Tag Archives: the future of duluth schools

Drawing the Lines

27 Jan

The Duluth school district, which has not changed school boundaries since the completion of its major school restructuring Red Plan a decade ago, has embarked on an effort to redraw boundaries. While ostensibly an effort to re-balance enrollments between some schools that are overcrowded and some that are underutilized, it has also invited some serious, difficult discussion about socioeconomic inequities and Duluth’s east-west divide. It also comes at a distinct point in time, as we have a superintendent on his way out the door and the most heterodox school board in recent memory. For professional reasons, I will not comment on the decision-making process or the work of the boundary-drawing consultant, Cooperative Strategies; this post look only at what they have produced and its implications for the future of Duluth’s schools and neighborhoods. (The two are, after all, deeply intertwined.)

At this stage, Cooperative Strategies has developed three scenarios for public consumption, though the firm and district have also noted that none of them are necessarily the final plan. The plans don’t do much to change the socioeconomic composition of any elementary schools, mostly because it is very, very hard to do so given Duluth’s orientation along a lakeshore and the location of its most affluent neighborhoods. The changes largely hinge on two considerations: the fate of Lowell Elementary and the question of where to draw the line between east and west side middle and high schools.

First, the Lowell question: Lowell has become home to the district’s two growing language immersion programs in Spanish and Ojibwe and no longer pulls many students from nearby neighborhoods. Scenario 1 turns it entirely into a language magnet and sends its remaining neighborhood students to either Homecroft or Piedmont or Myers-Wilkins; Scenario 3 keeps the language programs but also retains a few neighborhood students, and Scenario 2 splits the difference and moves the Ojibwe program to Stowe while leaving Spanish at Lowell. Scenario 3 has the added wrinkle of splitting the Lowell elementary population between the two middle and high schools, a situation the other scenarios avoid. The Lowell scenarios invite questions over the future of where Duluth Heights and Kenwood (and even bits of Hunters Park and Chester Park) fit into the picture and where to house the language programs. The former one is a complicated one that I won’t delve into here, and I’d need data on where the participating students come from to have an opinion on the latter.

Second, and more controversial, is the middle and high school boundary. Right now, enrollments are significantly higher in the east side schools than those on the west, a result of a decision made in the Red Plan days that somewhat balanced socioeconomics. All three proposed plans now seek to equalize enrollments. Scenario 2 is effectively what the Red Plan could have been with more equal overall enrollments: all Myers-Wilkins students (who currently split between east and west) head west, all Homecroft kids (now including the rural bits that currently feed into Lowell) head east, and the socioeconomic split becomes slightly more pronounced than it currently is. Scenarios 1 and 3 take a step toward equalizing socioeconomics by sending Homecroft kids, including the entirety of the Woodland neighborhood, west, while sending all of Myers-Wilkins to the east. The potential Woodland shift has, predictably, been the most explosive piece of the proposals.

Equity, Equality, and Outcomes

The question of the different demographics in schools sparks a debate about equity and equality, two words that get thrown around a lot in school boundary debates but mean very different things. The easiest way to sum up the difference: equality gives people the same resources regardless of where they all, while equity recognizes inherent differences in where people start and tries to balance them by giving more to those who need more, and (potentially) less to those who start with more. The recent debate about compensatory education dollars doled out by the state to help correct differences between socioeconomic groups, which had previously been divided equally among schools (the same amount per pupil per school) but are now divided more equitably by school (higher amounts to schools with more students are in disadvantaged groups and lower amounts to schools with less) is a good illustration of this divide.

In graduate school, I took a class from Myron Orfield, one of the foremost scholarly proponents of court-ordered integration in public schools. Predictably, Orfield has his share of critics from the right, who question things like anti-segregation busing or creative line drawing in the name of equality as overwrought social engineering. By the time I was in his classroom, however, the most vocal of Orfield’s opponents were coming from the left, and they usually framed their beef in a racial lens. These critics questioned whether mixing people together in the name of integration was a good in and of itself, and argued that shipping kids of color to more white schools in the belief that exposure to kids at such schools would somehow lift their performance was actually rather insulting to students of color. Instead, these critics argue, districts should invest more resources in neighborhood schools that acknowledge and lift up the culture of the people of color. In oversimplified terms, Orfield was a proponent for equality; his new critics wanted equity.

There’s a key difference in the Duluth proposals: by sending Woodland kids on a bus journey across the city to Lincoln Park and Denfeld, ISD 709 wouldn’t be busing kids from low-income families to more affluent schools; it would be doing the reverse. Several people in my circles who I’d generally describe as relatively well-off liberals really like this: they recognize their kids enjoy advantages that won’t fade away if they go to Lincoln Park instead of Ordean East, and they want to send them to mixed schools that reflect the general makeup of the country (or, at least, the area) that they will encounter when they complete their K-12 educations. The loud, angry reactions from Woodland were certainly predictable, though, as were the more practical concerns about logistics and drive times. As the Star Tribune pithily noted, the one thing the attendees at a workshop at Duluth East could agree on was that they didn’t like any of the options.

Fundamentally, these debates run directly along the most pronounced fissures in American society and asks a profound question: can an increasingly diverse school district in an increasingly economically divided metro area find some way to draw lines to mend the fences? Without launching into a discourse on Robert Putnam’s findings on diversity and social trust or the various competing contact and conflict theories of diverse societies, I’ll just say this: diversity, whether racial or socioeconomic, is complicated. And it should be if we acknowledge the full range of human possibility, and that complication deserves respect. In cases like this, I think it’s helpful to strip away the overarching theory for a moment and look at the incentives that changes might create.

What Incentives Do Boundaries Create?

School boundaries are, of course, one tool that communities can control that can shape their divides. But is drawing lines in ways that aim toward balance the best way to achieve that? (When court-ordered across a metropolitan area Orfield’s evidence would say yes, but that’s not what we’re talking about here: people have a lot of other choices.) And is there merit in working to have a critical mass of kids from certain backgrounds in the same place so that they can build a community and so that it becomes easier to deliver any additional support they may need? (If so, what exactly is this “group” we’re talking about?) For that matter, how would the various scenarios affect things such as compensatory education dollars? Redrawing boundaries could reshape the district in myriad ways.

If I sound more cautionary about district-driven integration than one might assume given some of my past writings, part of the reason has to be lived experience: when the Red Plan went into place, it too sought to equalize elementary school enrollments, but trends have not gone the way its architects expected. Some of this is only natural; it’s hard to predict the future, and as many in and around the district have noted, boundaries are something schools should revisit periodically.

But Duluth’s trends over the past ten years were not particularly hard to foresee. The two most affluent elementary schools, riding their reputation, became overcrowded; many of the lowest-income schools, meanwhile, bled kids. I’d need access to more data to say whether this is a product of open enrollment out of the district on the west side or families with kids consciously choosing to live in Congdon or Lakeside—most likely it’s some combination of the two—but it’s a pretty obvious trend. People will vote with their feet no matter where the lines are drawn. The question, then, is how individual schools can act in ways that attract students instead of pushing them out.

I don’t think this observation necessarily has obvious implications. Would Scenario 1 or 3 lead Woodland families to bail on the district, either by enrolling elsewhere or chopping Woodland of the list of neighborhoods they consider? It’s a very real possibility. Or do enough stay put and thereby create positive feedback loops into the western schools, thereby strengthening them (assuming one believes they actually need to be “strengthened”) and leading fewer families to bail out into Hermantown or Wrenshall or private or charter schools? We have a decade worth of data on those enrollment trends from other neighborhoods post-Red Plan to inform forecasts of what might happen here. Whichever option the district chooses, it needs to rely on more than a wishful belief in good intentions.

Fear for the Future

The questions surrounding the Woodland debate feed into a broader trend I observe so often now, whether in school choice or in any number of realms, from youth athletics to friend circles, that affect children’s futures. The logic of late capitalism has led child management for positive outcomes to become a second job, and parents will spend as much of their resources as they can to seek what they believe to be better. I don’t doubt that this has always been true to some extent, just as Duluth has always been divided between east and west, but it seems so much more pronounced now: there is a fundamental panic that things might go wrong, the product of a precarious society where even the well-off do not feel comfortable in their stations. Some west side parents feel forced to defend their choice to send their kids to the neighborhood schools as if it were a risky proposition.

This precarious world is a product of a socioeconomic climate where parents are scared their kids won’t be able to match or exceed their parents’ living standards. In an environment filled with choice, people panic that if they do not make the right choice, they may be setting their children up for failure. They may or may not be right, but perception is reality, and the need to choose correctly creates self-reinforcing loops. In this environment, the typical parent who does not live diversity and socioeconomic theory (and even a healthy number who do) will make the choices that most minimize risk of the concerns they have. They will, once again, vote with their feet.

Part of me wants to roll my eyes at this endless push. On a certain level, kids will be fine; unless it is a truly chaotic environment where no learning can take place, the evidence is pretty clear that factors beyond schools play much bigger roles in kids’ prospects than what goes on in the building itself. In my volunteer role as a college admissions interviewer for my alma mater, I’ve seen no evidence that talented kids with good support networks can’t make it in to the Georgetowns of the world, no matter where in the Duluth area they go to high school. But can I pretend that some of these considerations aren’t present as I decide which neighborhoods to focus on when I buy a house in this city sometime this year? No, I can’t.

School boundary discussions are wicked problems with no easy solutions, perhaps because we can’t quite agree on the question. Even the most committed, well-meaning believers in an integrated society struggle with where to draw lines, literal and figurative, for their own children. To that end, maybe it’s best that we pause and remember what lines cannot do: they cannot reverse people’s opinions on social and economic divides; they cannot make well-off kids dumber or turn students from hopelessly broken homes into college-bound scholars. Maybe that can offer some reassurance to both those in panic over potential changes and the full-throated believers in the transformative power of integration. Still, those who ultimately draw the lines have the task of managing the process with care and understanding for all of the people—and through them, the very fabric of a community—their decisions affect. May they choose well.

A Meeting that Cannot Be Summarized Pithily: Duluth School Board Notes, 3/18/14

19 Mar

Despite Chair Miernicki’s earnest pleas that the ISD 709 School Board hurry through its meeting so as to get home before too much more snow fell on Tuesday night, the audience was instead subjected to a marathon of a meeting. The Board crammed a lot in to its two and a half hours of business, and it wound up being one of the more memorable meetings I’ve seen.

The night began on a musical theme, as the Duluth East Choralaires and Sterling Strings both performed in honor of Music in the Schools Month. (This former Sterling Strings bassist was pleased with the performance of his successor.) Ms. Teri Akervik, the schools’ Music Curriculum Specialist, then put in her plug for music programming in the schools, talking of the “roller coaster” of funding cuts over the past decade. A citizen speaker who gives private music lessons, Ms. Jana Blomquist, gave an even more pointed plea. She compared Duluth to her former home in Iowa, where children began on instruments at much younger ages, and claimed there was a large gap between the talents of young musicians in surrounding districts and those in Duluth.

Another speaker gave a brief update on the schools’ community garden project, happily noting the strong attendance at a recent meeting and hoping for a future opportunity to give a longer update. In the Superintendent’s report, Supt. Gronseth acknowledged the success of several teams in interscholastic competitions, including the high school robotics competition held in Duluth two weekends ago and the Destination Imagination improv competition for younger grades. He also plugged the two teams nearest to my heart: the Duluth East hockey team, and also the East Knowledge Bowl team, which is sending two teams to State this year. (Live it up at Cragun’s, kids…I was fortunate enough to go three times, and each one was a blast.)

After that, it was on to the Education Committee report, which was lengthy this time around. There was some brief discussion of the busing in the District’s HeadStart program, though the funding there does not come from the District, so it didn’t go very far; Member Johnston expressed his relief that Piedmont Elementary’s HeadStart was up and running again after temporarily falling victim to the sequester. Next, Member Welty apologized for misrepresenting historical graduation rates in past comments; after doing further research, he’d noted the District was in somewhat better shape now than it was ten years ago. Member Johnston was happy to see some goals set for improving graduation rates, though he also took a moment to once again point out Duluth’s brutal achievement gap for African-American and Native American students, with the added caveat that he is “not blaming anybody but [himself] as a Board member” for that situation.

Next up was a plan to align District curriculum with broader standards, which Supt. Gronseth had announced would be happening at a much faster pace than previously planned at last month’s meeting. If this had struck anyone as a curiously fast acceleration, the reason became all too clear over the past weekend, when a story broke in the News-Tribune claiming that Laura MacArthur, the west side elementary school lauded for its dramatic turnaround on state test scores, had effectively abandoned social studies and science curriculum in order to reach that goal.

The issue is a complex one. For starters, there were plenty of complaints about overbearing dictates from higher levels of bureaucracy. Member Johnston decried the “top-down” orders from Washington, and both he and Member Westholm talked about the troubles of using test scores as the judge of a school’s quality; Member Westholm had an anecdote about the particularities of geometry curriculum from his time at Denfeld. Chair Miernicki noted the irony in the fact that ISD 709 is allegedly an “independent” school district when there are 44 benchmarks from on high for one single elementary school. Some of the most scathing remarks came from Member Seliga-Punyko, who blasted the “hypocrisy” of the state Department of Education for chastising Duluth over its curriculum standards so shortly after identifying Laura MacArthur as a “priority school” based on its test scores. The District had taken its grant to turn the school around and done exactly that, earned national recognition, and now they were being criticized for doing it all wrong? She also took a rather delicious (though also not exactly accurate) shot at the Dept. of Education for “approving a charter school for hockey” while coming down on Duluth at the same time.

As usual, Member Johnston went a step further in his criticism. He “hope[d] the accusations are false,” but was upset about hearing about the confusion from the newspaper, not the Administration, and said he had made many inquiries in emails to the Supt., many of which he did not respond to, while the Department of Education had always responded to his queries within an hour. “We’re the last to find out anything,” he complained, repeating the gist of his comments about five times. Supt. Gronseth disagreed with some of these characterizations, saying he had indeed presented several updates as plans evolved. Member Welty, while more diplomatic in his remarks, expressed similar sentiments. He worried that the District had “panicked” over the test scores and cut corners to fix the issue, and thought the situation demanded further review by the Board. He hoped the Administration would cooperate on the matter.

The Board then took up a reconsideration of last June’s vote to move ahead with a plan to close high school campuses during the lunch hour. Chair Miernicki suggested rescinding the plan, saying he’d been “opposed from the outset,” and had worries about the costs, use of personnel, and the ability of the schools to enforce the policy. Joining him in criticism were the two non-voting Student Members. Member Manning said it made schools feel like a “prison” and would probably burden students who are already disadvantaged, and that forcing people to be in a place is not effective for education; Member Tremble said he’d spoken with many Denfeld students who disliked the change, and added that “a small percentage are ruining this” for everyone else. Member Welty talked of his exchanges with Officer Mike Tusken on the matter, and said he was at least open to the idea of a closed campus, but did not think the District had committed the resources necessary to ensure that the closed campuses would not be prisons. “We don’t have our ducks in a row,” he said, adding that the Board should “wait to do it the right way.”

The defenders of the open campus were led by Member Seliga-Punyko, who came out with guns blazing. She said it would decrease truancy, allow for less substance abuse, make for better neighborhood relations, and lead to fewer accidents. She questioned the motives of anonymous administrators who gave the program a $200,000 price tag, saying most of the expenses had already been accounted for by the Long-Range Facilities Plan, and scoffed at the notion that a half-hour in a lunchroom with one’s friends was akin to a prison sentence. She and Member Harala also talked of upholding the past Board’s precedent, though Member Welty pointed out that he hadn’t been on that Board, and Member Manning said there was nothing wrong with going back to re-visit something after gaining more information.

The Board spent a fair amount of time talking about a mysterious thing called a “power hour,” which momentarily freaked me out, because anyone in my generation associates that phrase with the excessive consumption of alcohol. (I’m not exactly a member of the temperance brigade, but if that’s happening during school lunch hours, closing the campuses is a no-brainer!) To my relief, it was instead some sort of enriching way to fill that time during the lunch hour that some schools use, though no one ever bothered to explain what this might entail. (But seriously, do people not Google these things before they name them?) There was much vague talk of implementing this sort of thing, though it never moved beyond that.

Member Harala, noting that these things could be talked about forever if nothing decisive was done, called the question; the measure passed. The margin was apparently 4-2, with Members Welty and Miernicki in opposition and Member Johnston abstaining because he was on the fence, though it was hard to tell, as Chair Miernicki made no effort to count the votes, and Member Johnston’s abstention only came to light much later in the meeting. Member Loeffler-Kemp moved to put the funding for the program into the Business Committee report, which frustrated Member Johnston; Member Welty worried that sort of move would cut off further debate, while Member Westholm said it didn’t lock them into anything. It was placed into the Business Committee report by a 5-2 margin, with Members Welty and Johnston opposed; once there, the measure passed 6-1, with Member Johnston again in the opposition, and pointing out that the District could pay the salaries of three teachers with the money spent on closing campuses.

Next up was the proposed make-up of some of the seven days lost to weather this year, which tacked on two full school days and added 12 minutes to each school day for the remainder of the year starting next week. Member Johnston said the twelve minutes “seemed kinda silly” but couldn’t think of a better method, and announced his support; Member Welty seemed to agree, pointing out potential lost funding due to lack of school hours. He and Student Member Manning also asked if something could be done to accommodate students with after-school jobs, but Supt. Gronseth nixed this with the mother of all education euphemisms (“every conversation is worth having, but…”), and noted that all students would mysteriously get after-school jobs if this allowance were made. Chair Miernicki said that, as a former teacher, twelve minutes could make all the difference in the world. There was much inspired talk about what can be made of twelve minutes, with Member Harala noting that most TED Talks are that long, and Member Welty saying he’d learned a novel new shoe-tying method from a TED Talk in three. The rest of the Education Report was then approved unanimously.

The Human Resources Report was up next, and there was some rare debate there, as a three-year renewal of Supt. Gronseth’s contract was on the table. Member Johnston suggested they table the measure to allow for more debate, but no one seconded the motion; Member Welty said he’d been tempted, but he deferred to the wisdom of the previous Board, which had conducted an evaluation of the Supt’s performance the previous year. Member Johnston asked if he might have a private forum to air some of his concerns, but Chair Miernicki told him the process had to be public; with many qualifications and apologies, Member Johnston said this was the “last chance” to bring up a number of issues. He then went down a laundry list of his concerns about the District, including cuts in staff, curriculum, the credit rating; rising class sizes, deficits, tax burdens; and no progress on bringing lost students back to the District. He also noted that the Supt’s salary ($168,000), while flat, was the highest of any non-Metro Minnesota districts. He claimed Supt. Gronseth had not been vetted properly, though the rest of the Board disagreed; Member Harala also pointed out Duluth’s size as justification for the higher salary, and Chair Miernicki called the Supt’s performance in the evaluation session “outstanding.” Member Welty said he thought many of Member Johnston’s concerns deserved attention, but reiterated his support, and the contract passed 6-0, with Member Johnston abstaining.

The rest of the Human Resources Report passed unanimously, as did everything in the Business Report other than the previously discussed funding allocations. In the closing comments, Supt. Gronseth thanked his colleagues on the podium for his new contract, and Member Harala thanked the work of those on the Education Equity Advisory Committee. Student Member Manning brought the night full circle by worrying about the effects of the 6-period middle school day on the District’s music programs; Member Seliga-Punyko agreed wholeheartedly. Member Welty also concurred, but said he wasn’t sure how the District could save its music programs without a “serious re-evaluation of how we do these things…talk is cheap.” Member Miernicki closed the proceedings with a tongue-in-cheek moment of prayer for no snow day the next day, and had his wish granted, as the storm skirted Duluth.

***

I know this post is already long, but there was a lot to digest in this meeting and I’m in an opinionated mood today, so I’m going to offer more commentary than usual.

First off, compliments for everyone: there is a superb diversity of views on the School Board right now. The debate is great, and while there are heated exchanges, they are not personal. That’s a night and day difference from the last term, and it’s a big step in the right direction.

Now, some critiques and opinions. I’ll begin with Ms. Blomquist’s comments on the music programs, in which she said Duluth’s instrumental music programs were worse than those in neighboring districts. This was certainly not my experience when I was in ISD 709 6-10 years ago; in fact, it was quite the contrary, and as I participated in a regional youth symphony, I had pretty good grounds for a comparison. Several members of Sterling Strings open enrolled from Hermantown, in large part because of the music program. That said, the recent move to a six-period middle school day is indeed grave for the music programs. If I were an ISD 709 8th grader today, foreign language almost certainly would have taken precedence over music, and my orchestra career would have ended there. I’m not sure the trickle-up effects of the schedule change have had enough time to make the impact suggested by Ms. Blomquist’s alarmist language, but if something isn’t done soon, it will get there in time. This is a real concern.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the closed campuses; there are benefits to doing it, and I don’t think anyone will really be unduly burdened by it. That said, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of financial sense right now, and I think there are far more pressing issues on the District’s plate.

Also, to be blunt: Chair Miernicki is a good man, but there were way too many procedural errors in tonight’s meeting. I understand he was trying to get through things quickly because of the weather, but the amount of time lost due to missed lights, misstatements, and parliamentary confusion far exceeded any time he might have saved by trying to hurry things through. It is far better to pause for a second to make sure one has allowed everyone to have their say and has the proper procedure lined up than it is to go barreling ahead to save a few seconds here and there.

On the Laura MacArthur situation, it’s hard to say much without all the facts, but it’s worth noting that the Administration never denied the charge, and the rapid response certainly suggests there was a serious, if not total, cut to programs outside of reading and math. I can only imagine what my reaction would have been if I had a kid there and that happened, and I’m especially concerned for the plight of the Laura Mac students who already were doing reasonably well in reading and math. There’s plenty of blame to go around. No one is really wrong here; federal standards, education bureaucracy, excessive testing, Red Plan-related cuts, and a contradictory Department of Education all come into play. Ultimately, though, I find Member Welty’s characterization the most accurate: if true, this was a sad overreaction, and the buck has to stop with the District.

Not knowing the details, I can’t comment too much on the communication dispute between Member Johnston and Supt. Gronseth, but there is obviously room for improvement there on both ends. I’ve said this before, but things that Supt. Gronseth seems to think are clear and transparent are sometimes anything but—and if they aren’t to me, they certainly aren’t to the general public. Member Johnston, meanwhile, still has his moments of tiring obstreperousness, but to be fair, he is practically falling over himself trying to be polite and qualify his comments. For all his disruptive history, I don’t doubt he’s acting in good faith so far in this new term, and whether or not we agree, some of his questions deserve answers.

The problem is that the Board doesn’t really have a good mechanism for raising the big picture questions he and Member Welty want to raise. It’s very easy for the majority of the Board to go along with business as usual, and that rarely gives chances for big picture questions, since so many things happen in such a piecemeal fashion. With the Red Plan rancor starting to fade away, it might finally be possible to have a serious conversation here that doesn’t devolve into the blame game it has been for the past six or seven years. That would take some maturity out of certain debate participants that isn’t always there, but I have some confidence it would work.

Half of the time, I want to roll my eyes at the critics, many of whom are running around like Chicken Little and creating a big fuss, which in turn creates a self-fulfilling PR prophecy for the District. If you really think this District is in bad shape, especially considering its demographics, get out of Duluth for a bit. On the other hand, relentless positivity in the face of real problems, including some new problems that (whatever the cause) have popped up in the past few years, gets to be pretty grating after a while, and gives the impression that some heads are buried in the sand. With our diverse and fairly civil Board, I’d be curious to see what comes out of a serious big-picture appraisal of the District. Yes, there would be some risk of picking at scabs, but I’d be inclined to give all sides credit no matter what comes out of it.