Contrary to what Mr. Atherton believes, I do not think "science is worthless"
nor is my skepticism over tests to gauge the effectiveness of reduced class
size "anti-intellectual." My point is that measuring achievement within the
Mpls public schools right now is probably specious because the population is
such a moving target. During the past 5-10 years, we've seen a tremendous
influx in the immigrant population, especially Somalis and those designated
as "Hispanic." Many have not had a stable home environment--in fact many come
from refugee camps with no formal schooling, after being uprooted by civil
war. In addition, the MPS has just undergone a sea change toward a greater
emphasis on "community schools," which has an impact on the way the
population is clustered and may concentrate poverty. In addition, fewer kids
who "act out" are being shuttled into special ed and "ebd" class
designations. These are just a few of  the "social contingencies" I was
referring to in the paragraph Mr. Atherton said he didn't understand.
Put simply, I think there are people out there who resent paying taxes and
want to establish "means tests" as a "means" of arguing for a lower tax
burden. Sometimes it is even justified. (Perhaps Mr. Atherton should do a
data search on how well LRT reduces traffic congestion and then
intellectually deduce the potential effectiveness of that billion dollar
boondoggle.) But given the changes taking place in the MPS, my impression is
that it would be very difficult to point to broad-based, system-wide programs
akin to reduced class size that have demonstrably improved education
achievement for the MPS population over the past 5-10 years. That's not
because nothing works, it's because in some respects achievement is harder to
come by.
Maybe that supposition is lily-livered compassion and just plain wrong, and
Mr. Atherton can find the scientific data that rebuts it. Given his bent, I
assume if he can, he will. If his rebuttal is compelling, I'll embrace it.

Britt Robson
Lyndale

Reply via email to