Archives for category: Minnesota

The Minneapolis School Board closed down Cityview, one of its public schools whose test scores were too low, it replaced Cityview with a charter school, Minneapolis School of Science. The charter school has told the families of 40 children with special needs–children with Down Syndrome and autism–that they are not wanted at the school. Clearly the schools is bouncing these children to improve their test scores.

Is this what “no child left behind” means? Does it mean pushing out the most vulnerable children to inflate the school’s scores?

In a half-minute of Googling, I discovered that the Minneapolis School of Science is part of the chain called Concept Schools, which is affiliated with the Gulen charter chain. The Gulen schools are part of the nation’s largest charter chain. Most get high test scores. Most focus on math and science. They have some sort of association with a Turkish imam named Fethullah Gulen. The New York Times wrote a front-page story about the cleric a few months ago. The Gulen schools have occasionally become involved in controversy having to do with audits and ties to Turkey.

Oh, well, as long as they get high scores, who cares about all these other issues?

I periodically get letters on this blog from readers who say, “I work in a charter school and we never ask any child to leave, not ever.” I hope that some of them will respond to this story.

I received a long response from Joe Nathan in response to my post about segregation in the charter schools of Minnesota.

My post included a link to an article by John Hechinger of Bloomberg News about charter schools in that state that are one-race or one-ethnic group.

The question Joe Nathan’s response raises is this: Is segregation in a public facility (remember, charter schools say they are public schools) commendable so long as the individuals there choose to be segregated?

My problem is that I am old enough to remember that segregationists in the South in the 1950s advocated “freedom of choice” as their answer to the Brown decision. They argued precisely what Joe is saying here. They said, let families choose, and let the chips fall where they may. Curiously, the chips fell where they had always been, with white children in this school and black children in that school.

This is Joe Nathan’s comment:

Bill Wilson, Former Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights and first African American elected to the St. Paul City Council Presidency, and I responded to these questionable assertions in a column, a portion of which is below. Both of us support more excellent public schools, whether district or charter.

One of us (Wilson) responded several years ago at the Minnesota legislature to the charge that charter schools such as the one he founded were “segregated.” He differentiated between schools like his (Higher Ground Academy) and the segregated public school he was forced to attend in Indiana: “We had no choice,” he recalled. “I was forced to attend an inferior school, farther from home than nearby, better-funded ‘whites-only’ schools. Higher Ground is open to all. No one is forced to attend. Quite a difference.”

http://charternotebook.org/giving-parents-choice-among-various-schools-i

Here’s a bit more of that article.

After working in urban communities for a combination of more than 80 years, one of us serving as Minnesota’s State Commissioner of Human Rights and being elected first African American to serve as St. Paul’s City Council Chair, and helping produce major gains with low income and students of color, we vigorously disagree with a recent assertion on the Charter Notebook blog site that “…any achievement” by a group of students at a charter school that is predominantly of one race is “hollow.” (Rachel Scott, “Independent Charter Schools and Diversity, Part One: The Problem of “Resegregation,” January 18, 2012)

Imposed separation because of or on the basis of race or color is the classic definition of segregation. People choosing of their own free will to attend a public school is the exercise of liberty. The right to assemble and exercising freedom of choice is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. How then is choosing which charter school to attend not consistent with the right of assembly? Unlike imposed segregation, charter schools include all who apply or wish to come. Unlike segregated schools of the 1950’s and 1960’s, these schools most certainly do not exclude anyone because of their race or color of skin.

Minnesota’s largest daily newspaper, the Star Tribune has found for the last two years that the vast majority of Minneapolis-St Paul area public schools that are “beating the odds” are charter public schools. In September, 2011, a graphic appeared in the Star Tribune listing the 10 public schools in reading and math with high percentages of low income students that had the highest percentage of students proficient in reading or math on the official statewide examinations. See:http://www.startribune.com/newsgraphics/129810153.html.

The top eight of the ten schools listed in math were charter public schools, and the top nine of ten schools listed in reading were charter public schools. These were schools that “showed the highest percentage of students scoring at grade level or better, despite having a high number of students living in poverty.” To be eligible to be on the list, a school had to enroll at least 85% students from low-income families.

The vast majority of these high-ranking charter public schools enrolled 80% or more students of color. Many of the “beat the odds” schools enrolled 90% or more from one race. Bill Wilson, co-author of this blog post (and former Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights) founded and is director of one of these schools. US News and World Report also has listed the school Wilson helped start, Higher Ground Academy, as one of the nation’s finest high schools.

Denying the value of these schools, as Scott does in her recent blog post, reminds us of what Ralph Ellison wrote about in the civil rights classic, Invisible Man. Ellison wrote, in part, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.”

Joe Nathan, who was a leading figure in the development of the charter movement, has spiritedly defended charters on this blog. He points to charters in Minnesota to show that the original ideals of the movement survive there. Unlike New York City, for example, where the charters are aggressively entrepreneurial, glory in pushing public schools out of their space, spend more than the neighborhood public school, and crow that they are far, far better and get higher test scores and deserve even more space.

But Minnesota is not altogether idyllic. Last December, John Hechinger of Bloomberg News wrote a disturbing article about segregated charter schools in Minnesota. He wrote about an all-black charter school (for “East African children”)  in St. Paul and another charter in St. Paul that is 90 percent white (German immersion).

The title of his article: “Segregated Charter Schools Evoke Separate but Equal Era in U.S. Education.”

A sample of the article, which I recommend:

Six decades after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down “separate but equal” schools for blacks and whites, segregation is growing because of charter schools, privately run public schools that educate 1.8 million U.S. children. While charter-school leaders say programs targeting ethnic groups enrich education, they are isolating low-achievers and damaging diversity, said Myron Orfield, a lawyer and demographer. 

It is fair to ask, What is the end game? Where are we heading? What is the goal? Separate schools for every ethnic group? The end of the idea of common schooling?

Public school teachers have endured three years of sustained attacks, since Race to the Top unleashed the nutty idea that student scores on standardized tests are the key to teacher quality. This was ammunition to set off a sustained attack on teachers, especially those with experience, and on their unions, which defend them. Yesterday, the anti-teacher juggernaut came to a screeching halt in Minnesota. Governor Dayton vetoed legislation to strip teachers of any job protections. http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/150109845.html

The usual far-right forces mobilized with their deceptive message about wanting “great teachers.” They never explain how a state or district attracts great teachers by demonizing the ones they have now. Michelle Rhee’s Students First, a spin-off of ConnCAN called MinnCAN, the Republican party, and the Chamber of Commerce lobbied hard to remove teachers’ rights to due process. This is supposedly how you put “students first,” by making sure that their teachers live in fear of being fired after years of good service. Proposals of this sort are an intelligence test (or maybe just a test of the power of reactionary forces and adept lobbying): Do you really believe that students will learn more if their teachers have no right to due process? No one has ever explained the logic behind these absurd claims.

Governor Dayton showed what political intelligence and courage look like in a lean and mean season.

Diane