RE: Ventura tax reform Mpls. schools
As a school board member, resident of Minneapolis and mother of 2 school children, I have some concerns over this proposal. The tax change Ventura is proposing is a shallow tax and is subject much more to the whims of the economy. Property taxes tend to be more stable as housing stock is not as subject to great swings as sales and income tax. If the economy goes on a larger downturn, and it will (history bears this point out) then I fear public education will face massive shortfalls. In Minneapolis, we, as you all know, deal with many huge educational and social chanllenges not really experieinced by the more affluent areas. We are very fortunate to have strong community support for our schools. The extra money we raise helps us to some interventions such as reduced class size that really benefits students. With the political reality that the city no longer has the power base it once had at the legislature, the power base of the outer ring suburbs and affluent districts puts us at the mercy of policymakers who think Minneapolis and St. Paul are treated too well by the legislature. I fear that any opporutnity to reduce our ability to ask for community support of education and to become so very reliant on the state leaves me somewhat concerned. Also Ventura proposes a 2% cap on education spening this biennium. With the current utilities and fuels costs up siginificantly from this time last year, the school district is faced with utility bills that have doubled and fuel for transportation half again higher than what was projected. We are no different in that respect from every home and business owner who is facing the same dilemma. Yet we are to become, under Ventura's tax plan, much more dependent on the state. If he is serious about funding public education, then I would like to see more of an effort on the part of the Gov. to help school districts right now. There are programs to help low income families with heating costs, maybe right now we need to consider this for school districts on a short term, emergency basis. I don't see the state or the Federal govt. fully funding their many mandates now, so I feel uneasy at this point about a proposal that makes our schools more dependant on the state. Audrey Johnson 10th Ward MPS BOE Director
Re: Mr. Wellstone goes to school
I have to agree with all the Catherine Shreves wrote. As I said this am on MPR, we need to look at growth over a period of years. We assess our kindergarteners to evaluate many basic school readiness skills. If the state were to expand the reporting to measure children when they enter a school system, and assign that child a record that follows them anywhere in the state, then look at growth over a period of time, say from K to 3 and then to 5, we would have a much more accurate picture of growth and progress, both for districts, schools and individual children. But at this writing, it is my understanding that the state has refused to look at that type of assessment, even though researchers across the country are recommending testing that shows more accurately growth over time. When we take one year's 3rd graders and compare it to last year's second graders, now third graders, we only see a very tiny piece of the puzzle. As list members know, many of our children lack the social capitol of those in more affluent schools. Children from affluent areas come to school with the skills to begin learning. We have children who have no stable housing, family life, healthcare or adult relationships. We have children who have never held a writing tool or had a book read to them of have never spoken english. So we take children from a much lower level of school readiness. That's why early education funding is so critical. The MCA tests on which the Title 1 report is based, have 4 levels. The top levels range from 75% up. The bottom level is from 0% to 33% and the biggest level is the second one up, it goes from 33% to 75%. The number of chilren in MPS doesn't seem to have gone up in the very limited manner it's reported. But in fact there have been tremendous gains for kids going from the bottom level to the second level and kids going from 33% to 70%, close to the 1420 mark imposed by the state. So even the state is now looking at breaking the 4 levels into 5 because they are beginning to see that it is not an accurate way to evaluate progress. I also believe Minneapolis should be compared to like school districts with similar demographics. The current system will always mean, in this state, Mpls and St. Paul will never look as good as Minnetonka, or Apple Valley or North Oaks. Our demographics are completely different and the system is skewed to make the affluent school districts look successful and urban centers as failures. I say compare us, if we are to be judged at the national level, to Charlotte-Mecklenburg or Seattle, etc. I understand that this information is to be used to help school districts in need, but that hasn't really been the case in the past. It's mostly been used or threatened to be used in a punitive manner. In DC, this kind of information that is so limited, is used to bash and undermine public education. And who is keeping the test makers and test scorers accountable? That isn't foolproof! Audrey Johnson 10th Ward MPS BOE Dir.
Mill City
Dennis is right, it was originally conceived to have a school downtown for Target employees. However, the number of Target employees' children attending the school has dropped significantly. Other families have signed on to the program and I have heard only good stuff about Mill City. As to the idea of a corporate sponsor of a public school, that is a model widely used for charters schools around the country. They too are considered public. I do not know how many public school district schools fall into that category, but I would guess that Mill City is not the only one nationwide. It would be good to know that though, and to see how those schools are doing. Mill City is a very successful school program and the Superintendent is working with Target to remain in the current space one more year. The district is also looking for an alternative downtown space to house Mill City for the year 2001-2003 and beyond. Next year the plan is to have a 5th grade in the school as well so it is a K-5. There are a number of people who work downtown wholike having their children's school close to their workplace. The district remains optimistic about finding such a space. What ever you celebrate, I hope you all on the list have a happy and healthy holiday! Audrey Johnson 10th ward MPS BOE Director
Re: New thread - foster care
It is my understanding that the county oversees the foster care program, but it does have huge implications for many children in Minneapolis. There are also foster care placements that are through agencies such as Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities. Audrey Johnson 10th Ward At 06:40 PM 11/13/00 -0600, D.Klein wrote: Did anyone see the article in last week's Time magazine about foster care? Does anyone know where in the continuum Minneapolis falls on the two main issues, i.e.. foster care v. adoption, and the higher incidence of abuse in foster homes? Is this a city, county or state issue? Or has this been exhaustively discussed in the past? D. Klein Kenwood
Vouchers Apology
At 01:40 PM 11/8/00 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think voucher discussion is irrelevant hereperhaps assuming it will be coming down on Minneapolis soon, heres some stuff. Dennis, I saw your apology for this post, but I still must respond. I think the voucher issue is very relevant here, this is a major plank of the Republican Educational platform at the national level. It is a subject that keeps coming back in the courts, discussions debates that get tossed around in legislatures across the country. We could end up with a Federal triangle with the Republicans in the majority. There are several cases that have come through the lower courts, it is obvious that eventually one of these voucher cases will get to the Supreme Court. When that happens, Minneapolis could very well be affected. The recent S.C. decision in Mitchell vs Helms allows school districts to lend $$ or equipment to parochial schools, it did not address the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. However decisions it let stand are somewhat contradictory in nature on this clause. Cases out of Maine, Ohio, Vermont and Arizona were left in place. One of those cases specifically excludes parochial, sectarian schools from voucher programs because it violates the establishment clause of the 1st. Yet in Arizona, a lower court decision seemed to go the opposite way. There are many other cases, I will not list all this here. I have taken my information on the Supreme Court action from a brief put together by Borkowski and Dreier, 2 attorneys with Hogan Hartson L.L.P. in Wash. entitled The 1999-2000 Term of the United States Supreme Court and It's Impact on Public Schools. Fortunately, vouchers initiatives were defeated across the nation yesterday. But I would bet that this is not the end of the issue! I am the first to characterize the majority of voucher advocates with a level invective that is not permissible on this list. Bad, bad people, willing to sacrifice a lot of kids just to knee-cap teachers unions. Her (Johnson) citing of Molinar (actually its Molnar) as a source opposing vouchers ought at least to include an ID as one of the most ferocious left-wing critics of educational criticism. (His last book, Giving Kids the Business: The Commercialization of America's Schools, is helpful but a bit hysterical.) The research on vouchers is ALL advocacy research. Period. I have to disagree with you on this point as well. Molnar was not alone in his criticism of the research. The 2 authors of the commentary did reference the report done by a private organization that also questions the findings of the research. (I did mispell Molnar though, typing wasn't my best subject in high school!) More important, voucher opponents always talk about protecting public schools but say almost nothing about the kids who attend them and are not getting much of what they deserve...no matter how hard nor wisely the good folks in the Minneapolis schools and on the school board work. I would not be bothered taking any stand if I did not firmly believe that vouchers could and would do harm to children in the public schools. Vouchers would actually help to further alienate the truly needy children from the children who come from moderate and more well off circumstances. Children who have a situation where they have a stable adult relationship somewhere in their lives are more likely to do well in school and life. (In a recent survey, I can't recall right off hand at this moment where that one is, said that many inner city children feel safer at school than they do at home!) To argue as Ms. Johnson does, that: research clearly shows that the current direction being taken here in Minneapolis is the correct direction is reasonable political rhetoric but hardly beyond dispute. Not much is beyond dispute these days. However, as a policy maker, I look to many sources before making decisions that affect children. I try to consider my decisions in a historical, theoretical and practical manner. I have been following the issue of vouchers for some time. I am sure I have not read everything, but I do try to keep up with current research and discourse on the subject. I would not claim to be an expert at this point, but I did not arrive at my opposition lightly. I know of wonderful educators in the private sector elsewhere in the U.S. who would love to work with kids who are slipping through the gaping holes in public school systems. No one is offering them the chance. If that is the intent of those teachers, then opportunities exist to do just that. They can teach in public schools if they so chose. As a matter of fact there is a teacher shortage in the public sector that is projected to worsen in the near future. The public school system as an institution needs reform, there is no doubt about that. It is an institution that is older than the Constitution itself. The model still used favors agrarian
Better Schools Referendum
Thanks you all, list members, supporters and the entire Minneapolis community for your continued support of the Minneapolis Public Schools. Knowing that we can continue to provide our children in the elementary level small classes that allow them to receive more attention through strengthened relationships with their teachers, and allow our students at the high school level to have a wider variety of electives, will keep us on the right track to improving student learning and achievement! We will also continue to support early childhood education as about 1 million raised will go into supporting early childhood education programs. Thanks you all and continue to Expect Great Things! Audrey D. Johnson MPS BOE NOTE: About 2 weeks ago, a lower court in North Carolina ruled that the state needed to expand it's definition of education to include early childhood ed. The Gov. there, Jim Hunt, is a very big supporter of early childhood education. The MPS BOE recently sponsored a resolution that is going to the Minesota School Board Association (MSBA) to strengthen early childhood education. With lots of research to bakc this up, we will be workign to increase the understanding of the value in early childhood education. For many children this make the difference in educational success!
Re: Gore, Nader, Bush, and what the hey...
This past week I attended a conference of the Great City Schools, an oprganization made up of the largest school districts in the country. It was very informative. The session I found most eye-opening was the one presented by a member of the States Commission on Education. This organization's role is to help formulate and advise states and the Federal Dept of Education on education policy. The basis of the recommendations centered around loosely veiled vouchers, privitization of education and union busting. This organization is Republican controlled because it's members are appointed by governors. Since 37 states have Rep. Govs, hence it's republican agenda. Let me enlighten the list about one aspect of privitization. Our district is currently paying out about $3+ million per year in un reimbursed medicaid costs for children with special needs. The Federal Govt. has made billing a very complex process. Schools Districts were not prepared to do this and needed to either embark on a training program or turn to 3rd party billing. The MPS is doing the first option and is now in a position to start reclaiming this money. However, many school districts had neither the time or money to invest in this new form of financial management. They instead turned to for profit 3rd party billing entities. These entities are charging up to 25% of the reimbursements. (Some were offering jobs in this area for 6 figures.) So at the loss to children and districts who scramble to cover their costs, these companies are lining their pockets. We here in MPS may be affected by the back lash of unscrupulous companies that were engaging in medicaid fraud when the Fed. decides to tighten up those requirements and make it harder for school districts to collect. Certain large districts such as Houston, were up and running and were offering their services to smaller districts at about 5% of reimbursment cost, a considerable savings. When districts in Ohio attempted to do this, they were blocked by the Feds. Coincidentally, the 3rd party billing companies stood to lose a lot of business in Ohio. Makes one ask, who is really excerting the most influences at the fed level? Vouchers--while the Supreme Court has not really ruled on them specifically, they are one vote short of allowing them outright. This bothers me as a Board Member and a resident of an urban district because for 26 years, the Feds have mandated certain things and then after promising to fund them at 40%, is now funding at 9% here in MPS. The system of education block grants, which were started under Reagan, began the tremendous ebbing of Federal funds from local school districts. Under this system of funding, the mandated spending went from about 18% to 9%. The feds never really got close to the promised 40%, but the biggest slide occurred under Reagan. This directly affects our students, as you may remember in our budget we have cross subsidies for Federal and States mandates at about $27 million. This is money that comes out of our general budget to fund what the Feds and the State require (as they should, it's services for special needs children) but do not fund. The State is far ahead of the Fed on paying up but there is still a lot of ground to cover. The Supreme Court is allows funds to flow through private citizens to religious and private schools, it just can not directly go to those schools. The MPS end up paying costs to charter schools on excess special education costs that charter schools bill back to the district. The district also pays for transportation, up to 1,000 per student in charter and private schools and it reimbursed at about $250 per student. I am not advocating for anyone, I am just letting you all know a little bit about what is going on behind the 30 sec. sound bites. I urge the Federal Govt. to actually fund those mandates at 25-40% for 5-7 years before embarking on a punitive actions that allows companies and private schools to profit while the neediest children are left behind! If they do what they said they were going to 26 years ago, instead of cutting funding while increasing reporting and mandates, give public school systems time to do the work, less hindered. After 5-7 years, look again at student achievement, then we can take up the debate on vouchers and privitization if there is no significant changes nationally. the Republican Agenda on Education, as laid forth by this commission will bring about a knock out punch to public education and leave our needist students very far behind. Audrey Johnson, MPS Board Member 10th Ward
Re: MPLS-ISSUES digest 804
We have not had the opportunity to discuss this as a Board issue of yet, however I have always held the opinion that discrimination hurts and intolerance is unacceptable. The Boy Scouts are a private organization and are not subject to the same scrutiny as publicly funded organizations. I do recognize that the Boy Scouts help some boys. But they do not help everyone or anyone who wishes to participate. They have the right to run things as they see fit and they are determined enough to take such a position to the Supreme Court. We have the obligation to adhere to our philosophy in the School District of inclusiveness. I would not continue to support any organization that promotes discrimination and intolerance. As a child I wanted to join the Boy Scouts because the Girl Scout troop in my area was not well run. I was told I was crazy for even thinking such a thing, they didn't want "girls" messing up their club. Since then, I have been very aware of such non-inclusive rules in organizations and have spoken up against them. Audrey Johnson, 10th Ward School Board Member And what about it school board members? You ask gay people for support on your referendum, but your silence on this issue is deafening. Allan Spear Ward 10 nofill
