Education and the government

Thanks to the couple of hundred of you who clicked through to my post, "Minnesota: The Nanny State?" from this week's Carnival of Education. Y'all come back now.

We can quibble over the merits of certain legislation, the details of which change during the journey from committee to committee to floor vote, and even again during implementation by the various bureaucracies. Perhaps a better focus for this forum would be these questions:

1. What is the purpose of education?
2. What is government's proper role in education?

This Friday's Fun Fact: if you Google "minnesota education blog," Scholar's Notebook appears at the top of the list. At least it does today.

Have a good weekend and listen to NARN tomorrow (available on broadcast or webcast, but not podcast).

EDUCATION

Minnesota: The Nanny State?

"If government could create jobs and raise children, socialism would have worked." --George Gilder

It's tough to make a case against early childhood and family education (ECFE) programs. Who could be against helping parents to raise their children? After all, it takes a village to raise a child, right? Or does it take a family?

There is a tall stack of ECFE bills pending at the Minnesota Legislature that I hope will never see the light of day. Some will make it out of committee and become blended into the omnibus education bill, a (necessary?) evil of the legislative process that packages the good, the bad, and the ugly for a single vote.

So are children members of a family or wards of the state? Liberty or equality? Equal opportunity or equal outocomes? Governor Pawlenty and legislators from both sides of the aisle increasingly favor less liberty and more expensive and intrusive government programs in education, and now, child rearing. Parents, are you listening?

Socialist societies refer to this approach as a "cradle to grave" system, meaning that citizens are required to participate in (i.e., become dependent on and accountable to) government programs for their entire lives. The system is based on the idea that the people don't know best, but "non-governmental organizations" (NGOs) that are unaccountable to regular citizens do.

For example, take the governor's Early Learning Standards, which are at the core of the "nanny state" system. According to EdWatch, "They are primarily state-defined social and emotional outcomes for kids that are deliberately vague, subjective, non-academic, and psychosocial."

EdWatch lists the following legislation of concern:

• Government-required curriculum for all children, birth through four - controversial Early Learning "Standards" (Curriculum) of social and emotional indoctrination that teach the political agendas of gender identity, diversity training, vocations, environmentalism, and social activism. [SF 592 Kierlin; Kubly; Robling; Scheid; Pappas, and SF 1278 / HF 1323 - The Governor's bill]


• Tests ("screening") of all children for compliance with the required government curriculum at least once by age three, [SF 906, Kelley; Wergin; Sparks; Nienow; Pappas], including mental health testing, [SF 1365 (Tomassoni; Solon; Hottinger; Anderson / HF 1513 Greiling; Goodwin; Abeler; Slawik and SF 905 Kubly; Hottinger; Kierlin; Pappas; Scheid], and assigning a Child ID. [S.F. 1278 / HF 1323 - the Governor's bill, and S.F. 1853 Wergin]


• A preschool rating system of public and private child care centers based on the required government curriculum that endangers private and religious options. [SF 592. See above for authors.]


• A transfer of elected authority to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that are unaccountable to the voters. [SF 907 / HF 1419]

Liberty (censored). Relax parents, just breed 'em and feed 'em! The State of Minnesota will take care of the rest!

I find it amazing that a people who on the one hand enjoy an unprecedented level of personal liberty are on the other hand working so hard to give it away.

Perhaps it is time for the state to recycle the cover image of a 1999 brochure published by the Department of Children, Families, and Learning (a statement in itself, currently called the Department of Education), entitled "Their Minds are in Our Hands." At the time it was a Freudian slip that was pointed to by alarmed conservatives shouting "See!?" Today it seems to be turning into a talking point for elected DFLers and Republicans alike.

EDUCATION

American Heritage update

It's getting late in the session and I wish that I could find a way to lurk around the Capitol, pester frazzled legislators, live blog from committee hearings, wear out my shoes (and feet) walking between the Capitol and the State Office Building, chat up the legislative assistants, catch a glimpse of TV reporters like Mary Lahammer or Tom Hauser waiting to be put on the air, make a Department of Education contact outside the House chamber, et cetera, without taking a vacation day to do it.

For example, by having a good-paying day job, I missed seeing Senate Education Committee chairman Sen. Steve Kelley (DFL-Hopkins) chop this key paragraph from the American Heritage in Minnesota Public Schools Act (SF1137):

Districts may not censor or restrain appropriate instruction in American or Minnesota state history or heritage based on religious references in documents, writings, speeches, proclamations, or records described under paragraph (a).

In God We Trust (censored).

It almost makes you want to go see sausage being made. The House Education Policy and Reform Committee's version of this bill (HF867), by the way, was referred out to the House Education Finance Committee with this paragraph intact.

Oh, well, I'll let my fingers do the walking and contact a Senator or two by phone today. It's the next best thing to being there. To find your Senator and research these and other bills: go to MinnesotaVotes.org. For example, Sen. Kelley's office number is 651-297-8065.

EDUCATION

Statistics

On my weekly stroll through the Carnival of Education at The Education Wonks blog, Kimberly Swygert over at the Number 2 Pencil blog informed us of a provocative study that challenges the assumption that private schools do a better job than public schools -- at least if you look at the NAEP math scores in a certain way.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - Students do better in private schools, according to common wisdom -- and some well-regarded data now more than two decades old.

But a recent study of standardized math scores in more than 1,300 public and private schools says the opposite may be true, according to Sarah and Christopher Lubienski, education professors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Public school students from similar social and economic backgrounds tested higher in a national math achievement test than their peers in private schools, the Lubienskis say in an article to be published in the May issue of Phi Delta Kappan, an influential education journal.

They also are presenting their findings at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), being held April 11-15 in Montreal.

"These results call into question common assumptions about public and private school effects, and highlight the importance of carefully considering socioeconomic differences in comparisons of school achievement," the Lubienskis wrote.

The achievement and survey data used in the researchers' study came from the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the most recent annual assessment for which raw data were available to researchers.

"These results are significant because all the most prominent reforms right now assume that private schools do better, and that if you take a disadvantaged kid and give that kid an option to go to a private school, that will boost their achievement," [Christopher Lubienski] said.

The research at least provides grounds to question that assumption, especially since the data upon which it is based is more than two decades old, he said.

"We can't make claims about the effects of schools on individual students," Chris Lubienski said, "but there's reason here to question the overall assumptions behind a lot of the private-market choice proposals being promoted right now."

Full text: http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/05/0407school.html

Whoa Nelly!

Helpfully, Kimberly illustrates Dr. Lawrence Gray's statement that "all data are suspect, especially data used to sell something." Kimberly explains how something called Simpson's Paradox can turn the results of studies such as this on its head, depending on how the subjects in the study are grouped (for example, by socioeconomic status).

It's also interesting to note that this research was based on the results of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) tests, a.k.a. "The Nation's Report Card," which assesses how well schools are toeing the line of federally-supported methods and curricula such as integrated math, which is accepted more widely in public schools than in private schools.

Check out the comments to Kimberly's post, too. Two examples:

Much like politics, all education is local. General statements that public or private are better are pretty meaningless. What is relevent as a parent is what public school my child would attend and what private school alternatives exist.

and

...the article studied "standardized math scores". They refer to the NAEP test, which is very trivial. They also refer to "average math achievement scores", but do not elaborate. There are distinct problems with using an average number for simple tests. What does an average value mean when the top end of the bell curve is chopped off (a different shape)? I had many professors in college that always made sure that the tests were hard enough to keep the average in the 60's.

The results could mean that private schools aren't great; public schools are worse, and parents make up for a lot at home.

We will need help from some impartial statisticians when the Wayzata School District surveys its graduates about the effectiveness of its Chicago Math-Connected Math-Core Plus Math track. Parents, stay involved with your kids' education, and watch out for statistics.

EDUCATION

America in your pocket

The philosophy of the schoolhouse in this generation is the philosophy of the government in the next generation. --attributed to Abraham Lincoln

Take away the heritage of a people, and they are easily persuaded. --Karl Marx

Both Marx and Lincoln recognized the transformational power of public schools. In the United States, the public schools have been used to educate all Americans so that they might perpetuate their self-government and pursue their dreams.

Here in Minnesota, state Rep. Mark Olson (R-Big Lake) has authored the American Heritage Education in Minnesota Public Schools Act (HF867; Sen. Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater) is carrying the companion SF1137 in the Senate). This bill has passed the House repeatedly over the years, but has always been stopped by the DFL-controlled Senate. After a hearing in the Senate Education committee, the bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus education bill. This week, the bill was passed out of the House Education Policy and Reform Committee and referred to the House K-12 Education Finance Committee.

One may question, as Senate Education Committee chairman Sen. Steve Kelley (D-Hopkins) did in his hearing, is this bill really necessary?

MinnBEST says:

The answer is no, but only thanks to the citizens who stood up to the Maple River Coalition and Bachmann last year. The MRC wanted to ignore that pesky document called the CONSTITUTION. They are also not crazy about the 1st Amendment.

To say that EdWatch or its members "ignore" the Constitution or dislike the First Amendment would be libelous if it wasn't laughable.

The answer still may be no. Craig Westover says:

NCLB (which did create awareness of the achievement gap, a good thing) and the Minnesota Standards (which I think are pretty good) shouldn't be imposed on public schools precisely for the reasons that public schools are griping about -- they are under-funded, create additional costs, they force schools to react rather than innovate, they create an atmosphere of tension and teaching to the test instead of teaching for knowledge.

Yet the House and Senate committees heard some compelling testimony in support of the Olson bill, having to do with the censoring of our nation's heritage.

The Olson bill doesn't mandate anything, it empowers school districts and teachers with the option to use several original source founding documents in the public schools, even when they have Christian references. Many schools would rather censor our nation's heritage than risk being sued by the ACLU or atheists. The bill's purpose is not to endorse or proselytize, but to empower public schools to teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about American history:

Districts may not censor or restrain instruction in American or Minnesota state history or heritage based on religious references in original source documents, writings, speeches, proclamations, or records described under paragraph (a). These and any other materials must be used for educational purposes and not to establish any religion.

(c) Students may voluntarily choose to read, write, share, report, or otherwise study a topic which is religious in nature provided other students are provided with the same opportunity to freely choose a topic.

Consider what Dennis Prager said on the November 1, 2004 edition of the Tavis Smiley program:

Is America exceptional, or is it not? Is America a Judeo-Christian society, or is it to be a secular European society? And is equality going to trump freedom, liberty?

When I talk to kids, and adults, for that matter, I say if you want to understand the United States, take out a coin. From many, one. E Pluribus Unum. Liberty. And In God We Trust. No country has that trinity, as it were. Do you want America to be more like Sweden and France, and I don't say this pejoratively. Or do you want America to be exceptional as it has been. That's the battle. It's a profound battle for the soul of this country, and that's why we're all this animated as we are.

If the purpose of education is to preserve our system of self-government and to empower our young people with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then this bill deserves a thoughtful debate.

The overarching principles of our country can be summed up in a nutshell, or in one's pocket, with these three ideals. One could spend five years making them the guiding ideals for education reform and the legislative agenda — which is precisely what I have been doing.

EDUCATION

The clutches of the marketplace

I am glad that the folks at the U, alumni, and the community have apparently placed Minnesota Football on its way back to the East Bank campus. But some are raising eyebrows at the major role being played by a private company.

On the one hand, the Star Tribune editorial board says that "Minnesota owes thanks to TCF Chairman Bill Cooper for jump-starting the stadium effort with his company's $35 million pledge."

On the other hand, it bemoans the unattainability of a utopian ideal Saturday afternoon college football game, unsoiled by the free markets that built, for example, the Star Tribune:

"But, as with nearly every aspect of modern life, the ideal must slide over to make room for commercial reality. College football is an immensely popular enterprise, and nothing popular can nowadays escape the clutches of the marketplace."

It's tough for some to acknowledge that anything good could come from the "clutches" of free markets, entrepreneurs like Bill Cooper, and capitalism -- even for those who rely on the same to put bread on their tables.

ECONOMY