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

ST shares his updated “One Minnesota” plan.

Adds a recommendation numbe 4 for a Metro Integration School District that covers seven county metro area… Develop a choice program… Operate existing magnet school (WMEP and EMID)… Plan for further magnet schools… Develop regional transit structure and review transportation plans… Coordinate professionals services and become a center of excellence… Facilitates school lotteries… Establish governance structure.

RE comments on 1.a.vi. And says he’s on board… 3.a.iv asks about low income, free-reduced, definition as compared to 3.d.v

ST stiles all day kindergarten from 3.d.v

RE asks for clarification on 4, ST fills in background on WMEP, EMID, and NWS. RE wonders what these three entities would think of 4.

HB notes the plan offers some hope of sustainability. Wonders why task force would add a new layer to the existing structures for combining districts. The sustainability of this proposal might have some merit given the voluntary nature of much participation. Raises local involvement and control issues.

RE asks about 4.b… Raises Crosswinds concerns about future of school (referencing Strib article?). Will we fund them even if the local districts don’t want them? Will we operate magnet schools? Is this how we want to use integration equity money for this? Will we use other funding? ST notes that there are other sources of funding per pupil.

HB offers to clarify funding a bit. WMEP, for example, operates based on the general fund revenue they receive rather than on integration funding. Note, WMEP gets their levies, and high levies to boot.

RE proposes consolidation of 4.d and 4.e… ST says this is an effort to call a time out and take opportunity to coordinate, to say there is a limited source of funding that needs to be maximized. [of course, if the metro area had truly effective public transit, then schools could just use that!]

RE calls attention to 3.b.iii and concern that they should not be in position of recruiting parents to run for school board. ST says this is about informing parents of the roles available and agrees to change the term to roles.

KK notes that metro wide integration district has been proposed for 20 years or so and that one district over seven counties would be too large to manage properly. Usually this has been put in terms of five or so super districts. It has been primarily aimed at imposing racial quotas and changing school district boundary lines. ST points out neither quotas nor boundaries are in this plan. KK goes on to raise the specter that the board running this district would be non-democratic. ST notes he is now aware of rules regarding schools board formation that may have impact on his proposal. KK goes on to note the huge transportation costs that would be inherent in this plan, bussing kids across the entire thing, costs of more than $2,000 per year.

ST responds that the point here is to have a regional approach that will maximize choice and minimize transportation needs. Have a central board that designates which districts can go to which schools. KK asks what the point is then. Says in 1994 legislature raised concerns about such a mega plan.

MO points out that this plan just tries to achieve economies of scale. Nobody has ever suggested quotas, which are illegal. KK revises to ceilings and floors.

KK asks why we would create one metro integration district when the ones we have are failing. MPLS pulling out of WMEP, superintendents on board of EMID calling that district into question. Why continue with this model?

HB points out that achievement gap is a new measure and a global issue in Minnesota, not fair to saddle integration districts as failed based on this. Describes some of the funding model issues that challenge integration districts.

KK notes that human nature encourages investment in the status quo. We hear the voices of the haves, not the have nots. We do not hear the voices of the have nots, those who want to go to Harvest Prep II. Tries to say that the task force has heard no testimony that integration works. Many voices on the task force object at they have heard that testimony, MO points out KK’s own witnesses said integration works.

HB says it would be wrong to throw out these schools, that are doing so much more than just serving the gap. Parents in WMEP are satisfied, and I bet in other districts as well.

ST says that this proposal is really an attempt to meet the spirit of the task the task force was assigned. This is about increasing achievement and it is about integration, but not just one or the other. It says let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

MO says that in terms of more Harvest Preps, there are about 10 or 12 and only Harvest Prep scores well, the rest are very poor, some are even now closed. KK and MO spat over David Armor testimony.

KK says this plan looks a lot like what we already have. Concerned about lack of consequences for failure or incentives for success. ST calls attention to part 2.d which says MDE may withhold money if districts don’t meet their goals.

BM understands that district plans and goals have to be approved by MDE before districts get money at all. Notes that in Nobels county we have done some good things, and we must preserve what is targeted toward integration around the state.

RE thinks the task force should offer guidance to MDE for the measures by which it will evaluate plans. Points back to his own recommendation’s specifics on evaluation. ST gets text from RE. Nobody knows what Scranton data is.

PS notes that we are changing may to shall and other terms without a fiscal model and that will kill chances for this plan to get a vote. ST says our charge is to redesign the use of the revenue, not to redesign the revenue generation mechanism. PS worries that the task force may have difference of opinion about what is in and out of scope for the task force. Breaking open this can of worms may leave them without a report.

KK notes that the money will go away, sunset, in 2014.

CM shows up at the task force for first time since December!

PS asks if there is support for three changes: money spent on integration gets spent on 3.b and 3.d, and hold districts accountable for achievement. 1 and 2 have been discussed and are important, but may lose votes on this task force. Level the differences, no district should get four times what another district gets.

MO and PS go back and forth on language for integration aid.

ST says he is interested in a vote on each component. These things are meant to stand together.

RB says we should be profoundly clear. Jesus, St. Paul, and Billy Graham were profoundly clear, we should be too. Let’s stay focussed, hand it off to the legislature, and leave it to them. Likes the “do no harm” principle.

HB asks to discuss RE and PS proposals as well. PS points out that words smithing ST proposal won’t make it a consensus report.

BM asks about staff development in PS plan. PS says that it affects freedom. However good it is, we have limited dollars and this is a place not to spend it. HB says that when staff will work with unfamiliar cultures there are things they need to know. PS worries that informing people about the soles of shoes being offensive will lead to discussions of the crusades. Dominos. ST points to his section 3.c.

PS says his proposal is a filter through which he looks at other proposals, not a proper proposal itself. RE thinks that ST has made some very specific proposals, some of which need MDE clarification. Ann Parks can hand out a draft, but will not be able to present.

RE has trouble with the theme of “One Minnesota” in a plan that is not balanced or level playing field. Plus MDE has no resources for oversight. Districts should have to earn this money, but it is a wide open field.

Ann Parks describes her draft un-vetted document to the task force.

Focus on three bullet points in middle: look at success and failure of initiatives in districts in order to give feedback, look at success of cost initiatives, make it possible to provide concrete data to decision makers across the state. RE points out this is the model for what is currently being undertaken in Brooklyn Center schools, AP agrees. Data is currently captured at MDE, and IT staff involved in evaluating this plan. It will take more than one person to implement this system and consolidate results. No timelines beyond trials have been set, for example, not clears sure of outcomes would be available in FY13 or FY14.

[I see ST AB BM CM MO WG and HB leaning toward ST plan. KK RE PS and RB leaning against it. PW not present, but likely opposed as well. WG looking like a peacemaker.]

RE proposes 0.01% of budget for oversight… $400,000. AB notes that AP plan would also clarify the definition of integration. ST suggests incorporating three AP bullets into task force recommendations.

PS concerned with the policy in the AP plan, but finds bullets OK.

PS wants percentages next to items in ST plan, with majority on 3.b and 3.d.

RE goes for level playing field again and worries about Worthington v. Twin Cities. MO suggests level the playing field by looking at actual integration of the district. HB nudges the discussion toward class issues and the “level” playing field. It is not as simple as diversity, there are other factors at play, particularly in urban areas.

BM wonders whether there can be a transition time. RE advocates transition to FY14.

PS points out there is other compensatory that covers free and reduced lunch (poverty) and ELL (recent immigrant).

RE believes that 100% of administration should come out of local levy, not out of state money. HB not prepared to support that, finds it picking on administration.

HB questions the interest in a $35 levy authority for SPPS. RE says that he met with SPPS business manager and lobbyist and they were grateful for this being included.

HB questions the RE proposal for private schools getting integration funding. RE disowns that. RE says he is willing to interface with ST and PS and subcommittee to immerse themselves in writing a new draft. HB presses, has RE given up on some of these ideas, does not want surprise at the end of the day.

[Looks like ST will be fulcrum of a proposal for the report.]

ST asks the task force to describe the program pieces and then work on funding. PS says that’s backwards, determine funding first, then program.

KK wants to support some aspects of 3.a.

BM looking for a pathway to proceeding toward more equitable funding.

MO says he would like to work with RE some more. He likes working with RE! For some reason everyone thinks this is very funny.

RB, use money for closing the gap, accountability, and integration, in that order.

ST argues that $16b is going toward closing the gap via general education funding, not to mention three other task forces dealing with the gap.

ST on next steps…

Approve the parameters of the program and a fiscal model. ST proposes voting on the program, and then the model, and then the whole package at the end.

Working Sunday at 2pm at home of ST. Not a quorum or a public meeting, but it sounds like the task force plans on getting a lot of work done that day.

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

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

ST asks what are common themes and common elements. Both he and RE have revised proposals. Will look for areas of convergence and divergence.

Much smaller group today. Only ST, PS, KK, HB, RB, RE, MO, AB

RE reports that subcommittee met with Tom Melcher and MDE about funding. Says that district budgets sent to MDE may not effectively represent integration dollars. Instruction 30% of $90m, etc. Detailed budgets for districts not accounted for in integration summaries. MDE is also just now putting in a system that will measure achievement tied to integration dollars. The intersection of MCA and reporting system in place is not in place yet.

MO questions the value of this report at this stage and wonders if subcommittee can report in writing to the full committee. Notes that past administration clearly didn’t hold districts accountable and current administration struggling to put accountability in place.

RE says that MDE is trying to put accountability measures in place. MDE will share a draft policy statement and present a full report at the next meeting. RE thinks that means that the finance side of today’s discussion should be off the table pending this report.

HB and MO appreciate the information but concerned that train may be moving a bit fast given that finances drive policy. PS reminds the task force that only one document will go from the task force to the legislature.

Fresh drafts from PS and RE passed out.

Integration Improvement Proposal PDF, by co-chair Peter Swanson

One Minnesota Proposal PDF by co-chair Scott Thomas

PS shares “Integration Improvement” with principles of: do no harm, achievement, accountability, honesty, freedom, alignment, inter-district equity.

Do no harm includes
– non-disparagment, means not insulting cultures. PS calls white privilege discussions insulting and inappropriate, equates them with Don Rickles.
– no stereotyping
– integration within school, not encourage racial isolation within schools
– encourage progress
– avoid unintended consequences of soft bigotry and low expectations

Achievement includes
– measurable academic achievement, no funding if your gap persists, you get money for success
– progress for all groups, even if gap continues, as long as everyone improves that should be part of the measurement
– MO asks for lots of examples, college prep courses, kids gaining comfort around other races
– HB expresses concern about metrics

Accountability includes
– use money as intended, not on other things that would have happened anyway

Honesty includes
– don’t supplant other occupations
– don’t close the washington monument, don’t blame things you would have done anyway on this task force or new policy
– be clear about why some districts maybe getting differential treatment, be clear about grandfather clauses or weaning actions

Freedom includes
– carrot rather than stick
– student and parent freedom, full parental consent, referencing an Eden Prairie “underground railroad” situation which “can be found in the blogs”
– teacher freedom, opt out provisions for teachers, non-disparagement
– HB raises concerns about non-disparagement and the notion that telling of facts will be comfortable, says she can never support being a minority of a minority
– PS says he is a minority of a minority, parental consent, children are forced to be in school under the power of the state and be told “you have to learn how it feels” no tax dollars of mine, no integration dollars, PS starts getting quite passionate about this point.
– HB pushes back with best practices, be cautious about saying that things that make people uncomfortable in an educational setting are problematic
– PS says, fine, do it,but don’t use integration dollars to specifically target and disparage people, don’t do the blue eyes and brown eyes experiment

MO points out positives, the assurance that funds be used on integration, the non-supplantation, …

PS if districts are going to use integration dollars on something other than AVID and reading, then it can’t be used separating people.

AB asks if we are worried AB making kids feel uncomfortable or teachers feel uncomfortable? If teachers, then they are not being adequately prepared. This topic will make people uncomfortable, no matter what, which is why the teachers role and facilitation and skill are so important.

PS, we can talk about facts without disparagement. He really wants to outlaw blue eye/brown eye!

KK asks if we are speaking with the voice of the sixties instead of the voice of today’s youth. Today’s youth are completely comfortable with all races and backgrounds. Understand PS concern about propagandistic false history intended to inculcate vulnerable kids. Objects to $30k Eden Prarie unground railroad project. Quotes from Glen Singleton’s book, about the ideal educator, the truly difficult work is looking deep within myself at where my white privilege resides… That is the problem and what PS proposal avoids. Claims his book is used widely and this is a problem.

PS asks does it help to harangue or rub people’s nose in historical truths that don’t serve a purpose now.

Alignment includes
– programs outside racial integration should not be included, like “girls in science”, no mission creep
– preparing for a global world, does not everyone need this, why is this limited to racially isolated or adjoining districts?

Inter-District Equity includes
– similar districts getting similar results should not be getting different amounts of money
– reasonable to ask whether schools not subject to integration rule should receive integration funds
– reasonable to ask whether non-district school like Perpich Center for Arts Education should be permitted to receive integration funds

HB expresses concern about the global world provision

MO points out that kids going to very white schools do exhibit more evidence of racial bias than kids who go to integrated schools. KK says that would be highly disputed.

KK asks what it means to say that different groups really have different cultures that we need to learn about. Everyone is inculturation in our homogenizing culture. How does sitting next to someone with a different skin tones help. ST offers to take KK out for coffee, “that’s not on the agenda right now.”

MO says that KK keeps raising issues that don’t have any basis in fact or research. Cites chambers of comers and military as evidence of integration aiding work. HB also chimes in against KK. The gloves are starting to come off, how do they resolve this in two weeks?

KK complains that the learning gap is getting lost in this conversation.

Now HB gets passionate about the reality of racism in America. I can’t pretend this is not happening, it is real. These structures are almost in concrete.

ST share his “One Minnesota“…

Way too fast for notes…

3.a. Integrated learning environments. Includes magnet schools as an option, transformative to their communities.

3.b. Parent engagement, including parenting classes, cultural liaisons, promotion of school choice

3.c. Professional development, including cultural competency training for staff

3.d. Access to opportunity, including things like AVID, dual enrollment, etc.

3.e. Increase diversity of teachers and administrators, develop recruitment and retention

RB asks whether ST intends to support parenting classes to help parents navigate the schools system. ST, yes. RB asks for clarification on non-supplantation. ST says ELL or history books would be supplanting. RB asks for clarification about Area Learning Centers. ST says he mean to eliminate the exemption that prohibits ALC’s (which are often quite segregated) from receiving funding.

RB states that parental involvement is key, and pops up in all his research.

AB asks about teaching teachers how to read, like in Florida. ST points to his focussed literacy instruction training (3.c.i.).

RE asks about a few specific points in ST proposal. 2.a. and a discussion of whether MDE staff are “dedicated” to integration. 2.b. and reference to “research component.”

KK is concerned that a district could end up spending no money on the classroom. MDE staff point out they could spend only 10% on administration.

RB argues that attention should be focussed exclusively on achievement gap and (missed it)

Continuing discussion of ST draft. Lots of KK pressure?

ST affirms that next week the task force has to define clear measures.

KK says that if we could incentivize success we should not need any requirements, we could just reward success.

RE points to his proposal which has reward of this sort based on the Florida model.

AB asks members of the task force to reflect on their personal biases.

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

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

Missed presentation by co-chair Scott Thomas, CM missing.

Presentation by member Robert Erickson
Fiscal
… Provide MDE with way to allocate funds as incentives to reward schools
… Reduce funding for Duluth
… Allow MDE to fund technology for student home access
… Enable SPPS to get additional $35 per pupil levy like MPS
… Allow charters (Harvest Prep, Concordia Acad, Groves) to get funding
Academic
… Incorporate literacy aid
… Incorporate MN Chamber of Commerce plan for K12 reform
… Require MDE to promote proven practices
… Seek public/private partnerships
… Incorporate RTTT ideas
… Provision for cultural liaisons
… Require MDE incorporate student achievement accountability
… Incorporate Groves Academy Reading Reform

Discussion

KK, 40 year track record of failure of integration, we should focus on reading and writing. Demography shows that races will meet each other naturally.

ST, that integration is happening naturally is wrong. Not just about race, also about socio-economics. There are not magical numbers, but this does not happen naturally, we need to create entry points to allow this to happen. Families are making choices, and they are choosing integrated or not integrated environments. To abandon integration efforts is to say that segregation is OK.

HB, when we talk about a.g. who are we talking about? Who is at the bottom, black and brown children. This is not race neutral. We are talking about black, brown, and yellow children and those who are economically deprived. Unhelpful to get into a debate about that.

HB loves the picture of RE report cover from Concordia, can we use it as our cover?

BM, worried about the greater segregation she hears about in the metro area. Out state we are seeing more diversity, and those kids need greater support. High school kids need mentors as they graduate, their parents don’t know how to shepherd them through the system. The integration process is a benefit to all our kids, our minority kids and majority kids. There is fear and discomfort as minorities increase, we need support and greater understanding of kids who are different than they are. This does not happen naturally.

AB, concerned about ST framing of integration, which was not defined in the past. Asked RE how much he was considering integration as he drafted his recommendations.

RE, made the assumption that ST would focus more on integration side, so I spent time on the financing and budget focussing on achievement. Does consider a definition of integration as being very important to the report.

MO, integration is neccessary, though not sufficient, to meet the achievement gap. In 1995 we had a few segregated schools, now we have more than 100. We experience very serious economic and residential segregation. We are seeing resegregation. School is not just about books and math and reading, but also about social networks and connections. I had the benefit of bing in a school integrated by court order.

ST asks for clarification from RE, Duluth to $129, MPS and SPPS to be the same (at $144?) would advocate 5% and 15% of $60m be even… Take $60m appropriation, right now state pays 70% of admin, which would no longer be responsibility of MDE. Out state was not delved into, started developing a model that would be more favorable/responsive to out state distribution. Would welcome Tom Melcher to the conversation of how funding tiers might change.

HB, many question about the model, worried about the tinkering with formulas. Would also welcome Tom.

RE, not addressing the fiscal issues would be shirking our duty. Maybe co-chairs could set up a meeting of a subcommittee with Tom. ST agrees that providing a fiscal model would be ideal.

KK would like to return to the demographic questions. Easy to lose site of the rapid rise of non-white population and the shrinking of white population. This is what she means by “natural” change. What is being called resegregation is not a matter of discrimination but more a matter of this shrinking white population. To pin our hopes of closing the achievement gap on the color of the skin of the kid next o you is to be disappointed. HB responds that achievement and integration do work together. Also cites white flight, middle class flight. The power structure is white, it is not diverse. The opportunity gap is real. Teachers are unprepared. KK asks where are the data that show the correlation of academic achievement and integration.

ST cites data on a trailer park population where kids who choose integrated environment achieve at twice the rate.

MO points to resegregation at Osseo, Bloomington, and Richfield. High poverty schools increase dropout rates, a fact that was unrefuted, they have fewer connections to college, they provide fewer opportunities. Mayor of Richfield acknowledges high degree of discrimination in housing.

BM, support has increased GPA and college attendance.

RB, the academic a.g. is overriding for me. Two things can help: God and an education. The gap is a huge problem. We need to take ownership of the situation. Two wrongs won’t make a right. Fix the bigger hole first. Minorities need more attention to closing this gap. Notes cost of incarceration vs cost of education, “math is easy” on what is right to do. They are doing it in Florida. The gap is only 10 or 12%. If they can do it,w e can do it. Parental involvement is one of our biggest hurdles. Racism is there, but it is the forth priority. Separate but equal does not exist. Focus on the gap.

AB senses that in many ways we all agree about the basics. Lots of evidence that the a.g. has not been improving. What are schools doing that places them in the position to have so many dropouts? How can we change that?

HB notes that schools have been through an ongoing period of defunding that makes it harder and harder to do their jobs. Also consider what the schools of education are doing. But some of what is being done in Florida, we don’t want to do here.

MO points out that the best predictor of test scores is the poverty rate of the schools. A 0.9 correlation. Best thing you can do for kids is pick their parents. Next best is pick their peer group. They drop out because everyone drops out. We have fifty years of data in the USA, mixed income schools have twice the graduation rate as poor schools. Integration aid is not being used well, but we have an inside game and outside game.

KK asks what causes the a.g. Gap is largely caused by family social dynamics. Goes to out of wedlock birth rates, 81% black, 61% Latino, 18% white. By far the most important factor in a child’s academic success is that child’s family soci-economic position. High expectations, homework, rigorous coursework, parental involvement, safety, lead to learning.

ST highlights that we should expect those elements from all the money that goes to schools already. We can’t close the a.g. on $110m. What should these dollars be repurposed for.

HB adds one more thing to the list, a master teacher in front of the child. [Nobody notes the 35% more contact time given to kids at Harvest Prep.] Asks about the technology element of RE’s proposal.

HB, AB, RE, RB, and others discuss technology options for districts. [Missing the fact that technology at home without a network is not very helpful.]

RE does not buy HB point about lack of funding. Parents we serve want to see schools be run as better businesses.

HB notes that it is not fair to judge integration programs in the light of the a.g. after RE again brings up the lack of progress during the life of integration programs.

MO for every Mamoud there are 50 schools that are not beating the odds. He may be a great man, but Harvest Prep is not a model. Harvest Prep can fire it’s teachers, make requirements for its parents. Dozens of schools fail on that model, not many work.

ST looking at process. Where is there overlap? What do we agree on?
…parental involvement
…teacher quality
…(access to technology, maybe not)
…pursuing what works
…pursing a fiscal model, and a meeting with Melcher (acceptable uses and sustainability of the revenue)

WG, I don’t know what integration should be, I helped found WMEP, but the more I think and write on this, the less I know. And I can agree with almost everything that was said today. Hoping that our proposal, if it does not get rid of integration as a construct, looks into whether the work we are doing will lead to a better citizenry.

KK likes the way this is going and the development of shared areas of importance. Likes RE proposal identification of cultural liaisons as important. What happens when we start to tell kids you are different from one another attempting to be helpful, but page 123 of [Glen Singleton]… Different cultures. Cites as stereotypes.

WG responds. Kids are aware of things going in they are not privy to and assign that to a certain race. Address it not by ignoring it, but by engaging it. Having access to each other on a daily basis is an important part of that demystification.

HB notes that books like Glen’s provide an opportunity for reflection and discussion. There are kids locked out of opportunities and without any chance to reflect. Opportunities in integrated schools make learning possible. Black communities in poverty are the canaries in the coal mine. Locked in poverty. Those kids, if all they see is the poverty around them, it’s is not fair to them. Help them understand they can move beyond their circumstance. Battering in the home, bullying in the school, one skit presented by kids this week. Challenges of schools today is not like those of the past. This committee has to help these kids operate in this complex world.

PS says that what is an acceptable use of the money can help define the program. The discussion of Glen’s book relates to acceptable use. One future topic for the task force is discussing acceptable uses. How can we make decisions? [Is a magnet school an acceptable use? Within what bounds?]

RE asks if a group or subcommittee could meet with Tom Melcher to ask how the integrations funds are being used now.

MO proposes two questions: do we want to use these funds in integrated settings? If so, on what? These are fundamental questions.

Motion for three person subcommittee to meet with Melcher and the MDE integration finance person and come to grips with current integration spending. Passed.

HB moves that the task force adopt the Concordia picture and the title “One Minnesota, Integration, Achievement, and Equity for the 21st Century.” KK objects before even waiting for a second.

[We should send them pictures of integration at Harambee and Crosswinds! Why allow a private school to be the image on the cover?]

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