Category Archives: IRRATF

MPR: Task force recommends greater oversight, guidance for school integration efforts

Tim Post reports for MPR: “Task force recommends greater oversight, guidance for school integration efforts.” Post interviews several members as he describes the recommendations of the task force.

Swanson was one of two members who voted against the task force’s final report, primarily because he thought it lacked detail.

But he said the group worked well together, despite opposing views on integration and could have done an even better job if it had more than 10 weeks to finish the report.

Despite the quick turn-around time, the report should be useful to lawmakers, task force member and Republican State Sen. Pam Wolf said.

MinnPost: Integration task force forwarding results to Cassellius

Beth Hawkins writes in MinnPost: “Integration task force forwarding results to Cassellius.” She describes the compromise the task force arrived at in the context of last year’s legislative session and the expectations for their work.

The recommendations carry the endorsement of such presumed opponents as University of Minnesota law professor Myron Orfield, a relentless integration advocate, and Lakeville School Board member Bob Erickson, a fiscal conservative.

Victory, in this instance, was snatched not from the jaws of defeat but from the yawning maw of gridlock.

Swanson and Kersten file a minority report

Rose Hermodson confirms that integration task force co-chair Peter Swanson did file a minority report that included content from both he and Katherine Kersten. MDE is working on formatting the final product for the Legislature, and only after it has been shared with the Legislature will they post it on the task force website or provide public copies. So it looks like we will have to wait a few more days to know what was said in the minority report.

Star Tribune: A positive grade for integration aid plan

Monday’s Star Tribune editorial gives the integration task force “A positive grade for integration aid plan.”

Two members of the group opposed the recommendations (including Star Tribune contributor Katherine Kersten), arguing that funding over the years hasn’t produced the intended results. But the task force also suggested ways to address those concerns by ensuring accountability and better oversight.

The Department of Education would define limited uses of AIM revenue, and school districts would have to submit plans with measurable goals to receive the funds. The department would monitor and evaluate the programs — and withhold funding if districts do not make adequate progress.

Star Tribune: A bad idea just keeps coming back

Integration task force member Katherine Kersten gives us a taste of what her minority report may sound like in a Star Tribune commentary: “A bad idea just keeps coming back.” She envisions a world where attorney Dan Shulman succeeds in turning the Twin Cities into Hartford, Connecticut:

Most Hartford children still attend district schools, which remain as racially isolated as they were 20 years ago. And achievement is still bottom-of-the-barrel: In 2010, only 43 percent of Hartford’s K-8 students were proficient in reading, and only 57 percent in math. Meanwhile, all-minority charter schools like Jumoke Academy (pre-K-8) are among the region’s highest-performing schools in terms of achievement gains by poor, minority children.

Ironically, the Hartford school district — the intended beneficiary of the court-ordered plan — is now strenuously working against the requirements, which increasingly threaten the district’s viability. Hartford will likely have to close six or seven schools and lay off hundreds of teachers and staff if it is compelled to send more students to the suburbs. In April 2011, the Hartford schools launched a television, radio and print advertising campaign imploring parents not to send their kids out of the district.

Daily Planet: Integration revenue task force approves plan

Alleen Brown writes another story in the Twin Cities Daily Plant: “Integration revenue task force approves plan.” She focusses on describing the elements of the task force report:

The task force’s plan would create an Achievement and Integration for Minnesota (AIM) program. The program would be funded by what is currently known as integration revenue. The difference: only programs that fall under a list of clearly defined categories would receive revenue. Districts would submit plans with measurable goals to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE.) The goals would include improved test scores and reduced differences in demographics between schools and between districts. Approved programs would undergo an annual review by the MDE, to determine whether or not they are meeting their goals. If not, funding would be cut.

The article is a good summary of the report. Of course, all eyes are currently on the minority reports that might emerge by Monday evening.


(Illustration from the TC Daily Planet.)

Star Tribune: State integration task force adopts plan to close achievement gap

Kim McGuire writes in the Star Tribune: “State integration task force adopts plan to close achievement gap.”

For almost a year, the task force has been wrestling over the question of whether the funds should be used to combat segregation, or, as GOP members of the Legislature have argued, use the money for literacy programs and other efforts to narrow the state’s achievement gap between white and nonwhite students.

In the end, the task force gave a nod to both, calling for the creation of a program called Achievement & Integration for Minnesota (AIM), responsible for coming up with a new integration rule that prohibits school segregation. Among other things, AIM revenue should be pumped into programs such as full-day kindergarten for low-income families and Advancement Via Individual Determination, a college preparation effort, according to the task force recommendations.

Aside from the obvious error that the task force has only had two months to do its work, not “almost a year,” the article does a decent job of summing up the conclusion. The article ends with a statement that, “At this stage in the debate, metro school officials were relieved to know that the task force supports the program’s continued funding.”

Certainly. But what really matters is now the Legislature takes up this issue. Most don’t expect it to squeeze its way onto this session’s agenda, so all eyes now turn to the election of all members of the Minnesota House and Senate, some in districts with new boundaries.

Integration Task Force Approves Report that Affirms Integration

Minnesota’s Integration Revenue Replacement Advisory Task Force approves a report that, believe it or not, affirms integration efforts. It recommends the creation of an “Achievement and Integration for Minnesota” program (AIM) funded through existing revenue streams. The task force recommends that the state maintain statue that prohibits intentional segregation and maintain the current language defining racially isolated schools and districts.

Of particular interest to EMID families a section that allows AIM funding for:

Family Engagement that promotes involvement in the academic life and success of the student.

Also in the report, though toned down slightly from earlier drafts, is a section that asks the legislature to examine on large collaborative metro integration district:

Examine the merits of one collaborative Metropolitan Integration School District that folds in the services of existing integration districts to create efficiencies and eliminate duplication of services. This Collaborative Metropolitan School District serves all metro-area districts within the seven county area that receive integration revenue.

Some work remains for staff to prepare the final report for the legislature, but the report, as approved by 10 of the 12 task force members, is available on the EMID Families website. Since two members voted against the report, we can also expect that minority reports will be added before the task force report is forwarded to the legislature.

IMG 0201

Integration Task Force Meeting: 7 February 2012

NOTE: These are not official minutes, these are very biased and raw notes. Don’t expect fairness, balance, or completeness! I am just trying to be quick at communicating what is happening on the task force. Initials generally refer to task force members, a list of whom can be found at the official task for website. …Eric

Peter and Scott share their appreciation for everyone who has participated in the process.

Discussion of fiscal subcommittee recommendations (see numbers 5-9 on back of ST handout).

5. Cap revenue at current level.
6. Level disparities.
7. Set aside 0.02% for oversight.
8. Creat fiscal model stable for three years at a time.
9. 80% spent on students and 20% on prof dev and admin (not to exceed 10%).

PS talking about 6 disparities.

PS recommends moving transportation to administrative costs from direct student value. Given the 80/20 split recommended, this would put urban districts into non-compliance because they would then easily exceed 20%.

KK complains that the fiscal principals don’t match the rest of the proposal. She claims the program recommendations far exceed today’s costs. ST says that is not true. KK points to all day kindergarten and metro-integration district as very expensive. Also raises concerns about devoting money based on skin color.

ST says that the proposal is for choices for local school boards, including all day kindergarten. KK says that the proposal will create expectations that are certain to grow, “I’m talking about the real world.” ST says, “that’s why we caped it.”

RE asks why 8 suggests three year increments when legislature works on two year increments. Recommends changing three to two.

RE again suggests offering SPPS authority to add a $35/student levy. ST feels that specific property tax leeway for one community does not jive with the broad scope of the task force. RE points out that any bill resulting from the recommendation would have to go through a fiscal notation process.

MO thinks the idea of a single district would save money through efficiencies and economy of scale. Very supportive of the proposals and agrees that over time we should move toward flattening out and rewarding districts that deal with integration.

HB notes that though admin at SPPS may be on board with the levy idea, she knows how difficult levy battles can be and would be more comfortable if Saint Paul officials testified about this. This leaves her reluctant to speak for another district w/r/t levy.

WG sympathizes with what RE is trying to address, but shares concerns with HB. Feels general parameters more prudent than specific levy recommendation.

MO argues for a term other than disproportionality in 6b, even the proper word segregation. ST suggests “enrollment disparities” as an alternative. KK presents a view of the legal definition of segregation that MO disagrees with.

PS asks if the task force would be willing to adopt just the fiscal recommendations without the legislative recommendations? ST describes the art of compromise. RE notes there are fiscal implications in some of the program elements that would not allow staying within current revenue profile.

Moving on to legislative recommendations…

Starting with some friendly amendments between PS and ST.

PW wonders about the term “collaborating district” if it has no fiscal model implications.

RE commenting on 2.f.i. asks for an end to the smorgasbord of metrics, replaced by narrower set of shared metrics. HB worries about the testing schedule and the capacity institutions have for testing. AB wonders whether the state actually has a measurable and reliable tools in place.

KK is concerned that “this is all essentially meaningless” without requirements for actual academic achievement. BM points out that different districts will have somewhat different goals and MDE can approve these.

MO will follow KK’s lead and is persuaded by her logic. On the topic of tying carrots to achievement.

In response 2.f.iii. rewritten to require performance in order to get funds.

PS raises issue with 3, added consistency with 2f.

AB raises issue with “cultural competency” in 3.c.vi. and suggests “multicultural” instead.

PS skunks the garden party with his view that staff should be free to ignore any training offered on grounds of conscience. Proposes adding 3.c.vii. HB resists, saying that the child’s future is more important than the comfort of the professional. AB tells stories of teachers who feel jobs at risk when they talk about these issues. PS notes that “right of conscience” can be found in MN constitution.

[is there any other domain where this many people who know so little about a profession spend this much time telling the professionals how to do their jobs? no wonder education is broken.]

AB points out that it is teachers and parents who are the experts.

RE asks to modify 3.a.iii. To remove reference to 4-5 year olds. ST says the whole point of this is providing an early intervention, we already spend $16b to teach reading and literacy.

PS feels 4 is opening a can of worms, and RE agrees. Not sufficient testimony to support it. RE says this is an irreversible impediment to his support for the whole document. Neither collaborative testified to the merits of this idea. Consider “examine the merits.”

[should ask Scott about the statute that informed his change of 4.h.]

HB can support examine.

MO notes that even the most profound supporters of desegregation are not supporting quotas or forced bussing.

PW points out a few red flags. Mentioning free and reduced lunch and low income students will cause some to ask, isn’t competitors aid already do erring this. ST says this was an attempt to produce a race neutral approach.

PW questions the initial funds being received, which is all based on minority percentage, not based on achievement level or gap. Dividing the money based on the percentages, not performance. MO points to 2.f.iii. as addressing this concern.

Voting on the report…

Call the question on the whole thing. (an amendment to vote separately on legislative and fiscal failed).

Roll call vote…
Yes… HB WG MO BM CM ST RE RB AB PW
No… KK PS

Minority reports due by 5pm on Monday.

Closing remarks…

Rose Hermodson thanks the task force on behalf of MDE.

Task force members express pleasure and privilege of serving.

Adjourned (for the last time).

END OF NOTES, more about the task force on our Integration Revenue Replacement Advisory Task Force page.