Date: December 16, 2003
Subject: Civic Virtue

The writing committees for the Academic Standards are wrapping up their work. In the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Paul Spies of MAPSSS said that the standards should be pronounced "dead on arrival" at the legislature. Julie Quist of EdWatch was interviewed but was not mentioned in John Welsh's article. Again, the Department of Education was portrayed as the standards' lonely only defenders.

An article in a recent issue of Education Next makes the case against teaching civic virtue in the schools, however it is defined by conservatives or liberals. Schools, the writer asserts, should be left do doing what they do best -- teaching knowledge and skills. I urge you to read it.

I'll hide my ideology if you hide yours. Unfortunately, it is likely to be a battle royale of ideologies and worldviews as the standards drafts move to the most partisan place in the state next month: the Legislature.

Click here for a formatted version of the expert review comments from the previous post below.

The writing committees and the Commissioner are due to release their final draft tomorrow or Thursday. Stay tuned.

Date: December 4, 2003
Subject: Thoughtful praise for the draft standards

During this lull in the targeted attacks on individual committee members and Commissioner Yecke, I thought it would be useful to return our attention to the draft itself and review some of the comments from the expert reviews:

"Overall I believe the Minnesota standards are outstanding, among the best that I have seen in reviewing many state documents. This is true for a number of reasons. First of all, any state standards should clearly delineate what is most important for students to know as future citizens in American democracy… Moreover, the draft is balanced and inclusive, and provides a ‘warts and all’ approach that covers the negative as well as the positive aspects of American history…The standards also thoroughly examine social and cultural history, geography, economics, civics and government, as well as political and intellectual history and ideas."

John Fonte, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

"…it is fair to say that [the draft standards] ask that students know more, certainly more in terms of detailed knowledge than does the current scheme, Profile of Learning. I am sympathetic to the new approach, largely because it does ask that students have some fact base upon which to frame their conceptual understanding. It is hard to argue, for example, about the correctness of civil disobedience, if you don’t know something about the life and times of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The trend across the country, moreover, seems to be mostly in the direction you are headed, but not without controversy. Clearly, the struggle is not to let the standards debate be tyrannized by dichotomies, with facts vs. thinking…On balance, I would give you high marks for having made real progress in that regard."

Kermit L. Hall, President and Professor of History, Utah State University

"These are the first standards I have been asked to review about which I had no major concerns. In both American and world history, in geography, and in economics they are easily the best standards I have ever seen. They will be a model for the nation."

Dr. Jerry L. Martin, Chairman, American Council of Trustees and Alumni

"If Minnesota adopts the new standards in something like their current form, it will be a huge step forward for teaching children in the state about the USA and other major civilizations of the world."

Diane Ravitch, Research Professor of Education at New York University

"I applaud you and your department for moving toward content-based standards…One could argue that defining standards in this way leaves no scope for critical thinking, for showing students that the facts we often take for granted are not so factual after all. This was the view of some of my History Department colleagues…My sense is that we have gone too far in this direction already, so that we get incoming students who are quite ready to question whatever they are told, which is fine as far as it goes, except that they themselves sometimes seem to know almost nothing that is worthy of being questioned. Thus instead of showing high school graduates that things are not as simple as they may think – the college teacher’s role – we have to spend time showing them what they should have learned at a lower level, so as to put question marks around it. In sum, it’s past time for a strong push in terms of standards that have recognizeably to do with History and Geography, time and space."

James D. Tracy, Department of History, University of Minnesota

The full text of these reviews, as well as the Science draft reviews, are available on the Minnesota Department of Education web site.

Date: December 2, 2003
Subject: As Seen in City Pages

For about a week after I was mentioned in the November 12 City Pages, hits to the Minnesota Education Reform News web site (including this blog) went up significantly, but they have since died down to normal levels.

In case you missed it, the article by Britt Robson, "Cooking the books," is a fine example of liberal reporting. The headline is a clever play on words (as I writer myself I appreciate a good pun), with the subtitle "Right-wingers divine new education standards." "Right-wingers" is a good emotionally-charged choice of words, which he repeats in the article. I am not sure why the verb "divine" was chosen: Webster defines it as "to discover intuitively," "to discover or locate (as water or minerals underground) usually by means of a divining rod," or ": "to practice divination : PROPHESY; to perceive intuitively."

Next Robinson says that the committee was chosen by the Department of Education to "concoct" the standards. He continues, "It was hard to pick the most egregiously right-wing standard set by the committee."

"Was it that all seventh-grade students are to know the significance of the four references to God in the Declaration of Independence?"

Why is this a right-wing standard? There are four references to God in the Declaration of Independence, that's a fact.

"Or maybe that first-graders must understand the definition of 'opportunity cost'? Entrepreneurship is cited in the standards more than three times as often as anything regarding the nation's labor movement."

Aren't there any liberal entrepreneurs?

"The Declaration of Independence is erroneously referred to as "the founding document that sets forth the principles for our nation" (that would be the Constitution)..."

There's that pesky Declaration of Independence again (see previous blog entry).

"...and the committee claims that the framers of the Constitution 'secured the equal rights of all citizens' (which would have been news to women and slaves, among others). "

Has the United States always lived up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitiution? No, but they did establish the rights that made possible women's suffrage, equal employment opportunity, the civil rights movement, the end of slavery, and many other protections available in America first. Remember the 1989 reading of the Declaration in Beijing's Tiananmen Square? Is this merely right-wing spin?

"How were these and countless other claims outside the political mainstream approved?"

Actually, it's still a draft document that will not be submitted for "approval" until the Legislature convenes in February. How do you define "the political mainstream?" By looking who won the 2002 elections? Good attempt to marginalize the draft.

"The composition of the committee reflected the political bias of Yecke—who has ties to the Bush administration—and the [Fordham] foundation."

Yes, the committee was appointed by the Commissioner of Education, who was herself appointed by the governor to implement his education agenda. The larger point is, the process implemented by the commissioner is the most public in state education history, one that has made the ongoing public debate — in public hearings, newspapers, talk radio, and web sites — possible. It would have been so much simpler to implement new standards in administrative rule and leave the public out of the process. There has been and will continue to be so much public and legislative oversight in this process that the final product cannot help but reflect what the majority of Minnesotans want.

"...those concerned about a right-wing takeover of classroom learning should pay attention."

Funny, I don't remember CP sounding the alarm about the left-wing takeover of public education.

"Someone really is after us... (the NEA and its affiliates) have been singled out because of our political power and effectiveness at all levels -- because we have the ability to help implement the type of liberal social and economic agenda that (they) find unacceptable."

—Robert H. Chanin, National Education Association general counsel

Keep those cards and letters to the editor coming. We won't always agree, but at the end of the day we will create standards of which we can all be proud. As President John F. Kennedy said, "Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us."

Date: December 1, 2003
Subject: America's Divorce Document

Liberals have signaled where one of the battle lines for the Social Studies standards will be drawn: the Declaration of Independence. Expect the talking points to portray the Declaration as nothing more than a "separation document" or "divorce decree," while the U.S. Constitution is portrayed as the "true" foundational document of our country.

Is there more at stake here than an esoteric, scholarly debate?

The Declaration technically has "no legal standing," as state Senator Steve Kelley declared in the Senate chamber last spring. Unfortunately for liberals, this also means that the Declaration is not open to "interpretation" by the courts, and therefore cannot "evolve" or be changed by judicial activism or amendment.

The Declaration of Independence contains the foundational principles of the United States. These principles are included in the current draft of the Government and Civics standards. Those who disagree with these principles have a strong interest in deemphasizing the Declaration in favor of the Constitution.

As with memorization and higher order thinking skills, Western culture and world cultures, the greatness of America and her warts, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are obviously not mutually exclusive. Students need to know and understand both documents, and they both belong in the Government and Civics standards.