As a former teacher, I was disturbed by the opening line in the front-page Tuesday article "A solution to educational inequity?" in which the writer states that Minnesota has "a long and well-documented history of shortchanging students of color." I read the rest of the article expecting the writer to share some of this documentation, but I found nothing.
Certainly we can agree that there is a significant achievement gap between students of color and white students. There are many reasons for this, and all schools are working to address this problem. I guarantee you that teachers at every school in the state come early in the morning and stay late after school to help struggling students one-on-one or in small groups. In addition, the government has spent billions of dollars on Head Start and other programs to raise the performance levels of all students. If the writer is suggesting that this achievement gap is caused by schools, teachers and the government "shortchanging" students of color, please provide some facts to support that argument.
Nat Robbins, Minneapolis
• • •
The opening phrase that Minnesota has a "long and well-documented history of shortchanging students of color" belongs in an opinion piece, not in what should be a neutral opening to a "news" article. Yes, Minnesota has a long history of lower performance for students of color. Whether this is a result of schools (or the state) shortchanging some students or due to other factors that are less directly under schools' control is a key element in the debate over the wisdom of the proposed quality-education amendment. This is a difficult discussion about an important issue. Don't throw it off track with biased reporting.
Ross Moen, Golden Valley
• • •
As the past president of Ready 4K and later as an executive at Think Small, I read accounts of attempts to close the achievement gap with increasing frustration. One current idea is a constitutional amendment to require quality in public education. Great.
The trouble is that the need is now and the smartest place to invest now is in quality early learning, in whatever setting that occurs. We know what works; study after study has demonstrated that with well-trained staff in good settings children will be ready to thrive in kindergarten.
Indeed, my friend and colleague Art Rolnick, a retired economist from the Federal Reserve, has demonstrated that the single best public investment we can make is in quality early learning. No one has proven him wrong.
A wide range of people from different political views know this. Two years ago I co-chaired a study with a terrific leader, Jan Kruchoski of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Board, and we issued "A Roadmap for Action" with practical, workable ideas to get the job done.
The benefits to Minnesotans for such investment would be enormous. The Wilder Foundation showed that for every Minnesota child from a low-income family that has access to quality early learning there is a net taxpayer benefit of $43,000.