I admire Dr. Erickson for responding to my request that school board candidates post their positions. I hope that we will see similar postings from current and future board members. I also believe that Dr. Erickson is well versed in contemporary educational doctrine and he also seems to be an ethical and well intentioned individual. However, I don't see that Dr. Erickson is proposing any policies or reforms beyond the philosophy and polices of current school board. What we don't need at this point in time is more of the same. This brand of liberal educational philosophy has burdened us with twenty years of deteriorating educational quality and has resulted in a 50% failure rate in the MPS. We don't need the status quo, we need a fresh ideas. I welcome this opportunity to illustrate how false assumptions about education processes have resulted in our current failure, and in my response below I will try to make clear my alternative views and my proposals.
Michael Atherton Prospect Park "Joseph A. Erickson" wrote: > Ability Grouping > In general, I am against ability groupings merely on equity grounds. It > creates haves and have-nots and will stigmatize children, even at early > ages. That being said, there are specific situations in which grouping of a > sort may be useful. For example, research suggests that grouping students by > mastery level assists students in making smooth progress through various > levels of math work by focusing instruction on work that will be > productively engaging for learners at various levels of complexity. Of all > the basic subjects, math might be the only area in which grouping of one > sort or another may be justified. Basic Liberal Axiom: All children must be treated equally regardless of differences in ability, learning rates, and handicaps. Negative Outcomes: If your teaching methods target the middle or lower third of classes because you are trying to treat all children equally, then methods retard the development of the upper third. In the long run this approach hurts us nationally because it does not allow children to reach their full potentials. If you teach to the middle range of students, many students who have trouble with some subjects will require expensive remediation. Another inane, result of this liberal axiom is that in order to teach children equally, even when they are failing, you socially promote them even when they haven't obtained the necessary skills; a policy that is still in practice in the MPS and is overtly destructive. Conservative Assumption: Children have different strengths and weakness and education is most effective when it is well matched with individual differences. My Perspective: Equality under the law, is not the same as equality in education. Not all children are born equal and not all children will learn at the same rates. This is true of subjects other than mathematics, this includes reading, art, languages, sports, etc. Forcing everyone into the middle will frustrate both the fast learners and may insure failure for slow learners. My Proposal: Rather than a system which retards the development of high ability students and requires expensive remediation for slow students, I think that we should implement a system which alleviates these problems through its design, i.e., a course based system rather than a grade based system. Students would take Reading I, II, III,... and Math I, II, III, ..., etc. Such a system allows student to progress and maximize their abilities in areas they excel at, and does not require extensive remediation or social promotion. Such a system would not separate students on general traits such as intelligence or race. > Charter Schools > Well-managed charter schools can be a helpful alternative form of public > education. I don't believe it is productive for the "regular" public schools > to demonize the charters or approach the issue as an "us vs. them" issue. > All of these children are our responsibility--whatever form of public > education their parents choose. Basic Liberal Axiom: The only equitable form of education in the United States is the public school system, all other forms of education are elitist and hinder the improvement of public education. Negative Outcomes: As Dr. Erickson hints, public school administrators and teachers unions have demonized the charter school movement restricting the educational options of parents and forcing children remain in failing public schools. Monopolies retard innovation. Conservative Assumption: The public schools will not change on their own initiative and competitive pressure is necessary for improvement. My Perspective: I agree with Dr. Erickson that charter schools offer a alternative to the lack of educational quality in the public schools. To some degree their existence promotes positive changes in the public school system. My Proposal: Continue to promote the creation and development of charter schools until the public schools can offer the same quality and variety of services. Charters schools should be required to teach a basic Core Curriculum to encourage a common cultural identify. > Class Size > A tremendous amount of research from various perspectives all point to the > centrality of small class size and its role in improving academic and social > outcomes. We will need to be vigilant with regards to the budget to make > sure we don't let our attention waver on keeping class sizes small. Basic Liberal Axiom: Close social relations and student/teacher interactions are necessary for student learning. Teaching methods that involve one-on-one teacher student interaction are the most effective. Negative Outcomes: Places an emphasis on the most expensive approach to improving student achievement; i.e. it wastes millions and millions of dollars with little positive impact and pulls dollars away from programs that might be more effective Conservative Assumption: Although small class sizes are an admirable goal, they are not an essential requirement for quality education. My Perspective: Whether or not you like or relate to your teacher should not always determine how well you perform in a class. Students in Japan and China cannot justify poor performance to their parents because they didn't like the teacher. Such factors are not considered relevant. It is the children's responsibility to represent their families and perform well. Classes in China and Japan also use teaching methods that allows students to learn well with large class sizes. These approaches should be tried here. I also don't agree that the research points anywhere close to the conclusion that smaller class sizes have a significant impact on student achievement and neither does a review article by one of the nation's leading scientific magazines. However, if Dr. Erickson and the District can show with its own well designed research that smaller class sizes have had a positive impact on student achievement I'd be willing to reconsider my position. My Proposal: Insure that student discipline is well regulated. Disruptive students are a problem in both large and small classes, but are statistical more likely to impact large classes than small ones. Use instructional methods that are known to be effective in large classes. > Community Schools > Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of my campaign is my emphasis on > community building and community-based learning strategies. I believe we > have lost our way in this area and the return to community schools is a good > step in the right direction. The return to community schools, while a > difficult decision on desegregation grounds, is in nearly every other > respect educationally sound. Returning to community schools has the > potential of enhancing community connections, parent involvement, school > safety, and (to the extent the above mentioned issues are salient) student > learning. Basic Liberal Axiom: Not really a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. Conservative Assumption: Not really a Liberal vs. Conservative issue. Negative Outcomes: May result in segregation by race and result in differential amounts spent per child. Community schools beyond the elementary level may be too restricted in course offerings. My Perspective: Natural (as opposed to forced) segregation is not necessarily a bad thing. Care must be taken so that funds are not distributed disproportionately. My Proposal: Support community elementary schools as long as funding is equitable. To be continued... _______________________________________ 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
