David Brauer wrote:
> Finally - and I do mean this sincerely -- I hope Michael runs for the school
> board. It would be wonderful to give the voters a choice of a district
> critic who has so much obvious passion, but is not a wing nut.
>
I'm flattered, but I lack one of the basic requirements of a politician:
the ability to compromise my values in order to cut a deal. Besides,
I find discovering how the brain works more interesting than
administration.
> Michael Atherton writes:
>
> >I'm particularly frustrated that I propose reasonable short term solutions
> >with empirical references and I get no response.
>
> What are those reasonable short-term solutions exactly? I scoured Michael's
> last several emails criticizing the school system. I came up with:
It's not just the last few emails, it goes back several months. I don't
write these posts as I would a research review article. If you'd like
you can send a consulting fee to the email address above. I think
that I provide enough information so that if someone is curious they
can obtain the source. Ms. Shreves has cited several articles
and I've taken the time to read each and found them informative.
I would hope that the BOE members would do the same.
> Are they things MPD doesn't do?
Yes. They don't do quality vocational training. They don't have
a comprehensive parent outreach program. And, they don't have
a solution to the minority dropout problem (other than to
arrest students for truancy).
> And why would we want to do something without "the necessity of seeking
> political or community approval" in one breath...and then in the very next
> sentence talk about involving parents? That seems somewhat
> contradictory...they are members of the community.
Effective reforms that are within the power of administrators and don't
need legislative or parental approval should be implemented. For example,
the creation of a parent outreach program can be implemented without
legislative or parental approval. Once the program is underway then
parents can become involved. In other words there are some reforms
that cannot even get off the ground without prior approval. For more
information you can request the Shipps paper from the author.
> As for the Johns Hopkins study, the conclusion - involve parents more --
> sounds like "no-duh" to me. But do they suggest anything that MPS doesn't
> do? If they actually suggest remedies, have they been tested empirically?
It's a seems to be a "no-duh," but in reality it is much more complex. If
education was truly valued in our society, then parents would convey
these values to their children and intensive parental involvement in the
schools would probability be unnecessary. I'm sure that there are parental
involvement programs all over the country that do not work, the idea is to find
one that does. If anyone is interested in the Johns Hopkins study, let
me know and I can give you the author's email address. I believe that
there are remedies that have been tested, but I'm not going to do a
literature review just for the list server. Even if none had been tested, I'm
suggesting that MPS can test their own on a small scale; in say two or three
schools. You could match these with other district schools in a
quasi-experiment to see if there is a difference. I think that a good
program can be inexpensive and tested cheaply. Use parents as
organizers, either volunteer or paid. A good example is in the study I
cited.
> Also, if parent involvement is key, I would suggest Michael's response to
> Linda Picone's comment about tutoring at Lyndale was off the mark. You
> responded:
>
> >Although I think that parents should be commended for volunteering in the
> >schools, the fact their presence might be necessary for a student to
> >succeed is reflection of the systems' failure.
This type of parent involvement should not be necessary in a quality school
system. Parents should not have to come in and help with other people's
kids. I believe that parent involvement at home is the most important factor.
> 1. Get rid of teachers unions. I think this is implied by:
>
> >Because of the unions it is almost impossible to move incompetent
> >teachers out of the system.
>
> Empirical evidence, please? Have we clearly measured competency and know
> what percentage of incompetent MPD teachers the unions protect, or is this
> just "anti-union correctness?" Also, is there empirical evidence of any
> American school system canning its union and improving teacher quality? It
> strikes me that you ignore the benefits unions provide in attracting good
> teachers - workplace rights, stable pay, etc.
The historical record shows that both teachers unions have, at one time or
another, opposed standards and testing of teachers. This has been a
major obstacle to improving the quality of teaching. A union's primary
responsibility is to its members. What's best for teachers is not necessarily
best for education as a whole. I believe that there is evidence that schools
can function more effectively without the tight regulations specified in
contracts. I will refer you back to the references to KIPP. I also believe
that unions are not necessary when market demand is high and teacher
supply is low.
> This is a tough market to
> recruit workers in. If the MPD somehow got rid of its unions, we could more
> easily bounce the "bad" ones - but would that help us lure better teachers?
A flexible curriculum, less administrative oversight and more support, and higher
pay might help.
> In a faster economy than in the early 1900s, do we really want high school
> to teach a job that could be obsolete or in decline in a shorter time than
> in the woodshop era? This smacks of centralized industrial planning
> (government figuring out what the right job is, and training people for it),
> that I suspect Michael would oppose in a different context. I think the
> truck companies can train the truck drivers - I'm not sure as a taxpayer I
> want to provide THAT direct a subsidy. Yes, absolutely, school can be made
> more relevant, but I still believe MPD's role is to provide broad,
> contextual tools that transcend an occupation - and have to at a time when
> the economy will only be more fluid.
>
> Also, where is the empirical evidence for the trucker approach?
>
> In short, I find precious few solutions and precious little empiricism.
If you want multiple solutions with specific implementation details and
a national systems review you'll have to pay me. I have given a couple of
suggestions that I thought had good face validity in the hope of showing
that there are solutions that have a good chance of working and haven't
yet been tested. In the spirit of cooperation I add a few details to
my vocational proposal.
MPS already has a pre-job training program in place, e.g. how to
act, basic job skills, etc. Given this basis you could take a two prong
approach. First, you can extend the post-secondary option to
community college training courses for trade skills. Second, you could
form partnerships with industries that are short on skilled workers
to set up a system of apprenticeships. Both of these programs
could be implemented in a cost effective manner and both could
change dynamically as the economy evolves.
> This is my windy way of saying I agree with Michael: I'm not convinced about
> small class size's magic, either. However, parents love it - experientially,
> if not empirically - and teachers do too...perhaps another way to get those
> better teachers we all crave.
Just a final thought about smaller class sizes. If we had fewer, but more
skilled teachers and larger classes, you could pay them more and
then more students would have better teachers.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
