There has been much in the news about the recent teacher layoffs and the effect that is having on teacher placement. This year, tenured teachers are being laid off for the first time in many years. Under state law, the Teacher Tenure Act, cities of the first class, (Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth) must lay teachers off based on one indicator, seniority.

In 1984-85, declining enrollment caused the lay-off of 401 teachers. Three Minneapolis teachers, Arlene Strand, Barbara Johnson and Edward P. Lue appealed the decision that led to their lay-offs. The case went to the State Supreme Court in 1986. The court found in the case known as Strand vs. School District Number 1, that the district had improperly laid off Arlene Strand in their interpretation of the Teacher Tenure Act. Thus, teachers with two or more certifications to teach in different areas can be moved or “realigned” to teach in an area even if that teacher never taught in that area or had not taught in that area for many years.

This law and the Supreme Court Decision are not based on what is best for children. It is about protecting the rights of workers, in this case senior teachers. Nearly 150 teachers are being realigned to save 100 jobs. Across the district, many teachers are being bumped from subject and program areas where they’ve taught for many years. Many realigned teachers are being placed in areas they have never taught or haven’t been teaching for some time. Some teachers have been out of an area for up to 26 years, such as special education, which is a field where practices have changed considerably over the last 20 years!
Teachers sought additional certification for a number of reasons. In one instance, a teacher received a physical education teaching certificate in order to be a coach for extra curricular sports, but had been teaching business in a high school for several years. This teacher was realigned to teach physical education, something she never wanted to teach in the first place. The expectation is that realigned teachers will be able to receive professional development enough so they can be up to speed for the start of the new school year. The district will have to spend yet more money to bring all the realigned teachers up to speed in professional development.

While many of those teachers will work hard to be ready for the new school year, this is no way to treat employees and it is certainly no way to treat our students and their families. Job protection rights are one issue, but when the seniority rights of teachers far outweigh the state constitutionally guaranteed rights of children in education, it is high time to work on “realigning” the priorities of state educational law and contracts to ensure that the rights of students are the number one consideration in any decision regarding the placement of teachers. The educational rights and needs of our students cannot play second fiddle to the adults in the system.

Laws that were put into place years ago under very different circumstances need to be changed. The Supreme Court decision does allow for “sufficient flexibility to effectively administer the schools.” At a recent school board meeting, many parents and teachers spoke passionately and emotionally about the harmful effects all this realignment will have on their careers, their children and the continued ebb of confidence in the public school system. Charter schools and private schools are immune to such rulings and state law. The educational yo-yo effect of decisions based on things other than what is necessary for student achievement could well be a cause for parents considering other educational options.

The School Board asked for further information after Minneapolis Public School parent, supporter and attorney Tom Johnson pointed out that the Supreme Court left the door open for the district to consider cases individually, so that “the school district’s needs [reflect] the welfare of the students and the public.” In the decision, it is stated “that where reassignment or realignment and reassignment is practical and reasonable, a school district is required to reassign teaching duties in a manner designed to continue the employment of senior teachers.” One can argue that experienced teachers in the autism program who are successful should not be replaced by teachers with far less experience just because they have a second certification in special education.

Unfortunately, much of what the School Board and/or the District must do is dictated by State and/or Federal law. Local control is a myth. It stands to reason that some, if not many of the cases, where teachers have been bumped or realigned, warrant reconsideration in light of the language in the Strand decision. Students will be further stressed because teaching teams making progress will be torn asunder. Schools that are already facing sanctions under the federal law known as No Child Left Behind, will be further disrupted. In a district where some schools have experienced teacher turnover up to 443 percent in three years, realignment on such a broad scale will continue to feed into the revolving door of teacher instability.

At our regular July meeting, the School Board directed the Administration to work on possible solutions with the teacher’s union. But it will take more; it will take an informed community knowing about these problems and asking their elected official to open up and examine laws that are in place solely to protect adult needs at the expense of student needs. State lawmakers on both sides of the aisle must work with each other to protect the rights of children guaranteed by the state constitution they are sworn to uphold. Just as children and schools should not be assessed on the basis of one indicator, a test, it is equally as absurd to decide on teacher quality and placement based on one indicator, seniority. It is an election year for the entire State House of Representatives. This should be a prime issue and question for all citizens to ask of candidates and incumbents whether they have children in the public schools or not. We are all affected by the quality of education children receive. We should have the highest standards and priorities. The system must be about the educational needs of students, anything less is unacceptable.

Sincerely,

Audrey Johnson
Minneapolis Board of Education Director

Schapiro examines school system

About three decades ago, the esteemed editor of this publication and I earned meager livings as staff members of the Experimental College at the University of Minnesota.

It was an odd, short-lived operation, capturing the spirit of the early 1970s. It was built on an optimistic belief that undergraduate students, working with dedicated staff, could use the resources of the university and community to create some good, responsible, individualized degree programs.

There were flaws in the idea. OK, it was a bit crazy. But it had value. The program pushed students to ask what was important to learn and how to learn it. Many students did remarkably well afterward, perhaps helped by the period of questioning.

I think of that as I read a newspaper column by “Nickled and Dimed” author Barbara Ehrenreich. In analyzing the Group Think that has been blamed for U.S. Iraq intelligence failures, she sees the same problem in many parts of our lives. Her sentence on education read: “Our standardized-test-driven schools reward the right answer, not the unsettling question.”

In our own ways, Mr. Felien and I have asked a lot of unsettling questions over the years. He now comes to me, after three years on the Minneapolis School Board and beginning a reelection campaign, suggesting I answer his questions. What about Sanford? The aborted school closings? The endless budget cuts? The realignment? The Jennings era? The achievement gap? My failure to get DFL endorsement? My failure to get the board to take a more active role in responding to challenges?

I look forward to discussing those during the campaign. But Mr. Felien is just going to have to wait. There are some preliminary questions on the table. I do this because the future of our school district will be shaped before the general election.

With declining enrollment and increasing competition, we should all agree that the Minneapolis Public Schools cannot continue to do things as we have and still do right by our children and community.

Some major changes are coming.

The board must make the final decision. But the decision must come after important questions are addressed by community. If we are to allow schools time to respond to the new plan and present clear information to parents as they make school choices, we will need to decide by the end of October.

A set of options, we have been told, will be presented on Oct. 12. The plan will almost certainly close many schools. But it should take much more into account. Our community and the board must address unsettling questions in the next few weeks.

The district has hired some good, smart folks to go to the citizens of Minneapolis relentlessly over the next three months, asking questions and listening. One group will focus on facilities. A second group, our community engagement consultants, will focus on the values of those who depend upon and care about our public schools.

Both groups will hold many meetings over the coming months, Our district reorganization plan should reflect what we hear in those meetings.

We will ask about:

- Achievement. How are we going to ratchet up achievement? (What do we mean by achievement, anyway? Is it just those standardized test right answers?)
- Choice. How much choice of schools should the public schools provide? What choices? And if we offer choices, do we have a responsibility to make sure they are offered with integrity?
- Diversity. How do we serve and take advantage of the wonderful diversity of the city? Hey, folks. we’ve got a lot of highly segregated schools. Is that OK?
- Equality. Everyone would argue for some version of equality or equity in education. What does that mean in practice? Equal treatment of students with unequal needs? The same academic program for all?

- The purpose of schools. Are schools test score factories? (If we don’t put laser-like attention on test scores, those government folks, who are just here to help us, will soon begin destroying our villages in order to save them.) If we think schools can be places to honor the human spirit, can be centers of communities and community development, how do we make that case?

We on the Minneapolis School Board have been told to expect more than 70 community engagement meetings and many other meetings looking at facilities over the next couple months. We will put unsettling questions directly to our community.

The quality of our school system will shape our city. The decisions that the Board of Education makes will affect you, whether you have children in the schools or not. That should be enough reason for everyone reading this to set aside time in the coming weeks to attend a meeting, to listen and speak their minds on what they want from their schools.

Sincerely,

Dennis Schapiro
Minneapolis

You can get more information by e-mailing mpsvalues@halleland.com. A progress report from the community engagement consultants is at
http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/Community_Engagement_Process
This community has questions to answer.

Dennis Schapiro is a member of the Minneapolis Board of Education, e-mail:
Dennis.Schapiro@mpls.k12.mn.us