Our Testimony before the Minnesota House
– Education Policy Committee –
February 28, 2000

Chairman Mares, Members:

I am Renee Doyle, mother of two public school students, one in the class of 2002, and President of Maple River Education Coalition.

On behalf of the education grassroots movement in this state, I am here to support the NORTHSTAR STANDARD for Academic Excellence – Rep. Kielkucki’s bill number HF 3768.

The NORTHSTAR STANDARD restores confidence to Minnesotans because it is what we have been led to believe the Profile of Learning (POL) was:

"A locally controlled, academic based, liberal arts education with an allowance for electives that would support the student’s own chosen career, end social promotion and provide local control with public accountability."

Here is what the NORTHSTAR STANDARD does:

  1. It focuses on a truly genuine, academic, locally controlled curriculum.
  2. Districts use their own criteria for testing their own course work.
  3. Provides for true public accountability by publicly displaying the teacher’s course plan for each grade level or high school course.
  4. An end to social promotion: Students must "successfully" complete each course plan before they can advance, not just complete it. The course plan details what "successful" completion means. And…
  5. A remediation policy is required from every school district for students who do not successfully complete a course or fall below the 30th percentile on norm-referenced testing.
  6. Easy to understand, uses universally accepted terminology with the widely accepted meaning.
  7. Brings parents into the picture because they are given a neutral environment to view course plans to compare content, rigor, instruction materials and to know what the proposed parent participation expectations are.
  8. There is nothing in the Northstar Standard that would prevent a teacher from using performance based assessments for their own coursework, however it does not mandate it on every teacher as the Profile of Learning does.

I would like to tell you what Minnesotans don’t want:

  1. One more minute of outcome-based education. (Display the Chronology of OBE from the State Legislative Library) Minnesota has been involved in OBE (which is what the statute says that the "results-oriented" POL is), for almost 30 years. That is why the POL cannot be fixed. It is based on the premise of equal outcomes, "one size fits all." It is a failed system. Its standards are based on what the lowest achiever can accomplish. We don’t want it and we don’t want it under another name. It has been the downfall of our once-admired educational position in the country. We did not lose our excellent system of education, we left it.
  2. Educational systems without accountability. After 5 years of piloting and 2 years of full-implementation, the "Student Achievement Levels," January 2000, statute required report to the legislature, made a lot of excuses but did not include any student achievement levels. How can the state promote a system of education and then in a student achievement report to the legislature, claim that we "do not have a comprehensive model that holds students accountable for achievement or that identifies indicators that measure the effectiveness of the system?"
  3. State centralized control of education. This system just seems to get bigger and bigger. The state plans to define the roles of the parents, the teachers, the administrators, and other stakeholders and measure their accountability. Quote from the Student Achievement Levels, January 2000 report to the legislature:

      "The work of defining the roles of stakeholders [parents, teachers, administrators, community, legislature, DCFL, teacher’s unions, other educational institutions and the governor] as well as what each of these stakeholders should be held accountable to do will be the work of the Governor’s Study Group on Quality Education. It is not enough to establish state expectations only for students… we must be willing to also hold stakeholders responsible for the support system… a framework for accountability will include: A description of the roles and duties or obligations of each of the stakeholders responsible for the support system; The indicators that will describe how success will be measured at each level of responsibility."

    What right does the State have to hold parents responsible for the State’s system? The State has admitted in this report that after almost a decade of the Profile of Learning, the State still does not know how to hold students accountable or measure the effectiveness of the Profile itself.

Remember what the Profile of Learning was supposed to be. "High standards for all students to accomplish academic achievement with local controls that allows a student to choose his/her own career?"

That is what the NORTHSTAR STANDARD is. We are asking you to simply give us what you promised.

Thank you,

Renee T. Doyle,
President
Maple River Education Coalition