Michael Atherton writes: > I leave you with the following question: If ten years of class size reductions > have been successful in Minneapolis why do we have a 50% failure rate > and astoundingly low test scores in so many of our schools?
It is worth noting that while Michael trumpets the 50 percent failure rate, 65 percent of Minneapolis public school students now live in poverty. As many have noted before, many of the students who take tests in Minneapolis are ultra-mobile and have not spent many years in the Minneapolis system. Those are just two mitigating factors that have been mentioned before, though not by Michael. However - and coincidentally - the Strib did a long story on this today. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1592/2919861.html) It offers half a loaf to critics of the Minneapolis schools and defenders of lower class size. The Strib came up with a formula that takes into account many different variables and then "predicts" what student-achievement (MCA) scores in each district should be. (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/2923296.html) Minneapolis did 1 point better than predicted on 3rd grade tests, 12 percent worse than expected on 5th grade tests and about nine percent worse than predicted on 8th grade tests. That means even if you buy the notion that Minneapolis kids are poorer and more sociologically challenged than kids elsewhere, the district still did worse than expected on the MCA standardized test at grades 5 & 8. Before we go any further, you have to take the Strib's math a bit on faith. While their explanation in print and online is lengthy (See http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/2916651.html), there really isn't enough meat available (they only specify "standard statistical factors")) to understand the weight they gave variables and why. But the Strib does list the factors, in order that most predicted higher scores. In 3rd grade, the factors were: 1. Lower poverty. 2. Fewer pupils who have limited English skills. 3. Smaller class sizes. 4. Less spent on administration. 5. Less of their budget spent on transportation. 6. More spent on maintenance. These were the major factors, and small class size was in the top 3. This is the level where Minneapolis students did better than expected. It also the one grade among the three measured that the class-size referendum affects most. So, it's entirely possible that Minneapolis is failing not because it has spent money on smaller class sizes, but because it is not doing something else. A sidebar (http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/2919335.html) quotes a New York education researcher named Harold Wenglinsky. Of his research, the Strib states, "His findings: Facilities, transportation and even teacher pay make little difference. The impact comes from lower class size and better teacher training." No, I don't know if Mr. Wenglinsky is peer-reviewed, but it is interesting that in a series that asks some pretty tough questions and overall attacks the notion that money=higher test scores, lower class size comes through smelling pretty good. Perhaps instead of attacking that pillar we should focus on other things the district should do and should drop. By the way, I appreciate Michael bypassing a point-by-point refutation of my earlier SciAmerican analysis. I, too, encourage people to read the research, which is why I posted a free link. I do think you should avoid paying the $5 to SciAmerican and read the authors' free cite - getting more for the money is what this debate is about, isn't it? David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ 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
