In a message dated 7/7/2004 2:21:07 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Mark Anderson asks: Doug, what are you talking about? I've heard lots of confusing discussion on the List as to what's happening and who's to blame, but I sure don't remember any suggestions that the school board wants to re-segregate our schools. >> The board has been re-segregating the schools since the mid-1990s. The board repealed a "controlled choice" desegregation plan and approved a "community school plan" in 1995. Whites have been getting more heavily concentrated in the districts better K-8 schools. Students of color have been more concentrated in the worst K-8 schools. It seems to me that the board has also been going out of its way and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on project that have accomplished very little but to separate racial groups to the greatest degree possible. Things that affect the racial composition of schools include school attendance boundaries, choice of sites for new schools, plans to close schools, changes in grade level configurations at a variety of schools, etc. << My understanding of the discussion is that the layoffs in the district will require much reshuffling of teachers, as senior teachers bump lesser-tenured teachers into different schools and disciplines, which will cause many more changes than the initial 600 layoffs. And it is my understanding that this is mostly due to union rules, so I don't understand why people blame the school board for that.>> The decision to layoff so many teachers, to reassign so many high-seniority elementary to other areas, etc., is a management decision. It can be done quite differently. The district is laying off way more teachers than necessary, given the number of positions that are being cut. And the district is going much further than the law requires to protect the jobs of some of the teachers who hold elementary school teaching jobs that are being cut. For example, the district is laying off many special education teachers who are doing work that requires specialized training, and plan to replace them with teachers who hold special Ed licenses but have no experience or the specialized training that is required to competently perform those jobs. << I also remember, Doug, that you suggested that the board laid off double the number of teachers that they needed to. You seem to think that the board has some Machiavellian scheme in mind when they did this. Maybe you are right, but your explanation of this scheme went over my head, and I suspect most of the other folks on the List. Is that related to your comment on the "anti-Civil rights agenda?" >> The district laid off way over "double the number" of teachers that they needed to. The board has some financial incentives for doing these excessive layoffs and reassignments: Some of the "laid off" teachers will find other jobs and pass up the opportunity to be rehired, the district will provide lower quality special education services at a higher cost, for which it will try to get more money from the state and federal government (reimbursement). And no, the layoffs and realignments are not related to or addressed in my comment on the "anti-Civil Rights agenda." -Doug Mann, King Field Mann for school board www.educationright.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
