Good points Andy. At a minimum, I think the DFL (or other major party) should encourage multiple endorsements and let voters refine the results in a primary. And, I encourage Green and Independence party candidates, independent candidates and others with good ideas to get into the primary races and add to the debate. Terrell's comment about evaluating the performance of an incumbent School Board member, based upon factors where they have influence or control, certainly makes sense. Similar arguments can be made regarding evaluating teachers in the classroom.
A few facts and a few thoughts-- There were 340 k-12 school districts statewide in the 2001-02 school year, with Minneapolis District #1 being the largest. MPS has an annual operating budget of over a half-billion dollars. There are 49,000 students, with 80 languages spoken; 11,000 students don't speak English at home; we spend over $20 million annually to teach students English; nearly 70% of students live in poverty; there are about 6,000 special education students, and the financial gap in providing required spec. ed. services amounts to nearly $30 million annually, in Mpls.-- that's nearly $30 million that is made up from general fund revenues, creating a $30 million shortfall in general education fund revenues; we spend $40 million annually on transportation; 27% of students are white; less than half of 9th graders graduate within 4 years, and average test scores are abysmal. And not to forget, there are many success stories and exceptional students attending the Mpls. public schools, members of the National Honor Society, National Merit Scholars, IB Program graduates, etc. Undoubtedly socio-economic factors influence student success in school, and remedial/compensatory funding is targeted at influencing those variables. Are compensatory funding levels adequate in Minneapolis? Are compensatory education strategies adequate and effective, and how do we know? New strategies have been developed to improve attendance and increase graduation rates, and to get more new teachers, especially minority teachers, in the classroom. There are about 8,000 public school employees in Mpls., and over half are teachers. We just cut $30 million from the annual operating budget and sent layoff notices to over 400 probationary (non-tenured) teachers. Many of those laid-off are new minority teachers, trained in the latest educational methodology-- alas they have no seniority. So, what's new? I haven't heard the DFL questioning such policies, other than complaining about a lack of money to avoid the layoffs. What of strategies to thin the ranks of tenured, yet poor-quality, ineffective teachers? Remember the debates over not allowing non-union, parent/neighborhood volunteers to paint halls and classrooms? How about using neighborhood professionals (non-teachers) as after school/evening tutors for enrolled students-- let objective testing measure effectiveness in a controlled test environment. Lets look at cost-effective results! Discussion is just beginning on the role and responsibility of parents in the education (or lack thereof) of their children-- and most of the discussion seems to be in local coffee shops rather than in school board meetings or on the campaign trails. What role should union endorsement play in a school board election, when the largest line item in the school budget deals with union contracts? How are salary and benefit negotiations being settled relative to other districts, and relative to other professions throughout the economy-- public and private sector? Valid questions rarely asked. Does this (labor union-endorsement) not represent an overt conflict of interest for those seeking election to the school board? This issue too, is being discussed more in coffee shops than in board meetings or on the campaign trails. Is it not akin to having inside officers serving on corporate boards of directors; inside corporate officers serving on senior-level compensation committees of boards of directors setting management salaries; management and policy consultants auditing the clients that pay the consultant fees? I've followed this school board party-endorsement thread, trying to understand the reasoning as to why the candidates for school board should be 'above the party-endorsement process' any more than candidates for any other elected city office (or state office for that matter). Alas, I'm at a loss to understand or rationalize the need for any differentiation based on party endorsements-- unless, as referenced above, labor-endorsement constitutes a significant component of the overall party-endorsement process. What other rationalization for differentiation would apply to the school board, compared with other boards and elected offices? While others (boards/offices) may have significant labor-budget line items, non are likely as significant in whole or as a component of the overall budget as the school board-- but I may be wrong. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck... usually. Why not call a duck a duck and talk about real issues, rather than beating around the bush with gobbledygook. Why not talk of the responsibility and accountability of parents/guardians in getting kids to school, etc. I guess it's not politically correct and puts people ill-at-ease. It's too easy to blame the teacher, superintendent and board members for problems that, in fact, are much broader based-- entrenched in our neighborhoods and too close to home. But I digress from the topic of the thread! Returning... Overall, I see the continuation of the major two-party system, as currently structured, to be an outdated, inefficient method of maintaining the too-often dysfunctional status quo-- maintenance of party status and power at all costs, avoidance of competition and a blind allegiance to unions at all cost, and a reliance on over-regulation and limiting markets in general. These are political issues many taxpayers and voters are tired of seeing, and they are looking for a change. In Minneapolis, too many folks place more importance on having the union bug on literature and yard signs, relative to the messages/strategies/solutions being debated by some of the candidates-- be it for city council, the park board or the school board-- and we do reap what we sow. We have met the enemy.... Michael Hohmann Independent- in thought and politics Linden Hills www.mahohmannbizplans.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Andy Driscoll > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] School Board Endorsement > >snip > Where we differ is that in nonpartisan races as city races are, > the process > can, indeed, be different from the state. If parties really > wanted to engage > debate about issues when only one party so dominates as the DFL, the party > could (and should) consider multiple endorsements. > > Of course, in both jurisdictions, the party could promote multiple > candidates, i.e., endorse more than one person with the primary serving as > the final arbiter for nomination. > > The dominance of the DFL in Minneapolis is waning with the rise > of the Green > Party and its representatives on the City Council, Dean Zimmermann and > Natalie Johnson Lee (and, almost, Cameron Gordon, who helped oust Joan > Campbell). No small feats, those. > > The problem with all parties has been the obsessive need to put on some > phony show of unity as if the party has but one face and one > monolithic view > of all policy matters when everyone knows how bogus that belief really is. > > Bert's lament that good policy discussions have been discarded in a > single-party dominance can be assuaged by recommending to voters two, > perhaps three qualified candidates who present different perspectives on > local governance. > > Let's hope that the strengthening presence of Greens for all > offices in the > local government mix creates a resurgence in local debates. In many cases, > the DFL behaves more like the conservative opponents it used to face: > standing for preservation of the ever-lovin' status quo. Too much > money has > corrupted the old grassroots DFL because it came to dominate local > government. The Green Party's increasing successes testify to > voter disgust > with that migration. > > Andy Driscoll > Saint Paul > snip > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 09:12:57 EDT > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Mpls] School Board Endorsement > > > > The whole point of the DFL endorsement process was and is to do > exactly what > > Michelle objects to. It is to stifle all but the endorsed candidates. > > snip > > > > As a result of our one-party success, we have suffered through > many ills and > > dysfunctional behavior. The cult of personality has taken over, to the > > detriment of public policy. > > > > We were a better party, and a better city, when we had the good > civic debate > > that organized opposition provides. > > > > > > Bert Black > > King Field > > 'Retired' DFLer > > snip _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
