Home

About Us

Contact Us

Donate

Join Our E-mail List

Action Alerts

What You Can Do

Contact Legislators

Upcoming Events

Newcomer Info

State Updates

National Updates

Search

Links

Glossary

Archives

EdWatch.org

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

Print version

Six Myths of the federal legislation - HR 2:

HR 2 Amendment Challenges
(HR 2 Received by the US Senate Oct. 25, 1999)

By Michele M. Bachmann
and Michael J. Chapman

Myth #1. "STW and Goals 2000 will sunset and HR 2 gives states the right to determine their own standards."

Wrong. Sect. 1111 Requires any state submitting a plan (application for Federal Funding) to certify previous adoption of state content and performance standards. All 50 states recently adopted new educational reform content standards through compliance with Goals 2000 requirements. All 50 states recently adopted new performance standards and aligned assessments through compliance with School-to-Work requirements. In other words, all 50 states are currently implementing nationally guided content and performance standards in conformity to Goals 2000 and STW compliance (with several minor exceptions). HR2 will cement these national guidelines into place in each of the states, making it impossible for the individual states to opt out of federal guidelines.

According to HR 2, Section 1111: "Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has adopted [past tense] challenging content standards and challenging student performance standards." (HR2, pg. 10, line 23ff)

(Item 1a – CCSSO Position paper on Funding Recommendations) The Council of Chief State School Officers is covered extensively in question 6 below. Page 11 of the paper states: "Enactment of Goals 2000…IASA, and the STWOA in 1994 provided a solid basis for additional consolidation of federal education programs. Under Goals 2000, states have developed comprehensive plans and are merging existent federal categorical program plans into comprehensive state and local designs. State plans are structured around standards and provide for an alignment of the use of federal, state and local funds toward improving the curriculum, instruction, and professional development, use of technology, materials and assessment. …States are now well into their fourth year of implementing [these programs]. With these authorities expiring in 1999, consideration of further consolidation should be done in connection with reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education programs." In other words, this federation of state education chiefs is pushing for continuation of the mission, purpose, and funding of the STW and Goals 2000 agenda, though sun-setting, via ESEA (HR2).
(Item 1b – US Dept. of Education Report) According to the DOE, as of September 30, 1998, all States were on board with the new STW "system" and "design." The same report reveals that "States are taking steps to sustain their STW systems by realigning resources…" (pg. 2) HR2 will become one of the new funding streams for STW and Goals 2000.
(Item 1c – Federal Unified Plan Guideline; Released Feb. 14, 2000) Realignment is by Federal Design and works to funnel all education and job training funding into the existing STW design.
(Item 1d – Minnesota Unified Plan; Federally Approved) Minnesota’s plan accomplishes this realignment, as does other state plans.
(Item 1e – Presentation from the Minnesota STW conference on Federal and State Alignments)

Throughout HR2, the Goals 2000 label is struck, but Goals 2000 and STW remain due to realignment language. (e.g. Sections 1111, pg. 10; 106, pg. 39, line 11ff) "Paragraph (1)…is amended by striking ‘the Goals 2000: Educate America Act’ and all that follows and inserting the following: ‘the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, the Head Start Act, and other Acts, as appropriate.’"

Myth #2. "HR 2 is all about high academic standards. HR 2 speaks of ‘High Standards’ based on ‘knowledge, skills, and performance’."

The standards referenced in HR2 are neither "high" nor are they "academic." The assumption is that terms such as "High Performance Standards" are self explanatory. State and federal education bureaucracies recognize that such terms refer to "Outcome-based Education." OBE is a minimum competency movement, which takes the focus off the "ceiling," of academic achievement and instead focuses on the "floor" by defining what "all children must demonstrate…" This is also what is meant by the phrase, "specify what children are expected to know and do." (e.g. HR 2, pg. 11, line 19)

(Item 2a – STW Glossary of Terms) "Learning Objectives, Performance Measures & Performance Standards: …Performance standards define the minimum acceptable level of achievement on the performance measures for each learning objective. A performance standard answers the question, ‘How much is enough?’" (Section 1111 requires states certify adoption of performance standards.)
(Item 2b – "Using OBE to Modify Children’s Behavior") For a more detailed explanation of OBE, chapter 8 of "None Dare Call it Education" by John Stormer is included. It contains footnoted quotations by various US Senators and education experts.

"Standards, Skills, and Performance" are based primarily on occupational skills divided into "clusters." The SCANS (Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills) curriculum developed by the US Dept. of Labor is the driving force behind the new purpose for education: Workforce training. All states are currently operating under STW definitions of these terms, HR 2 will cement the SCANS in place. The work of the federal agency, NSSB (National Skills Standards Board), created by Goals 2000 legislation, carries forward the SCANS agenda.

(Item 2c – NSSB Legislative Charter) The NSSB’s purpose was to "stimulate development and adoption of a national system of skill standards" (see Title V, Sec. 502, Purpose); "Occupational Clusters," were to be created (sec. 504). The NSSB was to "sunset" September 30, 1999, but remains in full operation today. (See Title V, sec. 503, (j) "Termination")
(Item 2d – NSSB Board of Directors and Committee assignments) Several board members were original members of the SCANS commission. Marc Tucker, appointed by President Clinton to the NSSB, is chairman of the "Standards, Assessment & Certification Policy Committee, and is also the President of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE).
(Item 2e – NCEE Products Catalogue) Marc Tucker defines the "New Standards and Student Performance Standards" as based on SCANS.
(Item 2f – NCEE booklet, "On Occupational Clusters; Early Thoughts on Organizing The Work of the NSSB.") Note this document was produced under subcontract to the National Alliance for Business for the US Department of Labor. The Three-Tier Skill Standards System correlates directly with the definition of performance standards in Sect. 1111 in HR2, Basic; Proficient; Advanced (See page 12, lines 5 - 11) and are virtually identical.
(Item 2g) – US Dept. of Ed. report: "Standards: Making Them Useful and Workable for the Education Enterprise – 1997" chapter entitled "Lessons from the Research and Development Period." See highlights, under "Definitions:" "Content standards refer to what we expect learners to know and be able to perform. Performance standards indicate levels of achievement, or competency within a content area (e.g., advanced, proficient, and basic)…."

"Academic standards" is double-speak for work-based skills training. Known as "Integrated Curriculum," it focuses on how "subject matter relates to the world of work." It also includes attitudes, values and beliefs, called "soft skills" by Robert Jones, President of the National Alliance of Business, and developer of SCANS under the Dept. of Labor.

(Item 2h) – US Dept. of Ed. report: "Standards: Making Them Useful and Workable for the Education Enterprise – 1997" chapter entitled "Integrating Curriculum." See highlights, especially list of problems impeding integration: "Without explicit policies established by both the state and local policy making boards to use occupational industry clusters as an organizing tool, high schools, in particular will still be controlled by the silos of the traditional academic disciplines." Also, next item: "The lack of clear state strategies regarding how to use career clusters as a cornerstone to develop programs of study…"
(Item 2g – from above) –"Lessons from the Research and Development Period." See highlights, especially under definitions: "Curriculum Alignment links academic and vocational curricula…" and "Integrated Curriculum Standards integrates occupational/industry related material with academic standards that may or may not be validated at the worksite."
(Item 2i – NSSB, Annual Report; Skill Standards Framework) See highlights and margin notes, especially definitions: – "A ‘standard’ means a workplace performance standard specifying what one needs to know, and be able to do," and: "Working with the States; Building Linkages: …The ‘Building Linkages’ project began in mid-1996 with the aim of integrating academic and industry recognized skill standards…"
(Item 2j) – The National Alliance of Business’ Newsletter, article titled "The Knowledge Supply Chain" reveals the new workforce training philosophy of education. It refers to schools as "providers" and "suppliers" and students as "products" tailored to meet the needs of local businesses.
(Item 2k) – Various examples of national integrated curriculum.

Myth #3. "Aren’t all these "Occupational Standards" VOLUNTARY? Each state may adopt its own standards."

No. "Voluntary" is double-speak for "mandatory." (Similar to the IRS language in which taxpayers are thanked for participating in "our voluntary tax reporting system.") How can anyone opt out when the new system of education permeates all curricula; especially when all business, education, labor, community groups, and state and local governments are expected to recognize the NSSB’s endorsed standards nation-wide?

Reminder: The NSSB is a creation of the education reform movement (Goals 2000/STW Legislation), which resulted in nation-wide adoption of state content and performance standards.

(Item 3a – The NSSB’s Mission Statement; An Elaboration) A few Highlights: "The mission of the NSSB is to encourage the creation and adoption of a national system of skill standards… These standards are meaningful only to the extent that the intended end-users adopt and use them; their creation alone is insufficient. … If these voluntary standards are truly national, they will represent a clear statement… We seek not fifty separate state programs, but a system that serves all fifty states well."

Myth #4. "Doesn’t research prove that ‘learning by doing’ works the best?"

No.

(Item 4a & 4b) The most expensive research ever conducted by the US government on teaching methods ($1 billion, over 30 years, with 700,000 participants) was called "Project Follow-Through." The conclusion was that "Direct Instruction (DI)," produced the best academic results. The US Dept. of Education (OERI office) recently published a report called, "Tried and True; Tested Ideas for Teaching and Learning from the Regional Educational Laboratories." Incredibly, the only method the DOE did not consider was DI. The reason is obvious. The new philosophy of education rejects the "objective measurement" of knowledge.

Myth #5. "There is no difference between ‘Assessments’ and ‘Testing’. States are free to define ‘performance-based assessments’ within HR2 as academic-based."

Wrong. "Assessments" is a broader and more ambiguous term than "tests." It includes highly subjective evaluations such as rating scales, observation and student opinion. The root meaning of "assess" is to attach value to something. Tests, by contrast, are designed to measure knowledge. The change in language from "tests" to "assessments" is symptomatic of the philosophic shift in education from focusing on knowledge to focusing on values, attitudes and behavior. Assessments are meant to measure ones "value" to society at large – determined by ones "work-readiness."

"Performance-based" means to focus on outcome criteria. [Reminder: Goals 2000/STW required the states to adopt OBE based content standards with aligned assessments.] Therefore, assessments are needed to measure progress against a set of subjective outcomes, rather than measuring achievement against an objective standard. The uses of "criterion-referenced" assessments, as opposed to "norm-referenced" means states are locked in to outcome-based educational models. That there is a difference between "assessments" and "tests" is admitted by the US Dept. of Education:

(Item 5a – Study of School-to-Work Initiatives; Executive Summary) Published by the US Dept. of Ed., OERI: "School-based curriculum and instruction: At the heart of school-to-work reform is a transformation of curriculum and instructional practice so that learning is ‘contextual,’…. The measurement of learning that occurs in settings so unlike the traditional classroom requires assessment practices which are correspondingly different."
(Item 5b – NCEE, "States Begin Developing the Certificate of Initial Mastery" 1994) p. 2-3. Under the heading, "The New Standards Project: …Representing more than half of all K-12 students in the United, States, New Standards partners are committed to developing new assessments based upon standards that are powerful enough to drive change in the way teaching and learning occur within the schools."
(Item 5c – NCEE, "A STW Transition System for the US") p. 8. The Three Tier standards are mentioned again with the scoring criteria assigned; for example: "The examination systems for both Tier I and Tier II certificates would rely heavily on portfolio assessment systems…" [Note: Tier III is defined as "standards for individual front-line jobs, like steam fitter, telephone repair person, or receptionist." P. 7.]
(Item 5d – The NSSB list of Related Links) Identical language is found on each link. One link is to "Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies: SCANS/2000. This report clearly defines the National Agenda for combining a diploma with a resume into a "career transcript," called, "The End of Routine Work and the Need for a Career Transcript" by Arnold Packer, Senior Fellow, Chairman of the SCANS/2000 Center and former SCANS member. See highlights.

Myth #6. "This is just a Minnesota problem. Other states define these words differently."

The problem is not that Minnesota is different, the problem is that HR2 will force a nationalized education/workforce training system on all 50 states. Why would separate grassroots parent-groups form across the nation for the purpose of fighting the same battle? The coincidences are amazing for a "Minnesota-only problem." The problems originated with Goals 2000 and STW will multiply times ten under HR2.

In addition, Federally funded non-governmental organizations are partnering across the country to carry out the federal plan. One need only look at teacher licensing to realize a national licensing is occurring in every state. HR1995, Section 2012 gives the US Secretary of Education sole authority over "within-state allocations" to "local educational agencies." Under the heading, "Authorized State Activities," includes "Reforming teacher certification, recertification, or licensure requirements to ensure that (B) they are aligned with the State’s challenging State content standards; and (C) teachers have the knowledge and skills necessary to help students meet challenging State student performance standards." (OBE for Teachers!)

(Item 6a – Post-Dispatch for Wednesday, Feb 17, 1999; St. Louis, MO.) Headline: "Education Chief Pushes National Teacher License: Schools in Missouri and Illinois would be able to hire teachers from a nationwide pool of highly talented applicants under a national licensing plan proposed Tuesday by U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley. In his annual speech on the state of education, Riley suggested that creating a national and uniform teacher licensing system would help create that pool."
(Item 6b – CCSSO) The Council of Chief State School Officers is a nationwide, nonprofit organization composed of public officials who lead the departments responsible for elementary and secondary education in the states. (In other words, CCSSO is another federation of government decision-makers unaccountable to the voters.) Included in this group is a policy statement titled: "RESTRUCTURING LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS." The introduction reads: "At the closing of the 20^th century, dynamic and un-anticipated global changes of a profound sort are occurring. National borders, ideologies of nations, the locus of economic power, and political alliances are shifting with remarkable speed. …In a fundamental sense, American education also must be renewed. …According to the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce in its report, "America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages!" [Marc Tucker], deep and revolutionary change is necessary regarding the structure and organization of production."
(Item 6c – INTASC) One of the CCSSO’s many projects to this end is the INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium). "INTASC’s mission is to promote standards-based reform through the development of model standards and assessments for beginning teachers. To carry out this mission, INTASC provides a vehicle for states to work jointly on formulating model policies to reform teacher preparation and licensing…"
(Item 6d – CCSSO Survey and Report) Headline News Release: "CCSSO SURVEY SHOWS 48 STATES HAVE ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS IN THEIR STATES." (Note: Nebraska and Iowa only two without, but Iowa said to have most districts "voluntarily participating" anyway.) Note: Report lists states based on "Criterion Referenced" vs. "Norm Referenced" assessments in place.
(Item 6a – State of the States) Quotations from various states compiled by "Restoring America," St. Charles, Missouri. (last three pages of "Stealing America")