EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116 
Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail

Updated May 12, 2000

Our Analysis of the Conference Profile Bill
Grassroots Analysis of CCR SF3286

This document is a grassroots analysis of the current Education Conference Committee bill that was put into a report on May 10, 2000, and signed by four of the six conferees.  The education grassroots movement maintains three positions on this bill: 

1. This is not the bill that was negotiated orally between the House and the Senate early in the morning hours of May 10, 2000. 
   
2. This bill does not offer districts a repaired Profile of Learning, nor does it offer districts a clean alternative. 
   
3. This bill is convoluted, unworkable and should be abandoned. 

We offer the following documented statements on SF 3286 in regard to the educational issues that have shown themselves to be the most important to all Minnesotans.

Comments regarding the North Star Standard:

ARTICLE I: HIGH STANDARDS FOR ALL STUDENTS

1. Profile of Learning/North Star Method of Choice

Article 1, Sec. 1, Subd. 1, Para. (a) Allows elected school boards, by a majority vote and an advisory vote by the majority of teachers and administrators in the district, to adopt the North Star Standard (NSS).  The very next paragraph, (b), states that if the elected school board and the teachers/administrators cannot agree, the district reverts to the Profile of Learning.  Paragraph (a) gives the ultimate authority to the elected school board, and paragraph (b) takes it away.

Solution: Delete paragraph (b) or remove references to "boards" and "districts." 

2.  Assessment Requirements 

Article 1, Sec. 1, Subd. 1, Para. (c) This language states that the NSS is not exempt from the basic requirements of the graduation rule.  The language should state that the NSS is not exempt from the basic skills testing under the graduation rule in grades 8 and 10 that are required for graduation.  Because the graduation rule includes assessing the Profile of Learning under the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, (MCAs, not to be confused with the basic skills tests required for graduation) this language requires the NSS to also take the MCAs.  No where in this entire bill does it state that the NSS is exempt from the MCAs that are required under 120B.30. The bill goes on to say that NSS districts "must assess students using…" one of three types of tests.  Once again, the bill does not say that if the NSS districts give one of these tests, they are in compliance with the assessment requirements of the MCAs under 120B.30 and 120B.31. 

The net result of the proposed bill language is that NSS must meet the testing requirements of the graduation rule 120B.30 and 120B.31 which includes the MCAs and must also give one of the three tests that are stated in this paragraph, one of which is also the MCAs.  Nowhere in this bill does it say that the annual nationally norm-referenced standardized achievement tests, that are required under the NSS, will meet the testing requirements under 120B.30 and 120B.31.  Districts that choose the NSS must not be forced to be assessed with a test that is specialized to assess the Profile of Learning (MCAs).

Solution: This language should read in paragraph (c) "Districts implementing the NSS are not exempt from the basic skills tests under the graduation rule and one of the following will meet the balance of the testing requirements under 120B.30 and 120B.31."  Also remove the word "clearly" on line 26, as this is not a reasonable mandate or a mandate that is necessary on the assessments of the Profile.

ARTICLE II: PROFILE OF LEARNING

3.   Length of School Year: 

Days of Instruction Article 2, Sec. 1, 120A.41 States that districts that implement the Profile of Learning may use three of the student contact days for staff development.  This should be available to NSS districts as well.

4.   Number of Content Standards

Art. 2, Sec. 3, Subd. 1a. This bill allows teachers and school boards, by a majority vote of each, to decide the number of content standards that are required at each school site in the district for both the preparatory level (K-8) and the High School level (9-10).   The impression is that this language is for Profile of Learning districts, only because this language is located under Article 2 dealing with the Profile of Learning.  The reality is that this is new language under 120B.03, a statute that the NSS is not exempted from anywhere in the bill.

This means that teachers and administrators are given the authority at every school site, Profile and NSS, to have the same vote in choosing the number of required content standards.  This is totally contrary to the provisions of the NSS where the number of required content standards are specified.

Solution: Exempt the NSS from 120B.03.

ARTICLE III: NORTH STAR STANDARD

5. Exemptions

Art. 3, Sec. 35, Para. (1) This paragraph exempts the NSS from 120B.02 paragraph (a) through (i).  The NSS should be exempt from all provisions of 120B.02 except paragraph (i), which allows districts not to participate in Goals 2000 or School-to-Work. The NSS should also be exempt from all of 120B.03 as this statute also refers to the Profile of Learning. In the case of our request to be included in provisions with regard to Goals 2000, School-to-Work, any related statute language would have to apply. (Please see the additional document on "What is the North Star Standard."  This is for informational purposes only and not a bill recommendation or comment.)

Comments regarding the Profile of Learning:

ARTICLE II: PROFILE OF LEARNING

A.   Performance Packages 

The bill language now presents the performance packages as an "option" when assessing student performance of a content standard.  All references in rule to packages, state or locally developed, are changed to read that they are "optional."  However, it is very important to note that performance packages are "performance-based assessments," and "performance-based assessments" continue to be mandated in this bill: 

…"The profile of Learning must measure student performance using performance-based assessments compiled over time that integrate higher academic standards, higher order thinking skills, and applications of knowledge from a variety of content areas." Art. 2, Sec. 2, Para. (d) 

Simply removing in rule the word "packages" or referring to them as "optional," does not make the mandate of using this type of assessment go away.  It also does not eliminate the requirement that a performance based scoring system must be used, the rubric. 

If there is no intention to pressure teachers to use performance packages to assess content standards, then why does the statute still mandate performance-based assessments?  Teachers have been told in the past that they were not mandated to use state-developed packages. They could develop their own.  This was true, but the teacher was never given the criteria that was required by the state saying what would pass for an assessment and what would not.  Even at the last State Board of Education meeting the first week of Dec. 1999, board member Jim Bartholomew stated that he had on three different occasions been in contact with the commissioner and/or commissioner's office to get clarification on assessment criteria for locally developed assessments.  The Board never received a response from the commissioner. The language in this bill states that the commissioner will set the criteria for what each level of the rubric means, but how will a teacher ever know if his/her assessment of a content standard, whether it be a written test, an oral report, or a performance, will pass the commissioner's criteria?   We believe that teachers will continue to be forced, in many cases, to use state developed performance packages to assess student work so that if they are audited 2-3 years after the assessment was given, the department will not look at that assessment and say that it did not meet the state criteria.  This has been a major stumbling block for teachers and this bill does not clarify anything for them.  We feel that it makes the water even muddier.  In one section the bill says that the teacher may use any method of assessment they wish.  In another section the bill says that the assessment must be "performance-based."  Which is it? What are the criteria that a teacher must follow?  We don't believe that any state department should have this kind of authority in a classroom.  The assessment component of the Profile is unworkable.

B.   Number of Content Standards

Art. 2, Sec. 3, Para (d) and (e) This bill gives the impression to the Profile supporter wanting relief from the heavy number of content standards and scheduling problems associated with them, that the burden of implementation will be lifted through school districts being able to decrease the number of required content standards.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

These paragraphs in statutes, as well as rule number 3501.0330, states that a district must offer all the state content standards even if they are only going to require certain ones for graduation.  This means a district must still embed all the preparatory content standards and the 48 high school content standards within their courses. For proponents of a "statewide standard," where is the universal standard if all districts require different content standards even at different sites within one district?

C.  More Rigorous Courses of Study (Including Advanced Placement, 

International Baccalaureate and Post Secondary Education Option) Art. 2, Sec. 6, Subd. 4. Profile students under this bill continue to be required to jump through many "hoops" to get into more rigorous courses.  For a more rigorous class to meet a content standard under the Profile the student must:

• Have the approval of the parent
  
• Have the recommendation of the teacher
  
• Have the School Board's declaration that the course requested is equally or more rigorous than the content standard course that it is replacing, and
  
• Be able to demonstrate that taking the course with the content standard in it is preventing them from taking the more rigorous course. 

This language continues to make it almost impossible to take more rigorous courses.  Provision number 4 forces students to forego more rigorous classes because they cannot take them if there is any other way that they might be able to take them later when they do not conflict with a content standard course.  The only time this would happen is close to the end of their senior year when all their requirements have been met and there is an opening in their schedule.  All through high school, there may be more rigorous courses available but they will be unattainable under this bill language.  The schools with a greater selection of classes with content standards in them enable students to have more flexibility in getting the content standards out of the way.  This is an unfair advantage over the smaller rural school that only has one teacher for one class one period of the day.

D.   Transcripts/Grading and Scoring

Art. 3, Sec.4, Subd. 1b.  Requires transcripts to record work completed in each content standard implemented in the district.  Nothing is said about including the balance of the teacher's curriculum or coursework in the transcript score.  However, this bill requires that the score on the content standard be included in the course grade. (Sec. 11, Subd. 9) Isn't the balance of the teacher's curriculum worth reporting on the transcript?  Does this mandate provide any incentive to teach anything outside of the state mandated content standards?

While this bill does not prohibit teachers from using other methods of grading such as an A-F or grade point average, the bill requires that all grading must be converted to a 0-4 Rubric score for reporting based on criteria from the commissioner.  Does this offer the teacher any real option to use a different grading method if he/she must ultimately report with a rubric score?

E.   Students Held Harmless

Art. 2, Sec. 7, Subd. 5.  We believe the public's blanket perception of this provision is that this year's ninth and tenth graders will not be held to the requirement to complete 24 content standards in 10 learning areas in grades 9-12.  This is not what this bill states. This bill states that a school district, on a student by student basis, determines if that student did not meet the content standard requirements because of "local implementation circumstances" that were not the student's fault.  This forces the district to admit, for each of these students to graduate, that the district is responsible for the student's failure to meet the content standard requirements.  This is an unnecessary burden on the district. The state must take the responsibility, not force the district into bearing the weight of poor implementation.

EdAction - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931 - edaction@lakes.com - (c) EdAction - All rights reserved.