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

May 17,  2001

Profile Conference Alert!!

The Profile of Learning section of the House Omnibus bill was discussed in Conference Committee last night. Below are some of the comments made by committee members.

Statement of the day from Sen. Steve Kelly: "Children do not need knowledge.   They need skills and to know where to look it up." [Editor's note: That pretty much sums up the reason the Profile of Learning "high standards" is a dumbed down curriculum. System advocates want it that way.]

Please call the K-12 Conference Committee members:

1. Repeal the Profile of Learning. Replace it with academic achievement tests and local accountability. The Senate bill has none of that. The House bill has it all.
2. Keep the House Kielkucki language that defines testing rigor, knowledge and objectivity;
3. Keep the HOUSE AND SENATE language that makes all tests fully accessible to the public (Sen.Gen Olson amendment).
4. Keep House Dawkins language that prohibits career tracking.

Comments made in Conference Committee, May 16, 2001

Stumpf: Why repeal the Profile? Last session we had some powerful discussions and the result seemed to calm the waters and make the Profile more flexible. We haven't had a chance to let our changes work -- it's been less than one year. We also need to consider the Governor's letter.   [Editor's note: See a response to Governor Ventura's letter]

Seagren: People in the House still are not pleased. The Profile is not high standards and is not doing what we want it to do. The ACHIEVE report said the standards were not well written, clear, or concise. Critique of MCA's has shown them to be not rigorous and to test to medium to low ability. What are they testing?

Stumpf: I think the answer is to try to spell out how to reduce the standards. You want to eliminate the Profile -- what do you want to replace it with? Last year you had the Northstar Standard. Do you have anything this year?

Buesgens: ACT scores have fallen 2 times in a row. There is a value in knowledge and hands-on learning, but the pendulum has swung too far toward hand-on learning.

Kelly: I have read the ACHIEVE report. They do not recommend a repeal of the Profile. I agree that the Department has not shown a sense of urgency in correcting the Profile, but Commissioner Jax has given us a set of action plans. Why are you only looking at the critique and not the recommendations? [Editor's note: See a critique of the ACHIEVE Report)

Seagren: ACHIEVE advises that we focus on core academic areas. Right now we have process but no substance. I am concerned the reworking the standards would cause more frustration.

Pappas: In my reading of the report, there is no criticism of state mandated curriculum. I like state mandated curriculum.  Children should spend one-half of the day with knowledge and the other one-half with hands-on. The Commissioner agrees with everything the ACHIEVE report says except for more state mandates and control. I am concerned with MCA's, but how can we blend MCA's with more knowledge.

Buesgens: To answer Sen. Kelly's question, the House worked from about nine-tenths of the ACHIEVE report. The other one-tenth which includes recommendations is where we stopped and recommended that we move forward where we were before the Profile. In the past we were ranked near the top in education. We took the recommendations and worked with them. We didn't take them as a mandate.

Kelly: If ACHIEVE is credible for analysis, why not for recommendations? I hear from employers that we need to teach kids more consistently and raise standards which is what the Grad Standards do. Children do not need knowledge.   They need skills and to know where to look it up.

Ness: There are two reasons to test: core knowledge or how the system is working. MCA's fail both of them. The Profile has a one-size-fits-all approach which harms advanced placement talents and creates more busy work. We need to focus on standards, but not micromanage.  [Editor's note: Of course it harms advanced placment students. This is a minimum competency system that is measured by federal critera on "closing the gap" between high achievers and low achievers. High achievers will be used against schools. "A single statewide standard for all students" means a single statewide outcome for all students.]

Tomassoni: Anyone can get reports to mean what they want. We keep sending mixed messages and school districts don't know how to react. We need to stick to our course for 3-4 years so that school districts have time to react.

Mares. I agree with Tomassoni. I have been through modular scheduling, OBE and now the Profile. We all want standards, but no matter what they are, they need to be clear, understandable, measurable and rigorous. Do the teachers have ownership in it? Can they sell it? Do they have parental support? [Editor's note: The Profile of Learning is Outcome Based Education. They are not rigorous. They are the same outcomes for all.]

Robertson: We need to remember how we got here. There was a sense from higher ed and the business community that students were not meeting the standards. The US is good in knowledge, but not in application. The debate has changed. The volume of letters I've received this session have been about education funding. I have received almost nothing on the Profile. [Editor's note: Not true, Senator Robertson. I suppose the 2,000 citizens on the steps of the Capitol don't count, unless they are supporting the system or asking for more money.]

Seagren: I'd say we are the best country in the world when it comes to being inventive.

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