Date: October 31, 2003
Subject:Where's the Beef?

On the eve of the Social Studies Academic Standards Committee meeting, some MAPSSS members are calling for Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke's resignation and accusing her of, to put it mildly, misrepresenting the truth in the draft standards. They will present an Internet petition to scrap the draft and start over, with a goal of creating "new" new standards in a year with a committee configured to their liking (replacing lay public with education establishment). But according to the MAPSSS myths-and-facts statement, they are not very far away from the Academic Standards Committee on the substantive issues:

We concur: "MAPSSS wants higher standards that will promote active citizenship and democracy by engaging students in learning important knowledge and skills required of citizens."

We concur: "MAPSSS places a high priority on knowing, interpreting and using facts to foster higher order thinking that is required in today’s complex world."

We concur: "MAPSSS seeks a middle ground between 'process' heavy Profiles and the 'basic knowledge' emphasis of the proposed standards."

We concur: "MAPSSS agrees with supporters of the proposed standards that students should study important founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and important amendments including the Bill of Rights."

We concur: "MAPSSS believes the duly elected conservative Governor has a right to select a conservative Commissioner of Education, work with the legislature to repeal the Profiles, and develop a new or revised set of standards. However, MAPSSS is opposed to any standards for all of Minnesota’s students and schools that are politically and ideologically biased like the proposed standards. Any new set of standards must gain acceptance from various places on the political spectrum, and not be vulnerable to changes in voting patterns from administration to administration."

As President John F. Kennedy said, "Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us." All of the public hearing theatrics, minority reports, and vitriolic letters to the editor make for superb political theatre. There are intelligent, informed, capable, committed, passionate, and "mainstream" citizens throughout our state. Imagine what superb academic standards we would have if we could only follow President Kennedy's advice.

Date: October 27, 2003
Subject: Can we reclaim our heritage?

By Paul C. Roberts
TownHall.com

Over the past three decades, our Founding Fathers have fallen on rough times. Disparaged by liberals and slandered by post-modernists and cultural Marxists, their portraits have been removed from public buildings and their presence stricken from textbooks. It is possible today for American students to pass through elementary school and high school, and obtain an university degree without gaining any appreciation for the men who founded their country.

Our country's basic principles and values are under full-scale assault in public schools and universities, and by demagogic politicians, liberal judges, media, entertainment, multiculturalists, post-modernists, Marxists, millions of unassimilated immigrants and minority "leaders" who call everyone but themselves "racists."

Because of identity politics, diversity is not a strength. It is, as Carol Iannone says, "belligerent and full of resentment, forcing us to erase every historical memory and to drive any sense of a collective and particularly American peoplehood out of public life."

Full text here.

Date: October 26, 2003
Subject: Teaching arrogance

Letters to the editor
Star Tribune
October 26, 2003

In response to Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke's claim in her Oct. 19 Op Ex commentary that students "should know about a great nation," I must take issue. As a social studies teacher I would suggest that we teach students the facts of history (without a political or ideological slant) and allow them the right to determine the greatness of our nation.

Sadly these standards, supported by Yecke, will do little more than promote cultural arrogance, while disenfranchising many students.

Peter Woollen, Minneapolis.

Date: October 22, 2003
Subject: MAPSSS myths and facts

On their web site, MAPSSS has clarified who they are and who they are not with a myths-and-facts statement. It appears that we are not so far apart on many substantive issues such as some parts of the standards, curriculum, the value of knowledge, local control, and even the Profile of Learning. We just differ on how to get there — and whether it's possible to get there in the boat we're in now. The Academic Standards committee, Commissioner Yecke, and MDE staff would do well to read and consider the clarifications contained in the MAPSSS myths-and-facts statement. The larger debate may not be as polarized as it has been protrayed.

Date: October 22, 2003
Subject: Dear Teacher

The percentage of those browsing Minnesota Education Reform News from K-12 schools (k12.mn.us domains) has been higher than usual lately. If you are a teacher who opposes the standards process and favors scrapping the whole thing and starting over, I have probably already read your comments on the MAPSSS petition.

As a member of the Academic Standards Committee, I would be interested in your comments if you are a teacher who is supporting the Academic Standards process with constructive criticism, praise, or tacit approval. Please take a moment to sign the new Minnesota Education Reform News guestbook at http://www.antibs.com/gbook/view/11681. You can submit either public or private comments, and the latter will be kept confidential. You may remain anonymous. Thank you.

Date: October 22, 2003
Subject: By the numbers

Academic Standards

Number of pages of general public comment on the draft Social Studies standards: 69-1/2

Number of pages of general public comment on the draft Science standards: 25

Number of Academic Standards public hearings: 14

Number of signatures on the MAPSSS petition: 935

Percentage of parents surveyed who indicated that “to graduate from high school, students should be required to show they understand the common history and ideas that tie all Americans together:" 85%

2002 general election results

Percentage of eligible voters who voted: 62%

Minnesota gubernatorial election results:
Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau, 44.37%
Roger Moe and Julie Sabo, 36.46%

Number of newly-elected DFLers in the Minnesota House of Representatives: 13

Number of newly-elected Republicans in the Minnesota House: 30

Percentage of Minnesota House incumbents re-elected: 90%

Number of DFL House incumbents defeated: 9

Number of Republican House incumbents defeated: 1

Number of freshman DFLers elected to the Senate: 8

Number of freshman Republicans elected to the Senate: 13

Vote to repeal the Profile of Learning and establish the Academic Standards Committee process in the Minnesota House: 125 to 9

Vote to repeal the Profile of Learning and establish the Academic Standards Committee process in the Minnesota Senate: 64 to 3

Date: October 21, 2003
Subject: Letters to the editor

Letters to the editor
Star Tribune
October 12, 2003

Teaching citizenship

I think Jim Davnie got it wrong in his Oct. 5 Op Ex commentary. The new standards will make students in Minnesota schools better citizens. They will understand what it is to be an American after studying the seminal documents of our history. They will no longer be burdened by the multiculturalism that weakens this country by creating citizens that have a polyglot of ideals whether they have value or not.

Loren Piller, Minneapolis.

Time for an amendment

Separation of church and state is one of the most important concepts of American society. Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke's new education standards are a good argument for separation of school and state.

Deb Meagher, Savage

Date: October 20, 2003
Subject: Right-Wing Standards

Opponents of the draft standards claim that "The standards committee was told to draft Minnesota's standards by using five states' standards (i.e., Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Virginia) endorsed by the right-wing conservative Fordham Foundation."

First of all, the citizen members of the standards committee were not "told to draft Minnesota's standards" using anything but what was between their ears.

Second, the opponents conveniently fail to mention the rest of the story: these same state standards in Social Studies were also highly rated by the American Federation of Teachers in their study Making Standards Matter 1999. You know, that "right wing" American Federation of Teachers.

California's and Virginia's History standards were given a grade of B- and A- respectively by Education Week's Quality Counts '99. You know, that "controversial conservative" Education Week magazine.

Finally, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), in their A Technical Guide for Revising or Developing Standards and Benchmarks looked favorably on the Geography standards for Alabama, Kansas, and Arizona and the History standards for all five of the states in question. McREL is the favorite bogeyman of EdWatch (formerly Maple River Education Coalition) for their development and promotion of national standards, School-to-Work, and a planned economy.

Let's look beyond the fear-mongering at all of the facts. There seems to be a growing consensus about what makes good standards, but it's not just among controversial right-wing conservative groups.

Date: October 17, 2003
Subject: Anti-public education?

I received an e-mail from a reader who objected to my characterization of the MAPSSS flyer as "professionally-produced," saying that readers might infer some sort of conspiracy supporting MAPSSS. Let me clarify that what I meant by this is simply that the flyer was very well-written and designed. I am a professional writer and graphic designer, so I recognize good work.

This leads me to a concern of mine, which was again brought to light at this week's Education Minnesota Professional Conference (what many folks still refer to as "MEA weekend"). The debate over the draft standards has seems to have become particularly polarized this time around, with both sides, pro and con, staking out their positions, drawing lines in the sand, pick your metaphor.

One of the sessions at the Education Minnesota conference was Ideology Behind Anti-Public Education Initiatives by Tom Siebold. Some (many?) teachers apparently feel under siege, victims of a conservative conspiracy that is determined to bring an end to public education, and replace it with for-profit and religious-run schools. Siebold is part of what he calls a "resistance movement." His web site is at: http://www.teacherprofessionalism.com/.

For the record, I am an advocate of public education, and for the second time I am serving on my school district's Vote Yes committee for our levy referendum, to the chagrin of my friends at the Taxpayers League. I have two kids in public school and think the world of their principal, teachers, superintendent and school board. Although I cannot speak for them, EdWatch (formerly the Maple River Education Coalition) from what I have seen is not anti-teacher, with many teachers onboard with their agenda, or particularly anti-public education, although there are many private and homeschoolers among them.

The many teachers I met on the Academic Standards Committee are dedicated education professionals, very intelligent, articulate, with a great sense of humor. They deserve the support of Minnesota taxpayers and parent and student "customers."

Let's have a debate on the merits of the issues, and keep it clean. And thanks for holding me accountable.

Date: October 16, 2003
Subject: Loyal opposition

"OK, Mr. Smarty Pants Scholar, so are you saying that we all need to fall in lockstep with the Commissioner and her Governor (and while we're at it, the whole [bleeping] Vast Right Wing Conspiracy??"

No, in this country you are of course free to pursue any lawful course of action. In fact, there are other groups out there who are critical of the draft standards without calling for their repeal in advance of the final draft.

• The Education Minnesota teacher's union is encouraging its members to be "part of the process." From its web site: "Education Minnesota urges teachers to attend one of the regional meetings on Minnesota’s proposed standards for social studies and history – to assure that professional educators are part of the process...The standards are controversial because they focus on heavily on detail and facts – causing some critics to fear that the[y] represent a return [to] 'rote memory' exercises."
  
  
• Like MAPSSS, the grassroots Parents United group says that "High, rigorous standards go beyond rote memorization and recitation of facts and include critical thinking skills..." It has definite ideas about the draft standards, but also urges its members to read the draft and provide feedback to the Academic Standards Committee. It also offers to track whether member comments are integrated into the final version, and suggests sharing comments with the media and others.

Date: MAPSSS: Been there, done that
Subject: October 16, 2003

Page 1 of the flyer being circulated by MAPSSS lists its agenda for Minnesota's new academic standards. Readers of Minnesota Education Reform News will recognize that "it's deja vu all over again:"

What are the goals of MAPSSS?

To propose alternative standards for K-12 history and social studies that:

• Emphasize higher-order critical thinking as a life-long skill required of effective citizens in democracies more than rote memorization — remember trying to decipher the Profile of Learning? Remember wondering, "OK, but what will my child actually know when she graduates from high school?" Why link this skill to "citizens in democracies" instead of "Americans in a Constitutional republic?" Why disparage knowledge? Knowledge and "higher order thinking" are not mutually exclusive; in fact, you can't truly have the latter without the former.



• Integrate expectations that Minnesota students learn how to become active citizens who improve their communities, state, nation, and world — how can you argue against this one, unless in health class our kids start a petition to make your entire town a no-smoking zone, and in social studies class they make NO WAR IN IRAQ signs. Debating the issues of the day should be part of education, but when political activism is taught, whose politics is being activated?



• Reflect and integrate balanced coverage of diverse cultural traditions, historical experiences and environments of each major world region — balance and awareness of other cultures is essential to a broad based education, but why emphasize regions without mentioning nations? Shouldn't Johnny be able to find Bosnia (or Quebec or Missouri) on a map? "Balance" should not come at the expense of understanding our own country. As Diane Ravitch said, "Our ability to defend -- intelligently and thoughtfully -- what we as a nation hold dear depends on our knowledge and understanding of what we hold dear."



• Accurately address ways in which the United States has not always lived up to its founding principles — no argument with this one, as long as this is "balanced" with an accurate understanding of those founding principles — oops, there's that "knowledge thing" again.
  
  
• Help guide teachers in developing and implementing rigorous curriculum and authentic assessments — can you say "Profile of Learning?" Including curriculum and assessments in the state-mandated graduation standards was such a bad idea that it was literally outlawed in the legislation that repealed the Profile: "Academic standards must...not require a specific teaching methodology or curriculum."



• More closely align with national standards — actually, the draft economics and geography standards already align with national standards, and that's a problem!

The Profile of Learning was developed by the education establishment outside the purview of the Legislature and the parents and taxpayers of Minnesota. It conformed to national standards. It was process-oriented and anti-knowledge. We tried these radical standards on our guinea pig kids. There was a referendum on the Profile of Learning. The Profile lost.

Date: October 14, 2003
Subject: Paul Spies and Minnesotans Against Proposed Social Studies Standards (MAPSSS)

Those who reject the new draft academic standards are represented by an organization called Minnesotans Against Proposed Social Studies Standards (MAPSSS). MAPSSS was started by Dr. Paul Spies, who was quoted in the Pioneer Press, "These standards must be rejected. They are too numerous, too Euro-centric and too politically biased."

Spies is on the faculty of Metro State University. In 2001 he was the keynote speaker at the Minnesota State University Moorhead Student Academic Conference. The title of his speech was, "Struggling for Re-Education in Our Multicultural Global Society." According to the MSU-Moorhead web site, "Spies, who holds a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a specialist in multicultural education and school reform issues. He has nearly a decade's experience teaching in urban and suburban high schools where he developed multicultural faculty and student organizations."

Most recently, Spies has been promoting MAPSSS at the Academic Standards Committee public hearings. The group's goals include "to reject adoption and implementation of the proposed state standards for history and social studies" and to propose alternative standards. Toward this end, the group is circulating a petition on its web site. Its web site claims to be a "broad coalition," but most of the over 780 petition signatures appear to be from self-described "teachers" or "educators."

To help justify its case, the web site includes the following lie: "The standards committee was told to draft Minnesota’s standards by using five states’ standards (i.e., Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Virginia) endorsed by the right-wing conservative Fordham Foundation." In fact, these standards were provided for reference only. The committee was given complete ownership of and freedom to write its standards.

The entire approach taken by MAPSSS proves the point that Minnesota students need to learn their country's founding documents, including the Constitution. MAPSSS ignores the fact that the entire Academic Standards process is the product of our Constitutional republic: the elections of 2002 that placed Tim Pawlenty in the governor's office, that increased the Republican majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives, decreased the Democrat majority in the Senate, repealed the Profile of Learning, and established the new Academic Standards process which includes citizen committees, public hearings and legislative oversight. If MAPSSS does not understand the difference between a republic and a democracy, it should refer to Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

With support from Rep. Jim Davnie and others, MAPSSS will be lobbying the Legislature in February 2004 to reject the standards (which they haven't seen yet) and start over, with a MAPSSS-endorsed process that will take a year or more. Given the political nature of their arguments, however, it is difficult to imagine a process that the elites would find acceptable under a Republican governor's administration — unless they completely controlled it. Why can't the public stay out of public education and leave it to the "experts?"

Stay tuned for updates on MAPSSS. In the meantime, please don't take my word for it, visit the MAPSSS web site at: http://mapsss.no-ip.org/.