languages.
5)
The nomenclature adopted by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers calls for “wrap-around services,” proposed to address issues pertinent to family and community that may impede a student’s progress. The union is on solid ground in calling for better comprehensive services to address student needs. The problem is that teachers use family struggles and economic impoverishment of many children as excuses for their own failures to deliver the quality of education that is possible when highly qualified teachers are in every classroom.
6)
The class sizes touted by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers are fiscally unrealistic and do not guarantee student success.
With an exercise of fiscal and pedagogical logic, Minneapolis Public Schools officials should aim for K-3 class sizes in the low 20s, grade 4-5 class sizes in the middle 20s, and class sizes at the middle and high school level in the upper 20s, lower 30s, or whatever seems best for a given classroom and subject matter.
Much more use should be made of better trained teachers’ aides and talented volunteers to draw students aside for highly focused work on skills that are lagging.
Lynn Nordgren and her group from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers are doing everything that they can to make sure that the needed changes are not made.
Nordgren and her group reveal much of their flawed approach in a glossy flyer distributed at one of the early meetings. Entitled, “Minneapolis Teachers --- Goals for Student Success,” the flyer goes on to emphasize a number of points that would ensure that such success will not happen. The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers union calls for the following:
1) a moratorium on standardized testing;
2) school leadership by committee with heavy teacher input;
3) achievement of teacher quality through teacher-led, peer-reviewed evaluations, peer mentoring, participation in residency programs, a rigorous tenure process, and strong pre-service education;
4) child-centered curriculum informed heavily by the talents and interests of students ;
5) a variety of social services, addressing problems that students bring with them to school; and
6) class sizes that would fix ratios of 1:15 for K-3 students, 1:21 for those at grades 4-5, and 1:24 for students at grades 6-12.
Some of these tenets of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers seem appealing but need to be decoded:
1)
The moratorium on standardized testing should not even seem appealing to anyone who thinks clearly about assessment. Standardized, objective testing such as that done through the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) is the best way to determine if students have achieved mastery in the major skill areas of reading and math.
Results of the MCAs and other standardized tests have deeply embarrassed the teachers of the Minneapolis Public Schools, so they want to avoid further embarrassment by jettisoning such tests.
But colleges and university officials know that such standardized tests as the ACT and the SAT are good predictors of success at the college level. Military officials know that tests administered by the armed services predict with a high degree of accuracy the skill and knowledge sets that prospective soldiers bring to their service.
2) and 3)
Lynn Nordgren and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers tend to use the verbiage of “collaboration” in anything that involves decision-making at school sites. But teacher hiring, evaluation, and dismissal should not be under the purview of teachers. Those are matters of administrative responsibility, for which administrators should then be held accountable as to the teacher quality represented by the professionals operating in each classroom.
4)
By child-centered curriculum, Nordgren and group mean a curriculum disastrously touted by education professors under the monikers of “progressive” and “constructionist” approaches that promote the interests of individual students and teachers as the drivers of curriculum.
In fact, anyone who truly loves children and wants them to thrive during and after the K-12 school experience should want them to learn specified skill and knowledge sets in grade by grade sequence; these inevitably go beyond the immediate personal inclinations of students and will in the long run make them well-informed citizens who actually know something about math, literature, history, economics, biology, chemistry, physics, the fine arts, and multiple languages.
5)
The nomenclature adopted by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers calls for “wrap-around services,” proposed to address issues pertinent to family and community that may impede a student’s progress. The union is on solid ground in calling for better comprehensive services to address student needs. The problem is that teachers use family struggles and economic impoverishment of many children as excuses for their own failures to deliver the quality of education that is possible when highly qualified teachers are in every classroom.
6)
The class sizes touted by the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers are fiscally unrealistic and do not guarantee student success.
With an exercise of fiscal and pedagogical logic, Minneapolis Public Schools officials should aim for K-3 class sizes in the low 20s, grade 4-5 class sizes in the middle 20s, and class sizes at the middle and high school level in the upper 20s, lower 30s, or whatever seems best for a given classroom and subject matter.
Much more use should be made of better trained teachers’ aides and talented volunteers to draw students aside for highly focused work on skills that are lagging.
Article #2>>>>> The Highly Promising Initiatives of the of the Team Assembled by Minneapolis Public Schools Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson
In sharp contrast to the prevaricating and irresponsible posturing of Lynn Nordgren and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, the initiatives of Minneapolis Public Schools officials under the leadership of Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson are innovative and focused keenly on addressing academic issues of schools targeted for high priority changes in the delivery of education.
In a document entitled, “MPS Background on High Priority Schools “ (October 10, 2013), school district officials demonstrate through data presentation that the most academically challenged schools have much more staffing instability and less experienced teachers, even though schools such as Bethune, Bryn Mawr, Edison, Hall, Lucy Laney, North, Northeast, and Olson, by comparison with other schools, have much greater incidence of student poverty and chronic underachievement than does the district as a whole--- even in a school district that is itself underachieving.
To remedy the prevailing underachievement at schools prioritized for structural changes in the interest of better academic results, the district proposes the following in its “Summary of General Interest.” Responses of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers to each of these points are given in quotation marks, underneath the points:
1) Blend the former Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) relating to High Priority Schools (HPS) and School Improvement Grant Schools into one new article of the contract.
“Question: Which elements of each MOA are intended to be “blended”? There are only a couple of sentences that are different.”
2) The list of participating Schools would be included in an Appendix to the contract, rather than listing schools in the agreement itself. This way the list can change from year to year without having to amend the contract repeatedly.
“NO.
“We are not entering this into our contract. There is not definite agreement, there is no evidence that what is being proposed will make a difference, there are too many details that have to be worked out. Students and teachers are not pawns to be used in an experiment. Children and youth need to be treated humanely--- they are not robots and their aptitudes and gifts should not be judged solely on test scores.
"A longer day of academic drilling while sitting at a desk is not in synch with best practices or child development. We agree with more hands on, experiential time after school that is educational but not more time at a desk, which ends up leading to students hating learning and school.”
3) Allow sites to provide more professional development or collaboration time to meet the specific needs of their site.
“There is already an overload of PD and meetings at the sites. Teachers cannot keep up with preparing lessons for the next day because of it. WE must find time for more review of student work, planning differentiated lessons, gathering of resources and time to speak with parents. Over and over, we are hearing the PD is not helping and actually hurting classroom instruction. It is all too often superficial, not relevant, and time consuming. We believe in professional development but not in its current format.”
4) Allow sites to provide additional instruction time to meet the specific needs of their sites. “Sites do provide more instruction time. Many students have an additional hour of math and hour of reading after school.
“Without more discussion, this feels chaotic--- free for all at best. Families already have a difficult time managing our system; this would only add more disruption.”
5) Enhance the ability for sites to hire and retain staff to maximize continuity of instruction and quality.
“Sites already have this ability. They select whomever they wish through the Interview and Select process.”
6) Maintain class size targets and ability to address teacher to student loads.
“There was no good faith effort over the past year by the district to do anything about class size or caseloads except the usual class size adjustments in October. Class sizes have not changed or they have gotten bigger. Caseloads are out of control--- way beyond state recommendations. We know class size and caseloads make a difference in learning and we can close the gap if we adjust to sizes that research tells us works.
"There appears to be an unwillingness to tackle the problem with any zeal or depth. That said, we are hopeful (yet also skeptical) the proposed plan to open schools will make a difference but that is not going to solve the problem we face in the present moment.”
7) Regular collaboration and assessment of the aspects that are working.
"Based on what? We did not do this over the past year and do not see anything in place to make that happen over the upcoming year(s). We refuse to use standardized test scores as the indicator of success."
In a document entitled, “MPS Background on High Priority Schools “ (October 10, 2013), school district officials demonstrate through data presentation that the most academically challenged schools have much more staffing instability and less experienced teachers, even though schools such as Bethune, Bryn Mawr, Edison, Hall, Lucy Laney, North, Northeast, and Olson, by comparison with other schools, have much greater incidence of student poverty and chronic underachievement than does the district as a whole--- even in a school district that is itself underachieving.
To remedy the prevailing underachievement at schools prioritized for structural changes in the interest of better academic results, the district proposes the following in its “Summary of General Interest.” Responses of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers to each of these points are given in quotation marks, underneath the points:
1) Blend the former Memoranda of Agreements (MOAs) relating to High Priority Schools (HPS) and School Improvement Grant Schools into one new article of the contract.
“Question: Which elements of each MOA are intended to be “blended”? There are only a couple of sentences that are different.”
2) The list of participating Schools would be included in an Appendix to the contract, rather than listing schools in the agreement itself. This way the list can change from year to year without having to amend the contract repeatedly.
“NO.
“We are not entering this into our contract. There is not definite agreement, there is no evidence that what is being proposed will make a difference, there are too many details that have to be worked out. Students and teachers are not pawns to be used in an experiment. Children and youth need to be treated humanely--- they are not robots and their aptitudes and gifts should not be judged solely on test scores.
"A longer day of academic drilling while sitting at a desk is not in synch with best practices or child development. We agree with more hands on, experiential time after school that is educational but not more time at a desk, which ends up leading to students hating learning and school.”
3) Allow sites to provide more professional development or collaboration time to meet the specific needs of their site.
“There is already an overload of PD and meetings at the sites. Teachers cannot keep up with preparing lessons for the next day because of it. WE must find time for more review of student work, planning differentiated lessons, gathering of resources and time to speak with parents. Over and over, we are hearing the PD is not helping and actually hurting classroom instruction. It is all too often superficial, not relevant, and time consuming. We believe in professional development but not in its current format.”
4) Allow sites to provide additional instruction time to meet the specific needs of their sites. “Sites do provide more instruction time. Many students have an additional hour of math and hour of reading after school.
“Without more discussion, this feels chaotic--- free for all at best. Families already have a difficult time managing our system; this would only add more disruption.”
5) Enhance the ability for sites to hire and retain staff to maximize continuity of instruction and quality.
“Sites already have this ability. They select whomever they wish through the Interview and Select process.”
6) Maintain class size targets and ability to address teacher to student loads.
“There was no good faith effort over the past year by the district to do anything about class size or caseloads except the usual class size adjustments in October. Class sizes have not changed or they have gotten bigger. Caseloads are out of control--- way beyond state recommendations. We know class size and caseloads make a difference in learning and we can close the gap if we adjust to sizes that research tells us works.
"There appears to be an unwillingness to tackle the problem with any zeal or depth. That said, we are hopeful (yet also skeptical) the proposed plan to open schools will make a difference but that is not going to solve the problem we face in the present moment.”
7) Regular collaboration and assessment of the aspects that are working.
"Based on what? We did not do this over the past year and do not see anything in place to make that happen over the upcoming year(s). We refuse to use standardized test scores as the indicator of success."
Article #3>>>>> Contract Language Proposed by the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Response from the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
Following up on its Summary of General Interests, the team negotiating for the Minneapolis Public Schools has offered proposed contract language meant to address the issues faced at High Priority Schools, dealing with those issues with greater flexibility and creativity.
The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers response to each of the parts in the Proposed Contract Language is given underneath the proposed language offered by the Minneapolis Public Schools:
Proposed Contract Language
Article XIX. HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOLS The Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) share a common goal in strengthening academic performance at schools identified by the district as “High Priority Schools.” For 2013-2014 these schools are listed in Appendix A.
The following commitments are effective July 1, 2013.
Section A. Time Teachers repeatedly expressed the need for more time to collaborate. Best practices in high performing, urban schools also demonstrate the need for structured, dedicated time for planning professional development and collaboration. Therefore:
a. Starting with the 2013-14 school year, teachers with any assignment at a High Priority School will participate in up to five (5) additional duty days or equivalent time for professional development/ collaboration beyond what is agreed to in the master CBA between MPS and MFT.
To this wording of the Proposed Contract Language, the MFT inserts “be required to” between “will” and “participate” in line two and at the end adds, “In addition, staff at all sites will have access to four (4) additional unencumbered preparation days in the 10 days before the first professional day. This is optional, not required, but is intended to provide teachers with the opportunity/ time to set up classrooms and prepare for the upcoming quarter, in advance of the official callback.” The MFT then creates a new part “b.” to read, “Teachers will be paid at their direct instruction rate of pay for the additional days--- whether required or optional.”
b. The specific schedule and topics to be addressed during the professional development/ collaboration days or extended times will be determined by each school’s Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team after seeking input from the teaching staff. The school’s Associate Superintendent will have final approval of the plan.
This section is then lettered as “c” by the MFT, striking the words, “or extended times” from the second sentence, striking “Principal/ Administrator” from the second and third lines, and adding “collective” between “seeking” and “input” in the third line.
c. The District can also develop a plan for additional instructional time for students in all or some of the High Priority Schools. The District will work collaboratively with the MFT, teachers, parents, students, and community partners to review possible options that may include:
This section has then become “d,” with the entire first sentence deleted by the MFT, and with the remaining sentence altered to read as follows: “The District, MFT, teachers, parents, students and community partners will work collaboratively to review possible options for extended learning time that may include:”
i. Additional instructional days in the District school calendar approved by the Board of Education for 2013-14.
The MFT alters the wording of this point “i” and combines it with an altered point “ii” as follows: “Additional instruction time through after school extended enrichment learning opportunities.” I
i. Additional instructional time through extended learning options and a longer day.
iii. A summer school option at High Priority Schools that identifies specific students who would benefit from additional time and learning supports.
Having combined points “I” and “ii,” the MFT then presents this section as section “ii,” with modifications and additions as follows: “Required summer school option for all students in need of more learning time as recommended by the teachers and related services professionals in the schools. “Summer schools should continue to follow and expand on the experiential, applied learning model it currently uses. The summer slide for students is because they do not have access and opportunities to the same things that middle class and upper middle class students have--- camping, swimming, field trips to museums and outdoor destinations, hands on science lessons, community events, etc.”
iv. An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing additional instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.
This section is presented by the MFT as section “iii,”with the following change of wording, “An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the opportunity gap such as wrap around services and community activities.”
d. Annually the District will designate sites and programs that will be added to the list of High Priority Schools contained in Appendix A based on changes in school performance. The District will notify MFT by November 1st of each year of any additions to the list.
The MFT alters section “d,” which has become section “e,”as follows: A team made up of MPS and MFT members will review sites and programs that may need additional support in the upcoming school year and determine the best actions to be taken.
e. Teachers at High Priority Schools who work additional days beyond the 196 day agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement will need to sign a form stating that they understand that the extended time is not guaranteed in future years.
The MFT makes no change in this section, which has become section “f.”
Section B. Staffing
No excess placement may occur at a High Priority site unless the Principal/ Administrator agrees, or there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit. This does not limit the discretion of the Superintendent or their designee to make final placement decisions even at a High Priority School.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting that “The language of the current MOAs is clear and works just fine.” The MFT then substitutes its own introduction to “Staffing” as follows: “Staffing: No placement may occur at a High Priority School unless there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit (as per the Streamlining Transfers Through Mutual Consent MOAs).
With the approval of Human Resources, a High Priority School will be able to have an extended early I & S session (i.e., open postings) to post specific positions internally and externally to fill directly into known vacancies without waiting until after Budget Tie-Out (BTO) and the later rounds of the I & S process.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, posing a question as follows: “QUESTION: How would we manage an expansion of the labor pool before BTO shows the specific needs? We propose to stay with what we have now. This proposal would potentially increase instability in staffing by increasing the numbers of teachers excessed within the system, which can be burdensome.”
Teachers accepting positions in a HPS wll make a three (3) year commitment to remain in the school to provide stability and continuity in the programming. The MFT leaves this sentence intact but alters the following paragraph. At the discretion of the Human Resources Department, hiring incentives may be used to remain competitive and compete for teachers with surrounding districts and schools. The district has the right to match offers, make competitive offers, provide hiring bonuses, and create retention bonuses in an effort to hire teachers in hard to fill license areas or programs.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting the following: “This is very vague language. Perhaps looking at giving extra steps when a person is hired into a ‘hard to fill’ license area for a lane movement while on the job. If they leave this HTF position, they will return to the step or lane [at which] they would have been had they not been in a HTF position. (Toledo language…) All staff HPS and staff in hard-to-fill positions from non-hard-to-fill positions/ programs anywhere (based on shortages.) New hires or teachers who would change positions from non-hard-to-fill to hard-to-fill positions would get extra steps, currently employed teachers in those positions would also get the extra step move to honor their hard work, and to, hopefully, retain them.
In the event staff reductions are needed at a High Priority School due to changes in budget, a High Priority School will not be required to excess teachers in seniority order. Teachers who are excessed from a High Priority Schools or site due to a reduction in staffing shall participate in Open Postings and the Interview and Select interview and transfer process.
The MFT deletes this entire paragraph and proceeds to item “C.”
C. Class Size Targets and Instructional Levels
The MFT makes an insertion here, as follows:
NOTE: This language was not honored this past year. We do not trust that it will be in the future. It feels like it is added to sweeten the MOA with no intent to actually make it happen.
To ensure students timely, meaningful attention and feedback as well as the ability to maintain a positive, productive student-centered classroom, the District and MFT commit to the lowest possible student to educator ratio. The District will work to target the following class sizes or instructor to student guides:
a. K-3 @ 21
b. Grades 4-5 @ 24: MPS will use minimal allocation dollars to address class size in order to ensure that K-3 numbers do not have a negative impact on the 4-5.
c. Grades 6-12: sites will determine class size. Sites may use their discretion to allocate their existing budget allocation to reduce class size.
The MFT lets the class sizes stand but adds a section “d” as follows:
d. Related services professionals will have caseloads per state recommendations and appropriate caseload support.
The district retains flexibility to meet exigencies, such as sibling preference, facility size, late enrollment, and other contingencies, as we make a “best effort” in meeting the targets. Where space for additional classes to reduce class size is not viable, the District will look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor –to- student ratios.
The MFT strikes the entire first line of this paragraph and alters it to read as follows:
In order to meet the class size targets where space is not available, the District may look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor-to-student ratios such as adding another teacher or ESP to the classroom.
Both parties realize that, if funding changes significantly year to year, the targets would have to be adjusted to be consistent with overall district funding, while still providing relatively lower class size targets for the High Priority Schools than the overall District targets for the same grade levels.
The MFT leaves this paragraph mostly intact, but removes the word, “targets,” in the first line, replacing it with the phrasing, “student to teacher ratio.” The MFT then adds a line, as follows: “Joint labor/ management negotiations would occur to adjust class size/ caseload as needed per changes in funding.”
MPS and MFT agree to monitor class size at Fall Staff Adjustments meetings. Representatives from MPS and MFT will meet no later than the third week in September each year to review data on actual class size numbers and discuss adjustments needed. This review will include Special Education and ELL class sizes and caseloads.
The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “Need stronger language.” Section D. Evaluation MPS and MFT will regularly evaluate the success of this Article throughout its implementation.
The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “[didn’t happen].”
The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers response to each of the parts in the Proposed Contract Language is given underneath the proposed language offered by the Minneapolis Public Schools:
Proposed Contract Language
Article XIX. HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOLS The Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) and the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers (MFT) share a common goal in strengthening academic performance at schools identified by the district as “High Priority Schools.” For 2013-2014 these schools are listed in Appendix A.
The following commitments are effective July 1, 2013.
Section A. Time Teachers repeatedly expressed the need for more time to collaborate. Best practices in high performing, urban schools also demonstrate the need for structured, dedicated time for planning professional development and collaboration. Therefore:
a. Starting with the 2013-14 school year, teachers with any assignment at a High Priority School will participate in up to five (5) additional duty days or equivalent time for professional development/ collaboration beyond what is agreed to in the master CBA between MPS and MFT.
To this wording of the Proposed Contract Language, the MFT inserts “be required to” between “will” and “participate” in line two and at the end adds, “In addition, staff at all sites will have access to four (4) additional unencumbered preparation days in the 10 days before the first professional day. This is optional, not required, but is intended to provide teachers with the opportunity/ time to set up classrooms and prepare for the upcoming quarter, in advance of the official callback.” The MFT then creates a new part “b.” to read, “Teachers will be paid at their direct instruction rate of pay for the additional days--- whether required or optional.”
b. The specific schedule and topics to be addressed during the professional development/ collaboration days or extended times will be determined by each school’s Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team after seeking input from the teaching staff. The school’s Associate Superintendent will have final approval of the plan.
This section is then lettered as “c” by the MFT, striking the words, “or extended times” from the second sentence, striking “Principal/ Administrator” from the second and third lines, and adding “collective” between “seeking” and “input” in the third line.
c. The District can also develop a plan for additional instructional time for students in all or some of the High Priority Schools. The District will work collaboratively with the MFT, teachers, parents, students, and community partners to review possible options that may include:
This section has then become “d,” with the entire first sentence deleted by the MFT, and with the remaining sentence altered to read as follows: “The District, MFT, teachers, parents, students and community partners will work collaboratively to review possible options for extended learning time that may include:”
i. Additional instructional days in the District school calendar approved by the Board of Education for 2013-14.
The MFT alters the wording of this point “i” and combines it with an altered point “ii” as follows: “Additional instruction time through after school extended enrichment learning opportunities.” I
i. Additional instructional time through extended learning options and a longer day.
iii. A summer school option at High Priority Schools that identifies specific students who would benefit from additional time and learning supports.
Having combined points “I” and “ii,” the MFT then presents this section as section “ii,” with modifications and additions as follows: “Required summer school option for all students in need of more learning time as recommended by the teachers and related services professionals in the schools. “Summer schools should continue to follow and expand on the experiential, applied learning model it currently uses. The summer slide for students is because they do not have access and opportunities to the same things that middle class and upper middle class students have--- camping, swimming, field trips to museums and outdoor destinations, hands on science lessons, community events, etc.”
iv. An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing additional instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the achievement gap.
This section is presented by the MFT as section “iii,”with the following change of wording, “An alternative option developed by the parties that meets the objective of providing instruction, increasing student achievement and closing the opportunity gap such as wrap around services and community activities.”
d. Annually the District will designate sites and programs that will be added to the list of High Priority Schools contained in Appendix A based on changes in school performance. The District will notify MFT by November 1st of each year of any additions to the list.
The MFT alters section “d,” which has become section “e,”as follows: A team made up of MPS and MFT members will review sites and programs that may need additional support in the upcoming school year and determine the best actions to be taken.
e. Teachers at High Priority Schools who work additional days beyond the 196 day agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement will need to sign a form stating that they understand that the extended time is not guaranteed in future years.
The MFT makes no change in this section, which has become section “f.”
Section B. Staffing
No excess placement may occur at a High Priority site unless the Principal/ Administrator agrees, or there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit. This does not limit the discretion of the Superintendent or their designee to make final placement decisions even at a High Priority School.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting that “The language of the current MOAs is clear and works just fine.” The MFT then substitutes its own introduction to “Staffing” as follows: “Staffing: No placement may occur at a High Priority School unless there is consensus of the Placement Committee, following an interview between the site and the teacher to maximize consent and best fit (as per the Streamlining Transfers Through Mutual Consent MOAs).
With the approval of Human Resources, a High Priority School will be able to have an extended early I & S session (i.e., open postings) to post specific positions internally and externally to fill directly into known vacancies without waiting until after Budget Tie-Out (BTO) and the later rounds of the I & S process.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, posing a question as follows: “QUESTION: How would we manage an expansion of the labor pool before BTO shows the specific needs? We propose to stay with what we have now. This proposal would potentially increase instability in staffing by increasing the numbers of teachers excessed within the system, which can be burdensome.”
Teachers accepting positions in a HPS wll make a three (3) year commitment to remain in the school to provide stability and continuity in the programming. The MFT leaves this sentence intact but alters the following paragraph. At the discretion of the Human Resources Department, hiring incentives may be used to remain competitive and compete for teachers with surrounding districts and schools. The district has the right to match offers, make competitive offers, provide hiring bonuses, and create retention bonuses in an effort to hire teachers in hard to fill license areas or programs.
The MFT strikes this entire paragraph, asserting the following: “This is very vague language. Perhaps looking at giving extra steps when a person is hired into a ‘hard to fill’ license area for a lane movement while on the job. If they leave this HTF position, they will return to the step or lane [at which] they would have been had they not been in a HTF position. (Toledo language…) All staff HPS and staff in hard-to-fill positions from non-hard-to-fill positions/ programs anywhere (based on shortages.) New hires or teachers who would change positions from non-hard-to-fill to hard-to-fill positions would get extra steps, currently employed teachers in those positions would also get the extra step move to honor their hard work, and to, hopefully, retain them.
In the event staff reductions are needed at a High Priority School due to changes in budget, a High Priority School will not be required to excess teachers in seniority order. Teachers who are excessed from a High Priority Schools or site due to a reduction in staffing shall participate in Open Postings and the Interview and Select interview and transfer process.
The MFT deletes this entire paragraph and proceeds to item “C.”
C. Class Size Targets and Instructional Levels
The MFT makes an insertion here, as follows:
NOTE: This language was not honored this past year. We do not trust that it will be in the future. It feels like it is added to sweeten the MOA with no intent to actually make it happen.
To ensure students timely, meaningful attention and feedback as well as the ability to maintain a positive, productive student-centered classroom, the District and MFT commit to the lowest possible student to educator ratio. The District will work to target the following class sizes or instructor to student guides:
a. K-3 @ 21
b. Grades 4-5 @ 24: MPS will use minimal allocation dollars to address class size in order to ensure that K-3 numbers do not have a negative impact on the 4-5.
c. Grades 6-12: sites will determine class size. Sites may use their discretion to allocate their existing budget allocation to reduce class size.
The MFT lets the class sizes stand but adds a section “d” as follows:
d. Related services professionals will have caseloads per state recommendations and appropriate caseload support.
The district retains flexibility to meet exigencies, such as sibling preference, facility size, late enrollment, and other contingencies, as we make a “best effort” in meeting the targets. Where space for additional classes to reduce class size is not viable, the District will look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor –to- student ratios.
The MFT strikes the entire first line of this paragraph and alters it to read as follows:
In order to meet the class size targets where space is not available, the District may look to adjust staffing to accommodate and overall reduce instructor-to-student ratios such as adding another teacher or ESP to the classroom.
Both parties realize that, if funding changes significantly year to year, the targets would have to be adjusted to be consistent with overall district funding, while still providing relatively lower class size targets for the High Priority Schools than the overall District targets for the same grade levels.
The MFT leaves this paragraph mostly intact, but removes the word, “targets,” in the first line, replacing it with the phrasing, “student to teacher ratio.” The MFT then adds a line, as follows: “Joint labor/ management negotiations would occur to adjust class size/ caseload as needed per changes in funding.”
MPS and MFT agree to monitor class size at Fall Staff Adjustments meetings. Representatives from MPS and MFT will meet no later than the third week in September each year to review data on actual class size numbers and discuss adjustments needed. This review will include Special Education and ELL class sizes and caseloads.
The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “Need stronger language.” Section D. Evaluation MPS and MFT will regularly evaluate the success of this Article throughout its implementation.
The MFT leaves the wording in this section intact but adds, “[didn’t happen].”
Article #4>>>>> My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response>>>>> Part One: Brief Overviews
Brief Overview of the Minneapolis Public Schools Summary of General Interest and the Response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
In its Summary of General Interest, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools seek to unify contract language that pertains to High Priority Schools and School Improvement Grant Schools, since these jointly pertain to schools facing elevated challenges in moving students to grade level performance in math and reading. They aim for flexibility in designating these schools and reforming the list on an annual basis, meaning that they should not be identified in the body of the contract, but rather placed in an appendix to the contract. The Summary aims for a great deal of site flexibility, with prime responsibility of site principals to make decisions that will move the mission of the schools forward in raising student academic performance and closing the achievement gap.
Thus, suitable authority is placed in principals’ hands to call for necessary professional development of teachers, add instruction time for those students who need highly intensified work on fundamental skills, hire excellent teachers and provide them with incentives to take on the inherent pedagogical challenge over the long haul. District officials vow to maintain class sizes as appropriate to actual, prevailing situations, and they commit themselves to ongoing evaluation of progress being made.
With regard to the Summary of General Interest, those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers maintain that additional instructional time is already being provided after school, and that more emphasis on fundamental skills while sitting at a desk will result in students being bored and hating school. They claim that sites already have flexibility in hiring and retaining staff through the “Interview and Select” process. They say that they do not trust District commitment to maintaining proper class size, and they imply that regular assessment as to the effectiveness of approaches used at High Priority Schools will not, extrapolating from past experiences, be done.
Brief Overview of the Minneapolis Public Schools Proposed Contract Language and the Response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
According to the Proposed Contract Language on temporal matters, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools call for the addition of five (5) additional duty days (including equivalent time for professional development) at High Priority Schools, with flexibility as to how the time is to be used as decided by Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team. As in the Summary of General Interest, the contract proposal calls for additional necessary instructional time, calendar days, and summer school as needed by particular students.
The contract proposal emphasizes the matter of ongoing assessment as to which sites should be labeled High Priority Schools. It calls for teachers at these schools to sign their agreement to work the extra days necessary to address the academic needs of students. As to staffing, the Proposed contract Language calls for enhanced authority for principals and District administrative personnel on matters pertinent to the hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers, with the responsibility of teachers to make a three-year commitment to the High Priority School. There is a call for teacher quality and performance to trump seniority in times of budget cutting.
Those formulating the response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers place themselves firmly against all of the key innovations. They eliminate or alter language having to do with principal and administrative authority in hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers; maintain that sites already choose whatever teachers they deem best; and defend the present multistage Interview and Select process hiring as fully adequate and appropriate.
Union responders characterize the proposed contract language as being too vague on the matter of incentives for teaching in High Priority Schools, asserting that rewards should be given through advances in position on steps and lanes in the current system of rewards for years of service and additional academic training. Those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers acquiesce to the class size ratios proposed by District officials but seek greater specificity as to how these are to be achieved.
In its Summary of General Interest, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools seek to unify contract language that pertains to High Priority Schools and School Improvement Grant Schools, since these jointly pertain to schools facing elevated challenges in moving students to grade level performance in math and reading. They aim for flexibility in designating these schools and reforming the list on an annual basis, meaning that they should not be identified in the body of the contract, but rather placed in an appendix to the contract. The Summary aims for a great deal of site flexibility, with prime responsibility of site principals to make decisions that will move the mission of the schools forward in raising student academic performance and closing the achievement gap.
Thus, suitable authority is placed in principals’ hands to call for necessary professional development of teachers, add instruction time for those students who need highly intensified work on fundamental skills, hire excellent teachers and provide them with incentives to take on the inherent pedagogical challenge over the long haul. District officials vow to maintain class sizes as appropriate to actual, prevailing situations, and they commit themselves to ongoing evaluation of progress being made.
With regard to the Summary of General Interest, those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers maintain that additional instructional time is already being provided after school, and that more emphasis on fundamental skills while sitting at a desk will result in students being bored and hating school. They claim that sites already have flexibility in hiring and retaining staff through the “Interview and Select” process. They say that they do not trust District commitment to maintaining proper class size, and they imply that regular assessment as to the effectiveness of approaches used at High Priority Schools will not, extrapolating from past experiences, be done.
Brief Overview of the Minneapolis Public Schools Proposed Contract Language and the Response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
According to the Proposed Contract Language on temporal matters, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools call for the addition of five (5) additional duty days (including equivalent time for professional development) at High Priority Schools, with flexibility as to how the time is to be used as decided by Principal/ Administrator and Instructional Leadership Team. As in the Summary of General Interest, the contract proposal calls for additional necessary instructional time, calendar days, and summer school as needed by particular students.
The contract proposal emphasizes the matter of ongoing assessment as to which sites should be labeled High Priority Schools. It calls for teachers at these schools to sign their agreement to work the extra days necessary to address the academic needs of students. As to staffing, the Proposed contract Language calls for enhanced authority for principals and District administrative personnel on matters pertinent to the hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers, with the responsibility of teachers to make a three-year commitment to the High Priority School. There is a call for teacher quality and performance to trump seniority in times of budget cutting.
Those formulating the response of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers place themselves firmly against all of the key innovations. They eliminate or alter language having to do with principal and administrative authority in hiring, rewarding, and retention of teachers; maintain that sites already choose whatever teachers they deem best; and defend the present multistage Interview and Select process hiring as fully adequate and appropriate.
Union responders characterize the proposed contract language as being too vague on the matter of incentives for teaching in High Priority Schools, asserting that rewards should be given through advances in position on steps and lanes in the current system of rewards for years of service and additional academic training. Those formulating the response for the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers acquiesce to the class size ratios proposed by District officials but seek greater specificity as to how these are to be achieved.
Article #5>>>>> My Analysis of the Minneapolis Public Schools Contract Proposals and of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Response>>>>> Part Two: My Comments
Via the summary of General Interests and Proposed Contract Language, Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson and officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools are focusing with intensity on the very particular needs of students who are struggling below grade level in fundamental skills. These students are especially apparent at certain schools overwhelmingly dominated by students from low-income families.
Administrative authority to make needed changes and ongoing adjustments; the hiring, rewarding, and retention of excellent teachers; and enough time to do what needs to be done; are all effective tenets of successful programs such as the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools, the Harlem Achievement Zone superintended by Geoffrey Canada, and many of the most effective, high-poverty, high-performing schools across the nation.
Embedded in the expressed and implied conceptualization is the assertion that administrators should take responsibility for running schools and that the very best teachers should be in the classroom educating students to their maximum capacity. This makes extraordinary sense. Teaching is quite enough of a responsibility when it is done with excellence. Excellent teachers, secure in what they are doing in the classroom, focus on students and the classroom. Talented administrators are secure in taking responsibility for hiring the best staff possible and employing the skills of excellent teachers to maximum effect.
To their great credit, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools are making a move toward a program, to be stipulated in the contract, to streamline processes most likely to enable talented administrators to use their talents, to allow excellent teachers to manifest their excellence, and for students (all of whom have enormous potential) to reach their full potential in mastering skill and knowledge sets that will define their experiences now and in their futures.
In business, industry, much of higher academia, and the best performing schools across the nation, administrative flexibility exists to search for and hire the best staff members, rewarding them with whatever incentives are appropriate (including those spontaneously dispensed as monetary reward for demonstrated and particular excellence). Well-functioning organizations feature administrators and managers who can make calls on the spot to meet the exigencies of the moment, assuming full responsibility for the calls that are made.
But in the stodgy world of the education establishment, this sort of talent and flexibility is not cultivated or allowed. Grade K-5 teachers undergo terrible teacher preparation, under the influence of education professors who do not respect knowledge. Grade K-5 teachers typically arrive in classrooms devoid of key knowledge sets in math, science, literature, history, economics, the fine arts, and languages. They are not prepared to impart knowledge to their students, because they have so little knowledge themselves. So as a posture to hide their insufficient knowledge, they pretend that instead of imparting knowledge, they are teaching students to “learn how to learn,” be “lifelong learners,” and to “think critically.”
Secondary teachers are a bit better trained. They have to undergo excruciatingly terrible education courses, but they do get majors in legitimate disciplines (e. g., math, chemistry, English, history, music, or Spanish)--- except for those who attend institutions that allow them to take the less rigorous major of “Teaching Social Studies” (Math, Science, etc.). But at the middle school level, the going philosophy of the education establishment has tended toward viewing socialization of the early adolescent as paramount, so that we wait until high school to deliver anything like a decent liberal arts curriculum. But here, too many teachers are inadequate to the task.
Thus, we have students (those who do at least manage to graduate) who walk across the stage not knowing who Frederick Douglass was, not knowing a cerebral cortex from a corpus callosum, never having really learned and understood how to apply the Pythagorean Theorem (much less the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus), never having had the full literary genius of Homer and Shakespeare revealed to them, having no idea of the difference between federal deficit and federal debt.
Our students are educated atrociously, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools know it, and they are trying to do much better, especially with regard to the students failed the most by a failed system. The response of the representatives of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers is expected but even worse than one might hope. They resist giving principals and administrators the power that they need to hire, reward, and retain the best teachers, because many in the MFT membership would not measure up. Insecure in their considerable power to teach, they are distrustful of those who would wield proper administrative authority. Unable to teach students fundamental math and reading skills to give grade level performance on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs), they reject fair and objective standardized teaching in favor of a deceptively titled “Authentic Assessment” that was tossed out over a decade ago under the pressure of an outside review that deemed the old Profile of Learning to be virtually no learning at all.
But some of the statements issued in response to the Proposed Contract Language are particularly, stunningly, deeply disturbing:
In what world do these teacher representatives dwell, in which there is no comprehension that additional explicit instruction in math and reading are necessary for students operating two and three grades below that of school enrollment?
From where comes the assumption that students will be bored when given proper instruction in math and reading?
Under what impoverished educational model does a putative educator claim that going to camp, museums, and outdoor nature venues will address math and reading skills--- because upper middle class students get to do more of these kinds of things?
Understand that I write this as a teacher who in the New Salem Educational Initiative takes students to the Great River Shakespeare Festival every summer, who invites students to dine in my home with my wife and me (sampling international fare that they are not likely to get as ordinary diet), who has taken groups to the Boundary Waters and on tours of East Asia.
But as the staple of their experience with me, my students eagerly run to my car after school, early Saturday morning, and on Sunday afternoons and evenings for the ride to the classrooms at New Salem Missionary Baptist Church to focus like a laser on math and reading fundamentals, then to embark on a magnificent exploration of subjects from across a liberal arts curriculum that they never get in their daily instruction in the Minneapolis Public Schools.
And anyone reading this is welcome to meet these students, all of whom come from economically challenged circumstances, any time, any academic session, any day of the week.
Conclusion
Officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools are to be lauded for having conceived and generated a contract that addresses the needs of students to acquire fundamental skill and knowledge sets, particularly in High Priority Schools.
The public should put its full weight of approval behind the efforts of Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson and a dedicated team of negotiators, conveying to the representatives of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers that the stipulations in the Proposed Contract Language are necessary, long overdue, and imperative.
Administrative authority to make needed changes and ongoing adjustments; the hiring, rewarding, and retention of excellent teachers; and enough time to do what needs to be done; are all effective tenets of successful programs such as the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) schools, the Harlem Achievement Zone superintended by Geoffrey Canada, and many of the most effective, high-poverty, high-performing schools across the nation.
Embedded in the expressed and implied conceptualization is the assertion that administrators should take responsibility for running schools and that the very best teachers should be in the classroom educating students to their maximum capacity. This makes extraordinary sense. Teaching is quite enough of a responsibility when it is done with excellence. Excellent teachers, secure in what they are doing in the classroom, focus on students and the classroom. Talented administrators are secure in taking responsibility for hiring the best staff possible and employing the skills of excellent teachers to maximum effect.
To their great credit, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools are making a move toward a program, to be stipulated in the contract, to streamline processes most likely to enable talented administrators to use their talents, to allow excellent teachers to manifest their excellence, and for students (all of whom have enormous potential) to reach their full potential in mastering skill and knowledge sets that will define their experiences now and in their futures.
In business, industry, much of higher academia, and the best performing schools across the nation, administrative flexibility exists to search for and hire the best staff members, rewarding them with whatever incentives are appropriate (including those spontaneously dispensed as monetary reward for demonstrated and particular excellence). Well-functioning organizations feature administrators and managers who can make calls on the spot to meet the exigencies of the moment, assuming full responsibility for the calls that are made.
But in the stodgy world of the education establishment, this sort of talent and flexibility is not cultivated or allowed. Grade K-5 teachers undergo terrible teacher preparation, under the influence of education professors who do not respect knowledge. Grade K-5 teachers typically arrive in classrooms devoid of key knowledge sets in math, science, literature, history, economics, the fine arts, and languages. They are not prepared to impart knowledge to their students, because they have so little knowledge themselves. So as a posture to hide their insufficient knowledge, they pretend that instead of imparting knowledge, they are teaching students to “learn how to learn,” be “lifelong learners,” and to “think critically.”
Secondary teachers are a bit better trained. They have to undergo excruciatingly terrible education courses, but they do get majors in legitimate disciplines (e. g., math, chemistry, English, history, music, or Spanish)--- except for those who attend institutions that allow them to take the less rigorous major of “Teaching Social Studies” (Math, Science, etc.). But at the middle school level, the going philosophy of the education establishment has tended toward viewing socialization of the early adolescent as paramount, so that we wait until high school to deliver anything like a decent liberal arts curriculum. But here, too many teachers are inadequate to the task.
Thus, we have students (those who do at least manage to graduate) who walk across the stage not knowing who Frederick Douglass was, not knowing a cerebral cortex from a corpus callosum, never having really learned and understood how to apply the Pythagorean Theorem (much less the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus), never having had the full literary genius of Homer and Shakespeare revealed to them, having no idea of the difference between federal deficit and federal debt.
Our students are educated atrociously, officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools know it, and they are trying to do much better, especially with regard to the students failed the most by a failed system. The response of the representatives of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers is expected but even worse than one might hope. They resist giving principals and administrators the power that they need to hire, reward, and retain the best teachers, because many in the MFT membership would not measure up. Insecure in their considerable power to teach, they are distrustful of those who would wield proper administrative authority. Unable to teach students fundamental math and reading skills to give grade level performance on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs), they reject fair and objective standardized teaching in favor of a deceptively titled “Authentic Assessment” that was tossed out over a decade ago under the pressure of an outside review that deemed the old Profile of Learning to be virtually no learning at all.
But some of the statements issued in response to the Proposed Contract Language are particularly, stunningly, deeply disturbing:
In what world do these teacher representatives dwell, in which there is no comprehension that additional explicit instruction in math and reading are necessary for students operating two and three grades below that of school enrollment?
From where comes the assumption that students will be bored when given proper instruction in math and reading?
Under what impoverished educational model does a putative educator claim that going to camp, museums, and outdoor nature venues will address math and reading skills--- because upper middle class students get to do more of these kinds of things?
Understand that I write this as a teacher who in the New Salem Educational Initiative takes students to the Great River Shakespeare Festival every summer, who invites students to dine in my home with my wife and me (sampling international fare that they are not likely to get as ordinary diet), who has taken groups to the Boundary Waters and on tours of East Asia.
But as the staple of their experience with me, my students eagerly run to my car after school, early Saturday morning, and on Sunday afternoons and evenings for the ride to the classrooms at New Salem Missionary Baptist Church to focus like a laser on math and reading fundamentals, then to embark on a magnificent exploration of subjects from across a liberal arts curriculum that they never get in their daily instruction in the Minneapolis Public Schools.
And anyone reading this is welcome to meet these students, all of whom come from economically challenged circumstances, any time, any academic session, any day of the week.
Conclusion
Officials of the Minneapolis Public Schools are to be lauded for having conceived and generated a contract that addresses the needs of students to acquire fundamental skill and knowledge sets, particularly in High Priority Schools.
The public should put its full weight of approval behind the efforts of Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson and a dedicated team of negotiators, conveying to the representatives of the Minneapolis Federation of Teachers that the stipulations in the Proposed Contract Language are necessary, long overdue, and imperative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)