Pay attention to any policy area long enough and you’ll see good ideas twisted out of the hands of their founders and turned into something else entirely. At a certain level, that’s what happened to charter schools. Minnesota just might be the place to start fixing that.
At the Shanker Institute’s blog, Esther Quintero has written a piece revisiting the origins of the charter school concept and the early role played by the Shanker Institute’s namesake, union leader Albert Shanker, in discussing the idea. This was, at its foundation, a vision of collaboration, including the notion of teacher-led schools-within-schools as tools of innovation as well as positive, student-focused interactions between charter schools and traditional district schools. Quintero also discusses the advantages offered by schools working collectively in the same place.
Exploring similar themes, a recent report by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University also calls for a less confrontational relationship between schools, identifying as its first standard for good charter school policy that, “Traditional districts and charter schools should work together to ensure a coordinated approach that serves all children.” They emphasize the counterproductive effects of excessive competition— ideas which we’ve discussed at Minnesota 2020 —and the potential (if too often unrealized) benefits of genuine collaboration between district and charter schools.
This dream of schools and leaders from both sectors working together to build good schools and help each student find the right school is not what most of us have seen, however. The weaponization of charter schools and the market mindset for education minimized the student-centered core of the charter idea. Instead of charter schools being transparent partners with districts in pursuit of equal access to opportunities, we saw the two groups pitted against each other in what were too often marketing and public relations competitions rather than conversations about quality or equity.
As the birthplace of charter schools and a state where some homegrown charter schools are still holding onto the founding dream, Minnesota could be the place to display a healthier kind of charter culture. That doesn’t work if the charter advocates who want to dismantle districts lead the movement, and may well require lower-profile collaboration between individual schools that builds into something better. However it ends up manifesting, a return to the original charter ideal would be better for students than the current arrangement.
Prompted by last week’s Tuesday Talk, I spent most of the last week attending “Twin Cities Startup Week” events, including the Tech Startup Crawl, MinneDemo (a kind of tech show and tell at the Riverview Theater), Twin Cities Startup Weekend, and the CURA-Tech Demo (which technically wasn’t part of “Startup Week”, but felt solidly aligned with the rest of the proceedings). I left energized, and excited to see this aspect of the Twin Cities community get to scale and realize more of its potential.
It was energizing to see entrepreneurs applying a different set of tools and approaches to solving social problems than what Minnesota 2020 and the rest of the nonprofit advocacy community do. While we identify opportunities to solve social problems through policy change, there are Minnesotans in garages (or more likely in CoCo’s relatively comfortable and networking-conducive co-working spaces), trying to solve the same problems with tech. There are times when the policy work we do is the best path to meaningful social change, but this week also showed me cases where policy advocacy feels like a dull, blunt instrument, and got me thinking about the situations where we’d move more efficiently toward social change goals by creating new tech.
That’s not to say the local tech startup community doesn’t have its own social problems to solve internally, or that it’s all progressive. The whiteness and maleness of the presenters and the audience at most of the events raised questions about startups’ potential role in a metro area attempting to close opportunity gaps and build a more inclusive economy. A great deal of external pressure prompts innovators and aspiring enterpreneurs to focus on their “revenue model” early and often, sometimes (at least it seemed to me) drawing focus and energy away from projects' problem-solving potential. The need to make projects sustainable is no trival matter, at for-profits and non-profits alike, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the relentless focus on revenue streams drew innovative energy away from social problems in search of solutions, or at least drew a brighter line than needed to be drawn between profit-focused “tech startups” and the kind of “civic tech” happening at CURA (which also featured a more race- and gender-diverse group of presenters and participants).
Still, the energy was infectious and the ideas being generated showed a lot of potential. One Startup Weekend team, Wee Mentor, created a set of tech tools to connect busy professionals with up-and-coming female tech talent to facilitate mentoring relationships and overcome the gender gap in tech. Another Startup Weekend team, Cash Cow, built a web app to help farmers track each field’s inputs and outputs and make better decisions about when to sell their crops in the volatile commodities market. Startup OMG Transit, featured in the Startup Crawl, is giving people real-time bus information, saving all of us who use public transit time waiting for buses in the Minnesota cold. At CURA-Tech, Duane Johnson presented Tuloko—a tech platform to help consumers and business purchasers support minority-owned businesses. To help the Minnesota 2020 audience see the connection, he framed Tuloko as “Hubert Humphrey 2.0,” citing the Minnesotan Vice President’s support for policies that encouraged black entrepreneurship in the 1960s. The team behind Our City demoed their tools for helping Minneapolis residents access city information online at both Startup Weekend and CURA-Tech, bridging the two events. There's a lot to take inspiration from on this list, and these are just a few of the highlights.
We’d do well to encourage this sector, and also to challenge it to focus on problems and solutions that can really change people’s lives. Public policy continues to play an important role in social change, and it should. So does the kind of direct action and public demonstration we've seen this week around civic engagement organizers' arrest in North Minneapolis. Especially for the toughest challenges facing our state, it's worth trying multiple approaches. Minneapolis is already seeking to solve issues of police and community trust at least partially with technology in the form of badge cameras. What else could tech do? We're lucky to have a vibrant startup community full of smart, creative people working to figure that out.
What's making you happy this week? Every Friday we like to put together a list of stories we are enjoying. Here are the top picks from the staff of MN 2020.
From Elliot: A rural community responds to climate change. Through a citizens jury formed through the Jefferson center, the citizens of Morris, MN explored the effects of climate change on their local community. They have issued a statement outlining expected difficulties and possible adaptation methods to deal with a changing climate.
From Lee: The whole rigmarole over the pending vote on Scottish independence got fun treatment by the UK's The Telegraph this past week, noting that German newspapers suggest the Duke of Bavaria, a descendant of Scotland's James I, could make a good king of Scotland. Yikes. But then, the Germans haven't had much use of such royalty in recent centuries.
From Tanner: It's good to know that the loss of a star athlete is not as important as the cost of not addressing abuse as we look towards the future for the NFL.
From Conrad: Global shift to mass transit could save more than $100 trillion and 1,700 megatons of CO2.
From John: We have a winner in fivethirtyeight.com's Buritto Bracket.
From Rachel: Grumpy Cat as Disney Characters.
From Deb: The Roosevelts: An Intimate History chronicles the lives of Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.
And, a nine-year old boy shares the meaning of life and his take on the universe.
Enjoy your day.
When I was on the speech team in high school, I spent a lot of time pacing in the libraries and classrooms of schools in small towns around southeastern Minnesota. Even with my focus mostly on the speech I was about to deliver, I still noticed the differences in how old the books and computers were compared to my newer, better funded high school in Rochester. However, there was at least one major difference that I didn’t see because I never turned on a computer: Internet access.
Roughly one out of every four households in Minnesota lacks even the lowest rate of broadband access in line with the state’s goals. This affects families struggling to get by in the metro area, as well as in many rural communities in greater Minnesota.
This isn’t just a Minnesota problem, of course, and the countrywide disparities in rural Internet access received some attention recently from The Atlantic. In its profile, it described one rural district in Maryland which was able to use a federal grant to bring reliable access to its students. Teachers were ready to take advantage of the new infrastructure, enabling expanded learning opportunities for students.
Regular readers will know that I don’t think of technology as a panacea, and we shouldn’t expect much from Internet access that goes untapped or that’s used only to replicate the same teaching and learning that was already happening. This isn’t just about iPads versus laptops. Ensuring that students have access to reliable, high-speed Internet access in and out of school can enable a wide range of opportunities.
As we discuss how best to incorporate technology into our school system in a way that changes pedagogy, we need to make sure our schools have the necessary infrastructure. Only then will we be in a position to work with teachers, families, and students to take advantage of these tools in a way that’s genuinely beneficial for learning. Private philanthropy can help, but to truly get the job done, we’ll need greater public investment.
(If you’d like to learn more, check out the Minnesota Broadband Task Force’s report from earlier this year, the Blandin on Broadband site, and/or the upcoming Broadband Task Force meeting on September 25.)
Recently, Campus Pride released its top 50 LGBT-friendly colleges and universities list. Out of all the colleges listed, two University of Minnesota schools made the cut (Twin Cities and Duluth). Colleges are now beginning to welcome the growing population of students who are comfortably out about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
This is starting to become a trend; colleges and universities are competing to recruit this market of students. According to a Pew Research article, the median age for coming out is 20 years of age. This is right around the time a person is typically in their college years.
Campuses are beginning to launch programs meant to attract and retain LGBT students. These include college fairs, support offices, special graduation ceremonies, etc. “Campuses today want to be called gay friendly. They see they’re going to lose students if they’re not, [and] realize the pool of non-LGBT students is dwindling” says Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, in a Hechinger Report article. It was only three years ago that Elmhurst College, located in Illinois, became the first institution to ask students about their sexual orientation on their college applications.
A guide to college by the Princeton Review states that it’s important for students to do the research and pick a school where they will be the most comfortable. Homophobia still exists in the real world and many colleges still do not support LGBT rights. However, the growing amount of resources available for the LGBT community in the college setting is a good sign that we are on the right path.
As the LGBT rights movement continues to move forward in our country, we should be encouraging colleges to become more welcoming and aware of this diverse group of students. Colleges that are lacking in these programs should look at how they can start better supporting the sexual identity of their students enrolled.
The St. Louis River used to look bad. And smell bad. Dead fish were belly-up in the water, and industrial foam covered shorelines. The river looks a lot better these days, but that doesn’t mean it’s healthy yet.
It’s been over forty years since the passage of the Clean Water Act. This groundbreaking legislation has made significant progress in protecting the rivers, streams, and lakes of the nation from being polluted. In 1987, the St. Louis River was designated one of 43 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes, citing nine major problems, including “Degradation of Aesthetics.”
Since then, we’ve watched as, one by one, sources of pollution into our waters were eliminated here in Duluth. Reserve Mining is no longer dumping taconite tailings into Lake Superior. Duluth’s sanitary sewer system now collects most of the pollutants coming through the system. The St. Louis River has begun to turn the last corner on its pollution issues.
Recently, Representative Rick Nolan and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Susan Hedman were joined by Representative Sean Duffy of Wisconsin to make the exciting announcement: One of the nine Beneficial Use Impairments is now officially off the list. The river looks better than it has in many decades. Twenty-seven years after identifying the river’s problems, with decades of water treatment and habitat restoration completed, the agencies have determined that one problem had been fixed.
More than 50 Minnesota citizens gathered at the base of Spirit Mountain ski area in Duluth, just above the banks of the St. Louis River, to hear about the successes and lessons from our investments in cleaning up the river and Lake Superior. Representative Nolan and Administrator Hedman spoke about the big picture, all the contaminated sediment removed, all the clean-up milestones reached. Minnesota is checking off its clean-up to-do list, thanks in large part to the federal Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
It was inspiring to listen to local citizens talk about what the restoration of the river and lake have meant to them. Fishing guide Carl Haensel talked about his clients finding fish in sections of North Shore streams that were freshly restored to their natural state. Local resident Connie Moeller talked about the loons returning to the bay by her house—a bay that has been a federal Superfund site. Hydrologist Marty Rye ticked off statistics about fish habitat improvements through the coastal areas of the Superior National Forest.
Thanks to the GLRI, and matching funds provided by Minnesota’s Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment, plans are in place to take the remaining eight Impairments off the list. The work should be done by the year 2025.
Many of our environmental issues took decades or even a full century to create. Attitudes about our waterways and our industries have changed dramatically in that time. While the 1970s and 1980s were about raising awareness of the awful issues we faced, and while the 1990s and 2000s were about cleaning up the messes, in this decade we are turning the corner and beginning, cautiously, to call parts of our work done.
With visionary leadership from across the Great Lakes basin, with support from St. Paul and Washington, we are turning the last corner at the far end of the Great Lakes. The finish line, where water in our community is fishable and swimmable, is in sight. Thanks to the GLRI and the Legacy Amendment, we’re headed straight to that glorious finish.
2 Comments ->
Researchers and journalists meet people along the way who they admire for what they’ve done, and really like for personality reasons. It is precious when the admiring and liking come together in the same person.
I was reminded of that while researching a recent article that looked at the enormity of Minnesota’s food and agriculture industries, how that ties in with academia and builds a cluster of strength in our state economy, and how a Land O’Lakes investment in the University of Minnesota will keep building this strength.
Ralph Hofstad, a former president at Land O’Lakes and a charismatic farm leader for all of agriculture, died on Aug. 25 at age 90. Patrick Kennedy offered a particularly good obituary in the Star Tribune.
I have two especially fun memories of Ralph that should be shared. They reveal how interconnected our food and agriculture industries are, like the clustering of tech companies in Silicon Valley, and how dependent on academia we are for developing human resources, also like Silicon Valley.
In the one instance, former Pillsbury Co. executives William Spoor and Win Wallin called on Hotstad, offering an “expenses paid vacation” to the south of France. “You won’t need to pack a bathing suit,” Hofstad recalled being warned. “You will only be meeting with farmers.”
Pillsbury was exploring ways to introduce its Green Giant line of vegetables into Europe. A good-size vegetable cooperative in southern France was a logical partner and could start producing something new to most of Europe—sweet corn.
Hofstad went and met with local farmers and co-op officials. I remember Hofstad saying, “They were right. I didn’t get to the beach.”
This was a case of a major consumer food company accessing nearby talent from a dairy cooperative to explore a possible business tie that would have been in the interests of the Minnesota economy. That is precisely the interchange of knowledge and talent we constantly hear about in northern California.
A second memory is offered here for everyone involved with cooperatives or engaged with teaching at Minnesota business schools and schools of management.
Once when Land O’Lakes had an especially profitable year, a reporter from a major Wall Street business publication flew in and inquired if the cooperative was considering “going public.” During an interview for a book I was writing, Hofstad said he asked, “What do you mean by “going public?’ We are public. Our dairy farmers own us and they’ve invested a lot in us.”
Compounding the problem, the reporter then asked, “But what good are you if the public can’t invest in you?”
Here’s the lesson for business professors:
Hofstad said, “You know, Lee. You really need a good management team around you if you want to run a cooperative. I had a few there that day. They restrained me. I didn’t go up over the table and slug the guy.”
These memories explain why I really liked Ralph Hofstad. And why about 300,000 farmers did, too.
Although conservative gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson recently voiced support for the city Local Government Aid program, there is nothing in his legislative record to indicate that he was ever a proponent of LGA. As noted in a September 15 Minnesota 2020 article, Johnson voted in favor of the largest and most prolonged series of LGA funding cuts in the program’s 43 year history.
Since 1972, LGA has helped cities provide adequate levels of public services at reasonable tax rates by targeting aid dollars to cities that have a need for assistance due to lack of adequate tax base and/or high expenditure need as measured by the city’s demographic characteristics. Recent reforms to the program enacted in 2013 helped to reduce year-to-year volatility in LGA payments and more effectively target aid dollars to cities with the greatest need for assistance.
As assistant majority leader in the House from 2003 to 2006, Rep. Johnson consistently supported Governor Tim Pawlenty’s plan to cut LGA. Although it is not uncommon to cut city aid during a recession, the cuts that Johnson supported resulted in a nearly 23 percent LGA reduction from 2002 to 2005—over four times greater than any previous LGA reduction, even though the recession associated with these cuts was not as severe as the two preceding recessions that led to LGA cuts.
Not all cities were affected by the 2002 to 2005 aid reductions in the same way. Click here for a table that shows the reduction in LGA for all Minnesota cities with a population in excess of 5,000. This table shows the final LGA received within each of these cities from 2002 to 2005 and the percentage reduction in LGA from 2002 to 2005. Because the cuts in 2003 were made to cities’ certified 2003 LGA (i.e., the aid promised to cities in statute for 2003 prior to subsequent reductions), the percentage reduction in LGA from the certified 2003 level to the final 2005 level is also shown.
All but five of the 139 cities listed in this table experienced a reduction in LGA from 2002 to 2005. Most metropolitan cities that received LGA in 2002 lost all of their aid. However, many greater Minnesota cities and the core cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul were also hard hit. While the percentage aid loss among these cities was not as great as the percentage loss among metropolitan suburbs, these communities are more heavily dependent on LGA dollars and thus the LGA cuts frequently comprised a larger share of their budgets.* Not shown in this table are state cuts to the homestead market value credit, which affected many communities that received little or no LGA.
When it comes to support for city LGA, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of Jeff Johnson while assistant majority leader in the House should give pause to local officials who rely on LGA dollars to help pay for city services and to local property taxpayers who count on the tax relief that LGA provides.
There’s a different sort of “different sort of school” out there, and more students should have access to it.
Deeper learning typically combines many different aspects, including a significant focus on student-centered and project-based opportunities and performance assessment that goes beyond the simplistic and decontextualized questions that characterize too many standardized tests. It tends to look very different from the traditional style of education that many adults remember from when they were growing up, and it offers an alternative to the more regimented approaches that get a significant share of the positive attention today.
While no model will be the perfect fit for all students, we should raise questions when only certain groups of students tend to get access to a particular kind of school. Unfortunately, student-centered, deeper learning tends to be concentrated on the higher-paid end of the socioeconomic spectrum, especially when we assume that students from families struggling to get by would do better with tightly controlled, back-to-basics education. Make sure they can read first, goes the argument, and then we’ll see about the other stuff.
However, a recent study by two Stanford professors—Diane Friedlander and Linda Darling-Hammond—challenges the idea that students of color or students from lower income families don’t belong in student-centered environments. Instead, they find significant evidence across a variety of measures (yes, including test scores, but also more telling factors like college persistence) that students whose demographics would put them on the wrong side of the achievement gap can in fact thrive and succeed at the highest levels in student-centered environments.
For schools to achieve these results, the researchers make several recommendations. In addition to always-important characteristics like high expectations and a focus on mastery rather than task completion, they point to small-group advisories for academic support, customization of instruction, and a focus on social and emotional development, among several other attributes. Additionally, when converting from a more traditional model to a student-centered approach, it’s critical that teachers be involved in the process, that staff share the same vision, and that teachers have useful time for collaboration with different groups of their peers for developing and sharing tools and techniques that work.
We need more schools that apply this approach serving all communities, and many teachers are interested in pursuing this kind of work. We need school and district leaders, as well as state and federal policy makers, to give them the freedom, support, and encouragement they need.
4 Comments ->
You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else. Albert Einstein
Last time we had contested Constitutional Amendments on the ballot Minnesotans learned the rules and played fair. The proposed Voter ID Amendment, wrapped in enough mythology to confuse the voting public, went down in flames. Passionate proponents of the amendment, most of whom hailed from out of state, failed to recognize that Minnesota voters (and their children) are “way above average”, especially when their rights are challenged.
Still, the high stakes game of voter suppression continues. Across the nation—and in our surrounding states—the race is on to change the rules—or, more precisely, the rulemakers. As partisan, and misled, legislatures have promoted changes to election laws the role of the Secretary of State has taken on a controversial and powerful role; secretaries of state have been put in the position of making Solomon-like decisions on a host of voter qualification and regulation issues.
In the words of Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “The fights over voter ID and early voting are just the latest reminder of how important the rules for elections are in shaping the electorate and determining the eventual outcomes. A fair and unbiased electoral process need not—ought not—be a partisan issue. Minnesotans expect that, regardless of party, the Secretary of State—the rulemaker and rule enforcer—will rise above the partisan fray to assure the electoral process reflects the spirit and intent of the Voting Rights Act.
Thoughts of All Things Electoral come to mind as we gear up for Voter Registration Day on Tuesday, September 23. Voter registration is the first and essential step in a process that involves everything from early voting to voter ID to staffing and monitoring the polls.
Though the Secretary of State candidate may not top the ballot or grab the headlines the elected official in that position wields unprecedented power. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has aggregated a range of resources on voting laws and litigation, changes and legislation-in-progress. The review gives a sense of just how many balls are in the air as we face the mid-term elections.
Though the contests for Governor and Senator get top billing, Minnesotans are well advised to consider the stakes, study the issues and pay heed to the critical role and responsibilities of the Secretary of State.