EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
December 1, 2000
ACHIEVE, Inc.'s evaluation of the Profile of Learning has finally been released. Its criticism of the Profile vindicates what many have been saying for years. For example:
"The standards lack clarity and specificity. Important topics are missing or under-emphasized. There is inadequate rigor and growth across grade levels. The focus...is weakened by the broad nature...and large number of learning areas."
Achieve, however, fails to recognize that the root problem is the philosophy behind the Profile. Their recommendations contradict their criticism, revealing their true agenda. For example, Achieve suggests the state keep "moving forward," and "strengthening the Profile of Learning," and "continue to build and sustain public support...while staying the course." How can this be?
Achieve explains that it was created by the same organization that gave us the "national standards-based movement" (known in Minnesota as the Profile of Learning). They admit: "Our goal has been to assist the state", not assess the state! Furthermore:
"At the 1999 National Education Summit sponsored by Achieve, the nation's governors, leading corporate executives and educators endorsed plans to advance these efforts further."
Among Achieve's listed duties is to:
- "help states benchmark their standards, assessments and accountability systems against the best in the country and the world."
- "provide sustained public leadership and advocacy for the movement..."
- "build partnerships that allow states to work together... serve as a national clearinghouse...."
The key-word above is "advocacy." How can an advocacy group give an objective assessment of a system it was created to "advance?" It cannot and it did not. Instead, Achieve recommends more state power, complaining that "the system now in place...is too decentralized...."
The report even criticizes legislation that gave local school-boards their rightful choice of standards:
"...changes that occurred in the May 2000 legislation may ultimately harm the goal... The responsibility to choose which standards will be required for students' graduation is now in the hands of local school boards and teachers. ...this flexibility comes with a significant price. By leaving the Profile totally up to local discretion, the state has effectively done away with a common high standard."
So much for "local control" through representative government! As if responding to Achieve, the CFL notified school districts that they will lose their Title I federal funding if they do not conform.
Achieve also advocates moving away from academic knowledge toward job-training skills. For example, lamenting the "disparities" in Minnesota content standards, Achieve wonders:
"How will employers such as 3M, General Mills, Red Wing Shoes, Best Buy and Honeywell know if high school graduates are qualified to fill their entry-level jobs?"
Apparently academic knowledge is no longer the most important outcome of education. Yes, the Report pays lip-service to preparing for college-level courses, but the clear emphasis is on entry-level job-skills training. In fact, the report warns against those who desire a return to academic curriculum:
"While there will always be voices calling for a swing of the pendulum back to basics, it is notable that many [people] we spoke with support the ideas behind the Profile...."
What are the "ideas behind the Profile" that Achieve endorses? According to the Report:
"[The Profile] emphasizes applied knowledge...and development of 21st century skills such as those outlined by the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) in 1991 - communicating effectively, working in groups and problem solving." (The SCANS, by the way, were written by the US Department of Labor - not Education.)
What about academics? One favorable comment Achieve gives Minnesota is our commitment to a "constructivist vision of education." According to a footnote in the report:
"Constructivism is defined as the premise that students use their prior knowledge to construct a personally meaningful understanding... The implications for instruction are that teachers should actively engage students in designing their own unique understanding of content, and that teachers should legitimize and celebrate the design differences from student to student."
This is the crux of the problem. Achieve reports that the "key strength of Minnesota's system" is assessing students on how well they "demonstrate what they know," but their teachers are not supposed to "teach" them knowledge. Instead, students construct their "own unique understanding" and teachers are to "celebrate" the differences student by student.
What does this philosophy look like? According to the new Teacher Licensing Rules (written to conform to the Profile), math teachers now "must recognize that there are multiple mathematical worldviews and how the teacher's own view is similar or different from...students."
Complaining that "The standards' rigor is compromised by their lack of clarity and specificity..," Achieve goes on to suggest the "exemplary" California Content Standards for History. Unfortunately, they too reflect the same "constructivist" philosophy toward our Constitution and form of government:
"[Students] analyze the history and changing interpretations of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the current state of the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches of government."
"[Students] explain how the Founding Fathers' realistic view of human nature led directly to the establishment of a constitutional system that limited the power of the governors and the governed..."
This is more than simply bad history! The Constitution limits federal power, reserving non-enumerated powers to the states or the people. Forcing our children to demonstrate a politically-correct acceptance of federal power threatens America's experiment in self-government!
Despite the fact that there is very little American history within our own Profile of Learning, the Achieve report announces that, "There is too much of a focus on the United States and not enough on the rest of the world." Apparently "globalism" is more important.
Achieve advocates the national agenda in both content and structure. Under the heading "Raising Standards: The National Context," the report explains what "constitutes strong, useful state standards are now widely agreed to among educators at the national level."
Therefore, the Report recommends the "carrot and stick" (incentives and sanctions) method to hold everyone accountable to the national system. First Achieve recommends building an "accountability" structure while offering assistance and incentives. Once power is centralized, the "stick" comes out to threaten local districts with sanctions if they refuse to conform. Per the report:
"Once appropriate structures for identifying and assisting schools are in place, Minnesota should investigate promising practices with regard to rewards and sanctions in states that have implemented comprehensive accountability systems."
Sanctions include state "takeovers, reconstitution, and closing" schools. Achieve states:
"In our view, Minnesota currently does not have the foundation structures needed to implement incentives and consequences for schools and districts.... Ultimately, however, we encourage Minnesota to extend accountability to adults." (Do "adults" mean parents? You decide.)
In conclusion, ACHIEVE fails to realize that the Profile's core philosophy is at fault! Instead, in another attempt to tweak a bad idea, they recommend giving more control to the state, offering fewer choices, changing legislation to eliminate flexibility, and holding adults [parents, teachers] and students accountable to the federal system.
In other words, Achieve, Inc. has given Minnesota exactly what it was created to give us: another marketing tool to make the bad seem good to an unsuspecting public! Achieve admits as much in their own conclusion:
"While the changes outlined in this report might seem to some like a change in course, they are really about staying the course..."
Is anyone really surprised?
1. Achieve, Inc. 2000, "Aiming Higher,"
pre-publication copy, 11-10-00, p. 18-20.
2. p. 4.
3. Executive Summary, p. 5.
4. Executive Summary, p. 2.
5. p. 7.
6. attached cover letter, About Achieve, Inc.
7. p. 4.
8. p. 32-33.
9. p. 33.
10. p. 27.
11. p. 11.
12. p. 10
13. p. 10, footnote 5.
14. p. 30.
15. Minnesota State Statues Governing the Licensing of Teachers,
p. 111.
16. p. 24.
17. Appendix A, p. 62.
18. Appendix B, p. 105.
19. p. 8.
20. p. 43-44.
21. p. 38.
22. executive summary bullet points under "Areas for
Improvement." P.3-4.
23. conclusion, p. 45.