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

May 19,  2001

Report on the Conference Committee
- negotiating HF82 / SF2359

To expand the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) is to expand the Profile of Learning. The purpose of the MCAs is to assess how well the Profile of Learning is being incorporated into the K-12 system in Minnesota. The MCAs are not intended to test individual achievement of students.

[Report from Wednesday, May 16th conference committee meeting of the EDUCATION, K-12 - Omnibus K-12 education appropriations bill, HF82 /SF2359 follows this alert.]

The Profile of Learning section of HF82 (the House version of the bill before the conference committee) has two very valuable parts:

1. Repeal of the Profile of Learning;
2. Language that defines testing rigor, knowledge and objectivity.

MREdCoPAC adamantly opposes any new language that sets up a task force to develop new state standards. Without an immediate repeal of the Profile of Learning, any task force appointed by this state legislature will have no incentive to develop significantly different state standards that would assure genuine local control. Setting up a task force to consider new standards misleads the public into believing some substantial progress has been made toward ending the Profile, when in fact, nothing will have happened at all! A task force to develop new standards is nothing more than a smoke screen to give legislators a "good" vote to convince constituents they sincerely hate the Profile.

We oppose substituting the Profile repeal with a task force.

Language that defines testing rigor and knowledge is very important language to keep in the final bill.

Now is the time to contact conferees. If budget negotiations are suddenly resolved, work on all of the conference committees will finish up with lightening speed. The opportunity for further legislative lobbying will be past.

• 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.
• Keep the House Kielkucki language that defines testing rigor, knowledge and objectivity;
• Keep the House and Senate language that makes all tests fully accessible to the public (Sen.Gen Olson amendment).
• Keep House Dawkins language that prohibits career tracking.
• Keep out the Senate provisions that: expand the MCA's, bribe teachers to implement the Profile, and grant expanded rule-making authority to the Commissioner.
• Add the American Heritage Act to the final bill. Note: Today, the HF1028/SF1801 American Heritage Act passed overwhelmingly in the House. (See our overview of that bill) It can now be added to the omnibus bill.

Report on the conference committee meeting of the EDUCATION, K-12 - Omnibus K-12 education appropriations bill, HF82 /SF2359 for Wednesday, May 16th

After the rather non-controversial discussion about the repeal of the Profile last night, Senator Stumpf raised the issue of the proposed expansion of the MCA's to 7th grade. The MCA expansion is in the Senate bill, but not in the House bill.

First at the witness table was Commissioner Jax. She had several handouts, including a letter she had received from the federal Department of Education (DOE) and a memo sent out to members of the K-12 Conference Committee from Assistant Commissioner Jessie Montano. Ms. Jax stated in a rather matter of fact way that she and the governor were requesting funding for this MCA because it would (1) complete the system (along with the MCA's in 10th and 11th grades) and (2) because Title I funding mandated such tests. What is remarkable was the rather casual way in which this tie to the federal government was mentioned.

Please recall that for years, Commissioner Jax has publicly and privately denied that their is any federal mandate involved in the Profile of Learning. Even now on the official CFL website, Jax states that the Profile of Learning is a "voluntary."

At this point it would be helpful to know the context of her comments. Thirty minutes earlier was the discussion regarding the repeal of the Profile of Learning. It was during this time that the MCA's were "dragged through the mud" by a number of legislators, including some Senate democrats. Even Senator Pappas indicated some concerns with the lack of quality of these tests. People referred to the second Achieve Report (see our summary and critique of the 2nd Achieve report) that called the tests "unbalanced and skew [sic] toward low-level skills," and find the lack of rigor a serious concern. Math questions are called "superficial," and reading sections tended to "overemphasize low-level skills."

When Rep. Ness spoke, he went back to the lack of academic quality of the MCA's, questioning whether the state should be administering tests that would test a system and not an individual child's academic knowledge. He suggested that it would be much more beneficial to administer nationally norm-referenced tests. (We encourage the use of nationally norm-referenced tests, so long as they are completely free of governmental/political influence and can be freely chosen at the local level. See problems with federally influenced norm-referenced tests.)

Jax responded by saying that federal Title I regulations would not allow that – statewide assessment, she said, "must be aligned with our high content standards – or, supposedly high content standards." She went on to say that she will be working to bring both the standards and assessments up to a higher level.

Asst. Commissioner Montano added nationally norm-referenced tests are changed only once every 8-10 years, while MCA's are changed every year. At no point did she, or anyone else, state the value of maintaining the same questions year after year – students are compared to the same standard rather than one standard one year and a "dumbed down" version the next year. This is the main reason norm referenced tests resist change.

Last to speak was Rep. Mark Buesgens who brought up the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He correctly pointed out that this federal control of education at the state level violated the 10th Amendment that clearly states that the federal government has no right in any area of state concern unless that area is specifically mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. He mentioned that he was still hoping that the Chair of House Education Committee, Harry Mares, would allow his memorial to be heard. His memorial, HF1089/SF1996, urges Minnesota's Congressional delegation and the President to support federal legislation that removes unlawful mandates, such as the Profile of Learning, on our state.

HF1089 would have been extraordinarily useful this year, as HR1 is being debated and passed in congress. HR1 further violates the unlawful mandates of federal curriculum and testing in state schools.

David Thompson
Executive Director
Maple River Education Coalition
(651) 762-3993
http://www.MrEdCoPAC.org

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