Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 3
Minnesota Legislature moving toward fixes for broken teacher licensing system
At last, the Legislature is moving toward fixing Minnesota’s confusing, overly complicated process to become a classroom teacher. Though some specifics are yet to be worked out, lawmakers are rightly poised to make much-needed changes.
Nearly a year ago, an evaluation by the Office of the Legislative Auditor found that the state’s teacher licensing system was broken. It called the licensing rules complex and confusing and said that multiple exceptions leave too much room for loopholes and inconsistent standards.
Part of the problem, the auditor noted, was that two agencies have overlapping responsibilities for licensing - the state Board of Teaching and the Department of Education (MDE). The board is supposed to set standards for candidates, while the Education Department issues licenses. Over time, the lines between the two became blurred; consequently, the auditor said, accountability “is diffuse and decision-making is not always transparent.”
To fix the licensing morass, the auditor made several recommendations for legislative action - including consolidating all licensing activities under one state entity. Other action items included rewriting state statutes on licensing requirements to make them clearer. And in cases when licenses are denied, the governing body should clearly spell out why.
Following the auditor’s lead, a bipartisan study group of state lawmakers made strong recommendations in two areas - governance and tiered licensure. Co-chaired by Sen. Charles Wiger, DFL-Maplewood, and Rep. Sondra Erickson, R-Princeton, the group agreed that licensing should be done by one entity. Still, lawmakers are having ongoing discussions about which one - MDE or a stand-alone, appointed professional board.
The study group also agreed that the state should adopt a tiered licensing system that would offer several pathways to obtaining a license. Those tiers could include allowing licensing in emergency situations when districts have difficulty hiring, making it easier for teachers already licensed elsewhere to get a Minnesota license, clarifying alternative and portfolio pathways, and allowing life-time licenses for retired educators so that they can work part time.
Fixing the state’s tangled educator licensing system is especially needed in light of the growing teacher shortage. An MDE report released last week documented that the number of teachers leaving their jobs for other fields, retirement or other reasons had increased 46 percent since 2008. After three years, more than a quarter of teachers leave their jobs, and about 15.1 percent quit after the first year.
Making licensing criteria clearer will also help districts recruit more teachers of color as student populations become increasingly diverse.
It’s encouraging that lawmakers are on the right track toward streamlining licensing, maintaining high standards and helping schools hire the professionals they need to educate Minnesota kids.
___
St. Paul Pioneer Press, Feb. 5
Steps forward in the argument for school choice
It’s been a conversation too easy to shut down as those on various sides - including powerful unions - struggle to get beyond their own interests.
But the tone is different among school-choice advocates the editorial board met with recently. They bring a grass roots, “here’s-what-we-should-do” approach that puts kids first.
The coalition they are helping to build in Minnesota, bringing together African-American, church- and independent-school advocates and others, has a clear message: For them, school choice is the civil-rights issue of our day.
Reynolds-Anthony Harris, a Minneapolis entrepreneur and founder of the Minnesota Harvest Initiative, is among those who argue that too many students have no choice other than public schools that may be failing them.
Harris, whose group involves black business owners in efforts to improve education and communities, was among speakers at a recent state Capitol rally intended to draw attention to the cause and support the proposed Equity and Opportunity Scholarship Act. The measure, which has bipartisan support, would provide scholarships allowing low- and middle-income children to attend a school that meets their needs. It’s not a voucher program, say supporters, who explain that the scholarships would be funded by private donations to a nonprofit scholarship-granting organization and would be eligible for a state tax credit.
Among the advocates, George Parker, former president of the Washington, D.C., teachers’ union, is a compelling convert to the school-choice movement.
He told us about re-examining his views, a process that required re-thinking quality education “versus what was best for my union.” It began after a student he encountered at an event expressed her trust in Parker and his efforts on behalf of educators - while at the time his work involved a union settlement that “put a bad teacher back in school.”
Parker, keynote speaker at a forum at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs during his School Choice Week visit to the Twin Cities last month, explains that he grew up in North Carolina, before integration. “I went to a school where there was no choice,” he told us. His path eventually led to bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 30 years of teaching high-school and middle-school math.
“We have to open up the doors,” Parker said. Without a choice of quality education, he believes, children limited in their school choice by their ZIP code can be “doomed to a lifetime of poverty.”
Meanwhile, the debate about school choice plays out in a state grappling with equity, disparities and a daunting gap between the performance of white students and those of color.
Ours also is a state with a proud school-choice history. Open enrollment, allowing students to attend school in a district other than their own, began in the 1980s. Minnesota was No. 1 in the nation to allow the formation of charter schools, the first of which opened its doors in 1992 in St. Paul.
The debate in Minnesota also foreshadows a likely national fight over whether students should get public help to pay private-school tuition, the Pioneer Press’ Christopher Magan observed in reporting on the legislative hearing.
Opponents of the Equity and Opportunity Scholarship idea, Magan reported, argue that the scholarship-donation approach is a “precarious step” toward a voucher system that would send taxpayer money to private and religious schools - making separation of church and state an issue - and draining money away from public schools that serve some of the most challenged students.
Business-sector backers like Harris bring additional power to advocates’ free-market argument. In essence: Let the competition among schools take place and let market choice weed out those that don’t perform to parents’ satisfaction.
Advocates also make the point that Minnesota embraces the concept of choice when it comes to its youngest learners, awarding pre-K scholarships that empower parents to opt for the best settings for their children. Similarly, a wealth of choices awaits students at the other end of the path, in post-secondary education. Not so in the K-12 realm.
Those are among converging lines of thought as advocates make their school-choice case. When what we’re doing isn’t working - as schools fall short of their goal to serve all students - advocates’ arguments are worth hearing, and hearing well.
___
The Free Press of Mankato, Feb. 7
Renewables: Work together on renewables programs
The agency that regulates the state’s energy industry as well as a renewable energy incentive program are facing challenges from the GOP-controlled Legislature. Controversial legislation is being described by some as an assault on renewable energy progress, while supporters frame it as necessary steps to improve accountability for spending and a needed revamp of the regulatory system.
The Public Utilities Commission is the five-member commission appointed by the governor that regulates the energy industries. GOP lawmakers have introduced several bills to alter the makeup and power of the agency.
Republicans argue the PUC is too heavy with metro area representatives. Gaining more appointees from rural Minnesota would certainly be beneficial for the PUC.
But the GOP has also introduced bills that do an end run around the PUC’s responsibilities, including a bill that would allow Xcel Energy to build a new gas-fired power plant to replace a coal plant. The PUC has not refused allowing a gas plant but they have pushed Xcel to pursue cost-effective renewable energy instead of gas.
The Legislature shouldn’t be micromanaging issues that have been the purview of the regulatory group. Making such regulatory decisions based on political philosophies isn’t in Minnesotans best interest.
Lawmakers, including some key Democrats, are also hoping to kill a solar power subsidy program called Made in Minnesota, that is primarily funded by an Xcel-managed fund.
The program spends about $15 million annually and provides subsidies to homeowners and businesses who install solar as well as helping solar manufacturing facilities in the state. Bills have been introduced that would end the program and put the money into a general energy fund held by the state.
Critics say the move is an indication the GOP wants to kill renewable energy and the jobs it creates. But supporters, including a couple of key DFLers from northern Minnesota, say the program shouldn’t be run by a private company (Xcel) and say it is too costly for the amount of energy it’s produced and that the program lacks accountability. Indeed, a legislative auditor’s report said the program should have more accountability.
It’s a stretch to say Republicans want to kill renewable energy. They know that renewable energy jobs have grown rapidly in the state and that continued growth of renewables is good for the economy, particularly in rural Minnesota.
But those seeking to end the program need to tell how they will re-purpose the money to continue strengthening renewable energy development in the state while also providing more accountability and more bang for the buck. So far they haven’t done that.
Members of both parties and most Minnesotans know that renewable energy isn’t just good for the environment but is inevitably going to be a growing part of the state’s and country’s energy needs. Members of both parties should work to develop programs that continue to help wind and solar while ensuring money is spent wisely.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.