Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

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.

Star Tribune: Success spoiled by city’s idea to walk away from FAIR school

Steve Brandt writes in the Star Tribune: “Success spoiled by city’s idea to walk away from FAIR school.” He paints a glowing portrait of FAIR principal Kevin Bennett and notes the difficult position Minneapolis is putting WMEP in with its threat to pull out. Though he is principal of both FAIR schools, Bennett seems to be everywhere…

Although Bennett acknowledged that staff at each school might feel shorted by his dual gigs as principal, parent Laura Aulik of Edina said she’s amazed at how ubiquitous he seems at school events. “Mr. Bennett definitely does have a fire in him that I have not seen in principals,” she said. “His presence is always there.”

There’s also been a transformation in Bennett since his earlier years at FAIR. Although he’s still gray-suited some days, on others he can be found with plaid shirttails hanging out, often surrounded by laughing, excited students.

But Minneapolis still has concerns, some of which are baggage from earlier times…

The city’s issues with FAIR have two origins: the troubles of the original downtown school, and the lack of integration.

The downtown school struggled with a shaky opening year in 1998, frequent turnover of principals, and its kindergarten through 12th grade configuration.

Bennett changed that. He and WMEP Superintendent Dan Jett pared downtown’s 13 grades to a K-3 and senior high grades combo that wrapped around the Crystal school’s popular 4-8 grade span, and adopted the latter’s arts-infused curriculum.

Clearly, keeping these collaborative integration districts open and healthy is a difficult task no matter which side of the Twin Cities you are on.

Pioneer Press: In Twin Cities suburbs, magnet schools go local

Christopher Magan published a story in the Pioneer Press this weekend, “In Twin Cities suburbs, magnet schools go local.” The story, in the Dakota County section of the paper, focuses on the emergence of new integration magnet schools in the West Saint Paul/Mendota Heights/Egan school district. West Saint Paul is a member of EMID.

Magnets, originally created to diversify large city school districts, had grown into regional efforts. Now, the schools are popping up in the increasingly diverse suburbs such as West St. Paul and Burnsville.

The changes are driven by financial incentives, declining traditional public school enrollments and an effort to compete with other academic offerings across the metro.

“It is a continued evolution for magnet schools,” said Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at Macalester College and a school-reform advocate. “I think there is a financial incentive, and school leaders want to keep the energy of the parents in the district. When enrollment declines, districts want to keep more students at their home district.”

Magan interviewed me last week for this story, and unfortunately he misuses a quote to mine. During the interview he tried repeatedly to goad me into saying that West Saint Paul and EMID were in competition with one another over integration, a point of view I disagree with and refused to support. Here’s the quote he used in the article:

St. Paul parent Eric Celeste, who has sent two children to EMID magnets, said that as funding dwindles, it is obvious school districts will favor their own programs first. “They can’t have EMID’s best interest at heart when they have their own districts’ interest at heart,” Celeste said. “It is a governing mechanism, that when there is tension, it breaks down. There is a huge amount of tension.”

Sounds like I said exactly what he wanted to hear, doesn’t it? What he conveniently leaves out is that this quote was specifically about the tensions that EMID board members feel when serving on our board. The “they” is not a reference to “school districts,” as Magan makes it in his article. The “they” is a reference to individual board members, who I feel are placed in an untenable situation by the governance model of EMID.

While I am disappointed by this misuse of my own quote, I appreciate the story and the coverage by the Pioneer Press of an important issue. The fact that West Saint Paul is developing integration magnet’s of its own underscores the important role our EMID schools serve. We are a model, and adoption of that model on a wider, and more local, scale is an important measure of the success of EMID schools. As the article points out:

Jerry Robicheau, interim superintendent of EMID, said his school board is working to find a “sustainable way” to keep operating its two regional magnet schools – Crosswinds East Metro Arts and Science School in Woodbury and Harambee Elementary in Maplewood – that were in danger of being closed last year.

I recommend the full story to those following integration issues in the schools.

…Eric

Star Tribune: Task force seeks a deal on $100M in school integration aid

Steve Brandt published a story in the Star Tribune, “Task force seeks a deal on $100M in school integration aid.” He focusses on the effort the task force is making to get past the differences between members. The article makes note of the special Sunday meeting the task force will hold at co-chair Scott Thomas’ place this weekend.

Most task force members appointed by DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and the Republican-controlled Legislature seemed to find it acceptable to focus both on promoting integration and narrowing the achievement gap between white and minority students. But with just one remaining meeting scheduled for Tuesday before the Feb. 15 deadline, they haven’t settled on how to divide the spending between the goals.

Integration Task Force Considers Metro-wide Integration District

The Integration Revenue Replacement Advisory Task Force is picking up steam and the discussions are getting interesting. You can check out our own updates on our task force page, but one bit of today’s discussion deserves special attention from EMID families.

Scott Thomas, a co-chair of the task force, presented the third draft of his “One Minnesota” proposal to the task force. In it, he proposes:

4. Establish 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, compels them to participate, and assumes the following responsibilities:

Develop and operate a choice program similar to the Choice is Yours that promote public school choice and integration across the metropolitan area.

Evaluate the program and make recommendations for modifications.

Operate existing magnet schools (FAIR, Harambee, Crosswinds, etc.) that function under one administrative structure (Admin, Human Resources, Finance etc.).

Efficiently plan for future regional magnet schools in cooperation with metro districts.

Develop a regional transportation structure that is efficient and maximizes choice within the seven-county metropolitan area.

Review and approve transportation plans of districts for the purposes of integration.

Coordinate and provide high quality service for:

Professional development

[sic] [there is no item two in the draft]

Conducting research and collect data for metro-area schools on the uses of One Minnesota revenue.

Become a “Center of Excellence” for best practices of integration, equity, and achievement and support districts with training.

Transportation services to choice schools.

Facilitate school choice lotteries for inter-district magnet schools.

Establish a governance structure using the open appointments process for an initial school board that will develop the long-term governing structure.

The task force talked extensively about this proposal, with heavy resistance from Katherine Kersten in particular, who likened it to plans 20 years ago to form a “mega district.” Thomas reiterated that he was trying, in this proposal, to capture economies of scale for integration districts that they currently lack. Of course, as we’ve seen in EMID, the devil is in the details, in particular the governance structure would be a very touchy subject. Still, this proposal would hold out significant hope of giving Harambee and Crosswinds the footing they need to become sustainable schools. It is the most positive development yet from this task force.

Of course, they don’t finalize their report for a couple weeks yet, so this is by no means sure to get into the final recommendations. In fact, even today the discussion moved on and more or less left this recommendation behind. It will be interesting to see if it is still there next week.

If you feel like writing to the task force, they can be reached at integration.taskforce@gmail.com.