Date: June 8, 2004
Subject: Ronald Reagan on education

"Schools in America we created at the local level and administered at the local level for many years the greatest public school system in the world. Now through something called federal aid to education, we have something called federal interference, and education has been the loser. Quality has declined as federal intervention has increased. Nothing has created more bitterness, for example, than forced busing to achieve racial balance. It was born of a hope that we could increase understanding and reduce prejudice and antagonism. And I'm sure we all approved of that goal. But busing has failed to achieve the goal. Instead, it has increased the bitterness and animosity it was supposed to reduce. California's Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wilson Riles (himself a Black), says, "The concept that Black children can't learn unless they are sitting with white children is utter and complete nonsense." Well, I agree. The money now being wasted on this social experiment could be better spent to provide the kind of school facilities every child deserves. Forced busing should be ended by legislation if possible by constitutional amendment if necessary. And, control of education should be returned to local school districts." (March 31, 1976)

"In 1983 we seek four major education goals: a quality education initiative to encourage a substantial upgrading of math and science instruction through block grants to the States; establishment of education savings accounts that will give middle- and lower-income families an incentive to save for their children's college education and, at the same time, encourage a real increase in savings for economic growth; passage of tuition tax credits for parents who want to send their children to private or religiously affiliated schools; a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer. God should never have been expelled from America's classrooms in the first place." (State of the Union, 1983)

"Families stand at the center of our society. And every family has a personal stake in promoting excellence in education. Excellence does not begin in Washington. A 600-percent increase in Federal spending on education between 1960 and 1980 was accompanied by a steady decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Excellence must begin in our homes and neighborhood schools, where it's the responsibility of every parent and teacher and the right of every child." (State of the Union, 1984)

"America's schools don't need new spending programs; they need tougher standards, more homework, merit pay for teachers, discipline, and parents back in charge." (CPAC Convention, March 2, 1984)

"Confident in our future, and secure in our values, Americans are striving forward to embrace the future...We see it in the renaissance in education, the rising SAT scores for three years—last year's increase the greatest since 1963. It wasn't government and Washington lobbies that turned education around, it was the American people who, in reaching for excellence, knew to reach back to basics. We must continue the advance by supporting discipline in our schools; vouchers that give parents freedom of choice; and we must give back to our children their lost right to acknowledge God in their classrooms." (State of the Union, 1986)

"As a nation we do, of course, spend heavily on education—more than we spend on defense—yet across our country, governors like New Jersey's Tom Kean are giving classroom demonstrations that how we spend is as important as how much we spend. Opening up the teaching profession to all qualified candidates, merit pay, so that good teachers get A's as well as apples, and stronger curriculum, as Secretary Bennett has proposed for high schools. These imaginative reforms are making common sense the most popular new kid in America's schools.

"How can we help? Well, we can talk about and push for these reforms. But the most important thing we can do is to reaffirm that control of our schools belongs to the states, local communities and, most of all, to the parents and teachers." (State of the Union, 1987)

"Let us apply our ingenuity and remarkable spirit to revolutionize education in America so that everyone among us will have the mental tools to build a better life. And while we do so, let's remember that the most profound education begins in the home." (1992 Republican National Convention)

—Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

Date: June 8, 2004
Subject: Ronald Reagan on U.S. history education

"An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over thirty-five or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

"But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

"So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those thirty seconds over Tokyo meant...If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do."

—Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), Farewell Speech to the Nation, January 11, 1989

Date: June 1, 2004
Subject: Brainwashed

Dennis Prager provides an interesting analysis of those who expose themselves to only one point of view, certainly a concern when composing academic standards:

Virtually every conservative reads a liberal newspaper, watches liberal newscasts, reads liberal magazines, and has been taught in liberal schools by liberal professors. Few liberals have read a conservative newspaper (there are almost none anyway), read a conservative magazine, studied in conservative schools or been taught by a conservative professor (of whom there are also almost none).

So who exactly is more likely to be provincial and ignorant of other ways of thinking? The question is rhetorical. That is why the late distinguished University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom wrote his best-selling "The Closing of the American Mind," not about religious or conservative America but about secular liberal America as embodied in its temple, the university.

That also helps explain why the secular Left (not yet a redundant phrase, but getting there) so often hurls epithets -- "racist" (for opposing affirmative action), "homophobe" (for opposing the redefinition of marriage), "sexist" (for opposing medically unnecessary abortions) -- instead of offering reasoned responses.

As befits a person who has almost never been exposed to opposing ways of thinking, sustained argument is not possible.

Just as many liberals and secularists can only imagine a religious person being brainwashed, not a liberal or a secular one, they likewise can only imagine religious extremism, never secular extremism. One can easily be too religious, but never too secular. Yet, we have far more secular extremism than religious extremism in our society.

The ACLU is one such example. The organization recently threatened to sue the National Park Service over two little plaques at the Grand Canyon that had Psalms written on them. That most Americans do not consider a lawsuit over something so trivial a manifestation of extremism only proves how effective the secular brainwash is.

Date: May 28, 2004
Subject: Governor praises new standards, Yecke

The office of Governor Tim Pawlenty issued this press release on Wednesday:

Roseville -- Governor Tim Pawlenty today signed into law a bill that puts in place new academic standards for science and social studies, praising former Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke for turning a major challenge into results. The new standards represent a compromise between the House and Senate versions and turned out to be one of the few accomplishments of the 2004 legislative session.

"When I asked Dr. Yecke to move home to Minnesota to lead our administration's education reform efforts, the number one challenge I laid out was to repeal the Profile of Learning and replace it with real standards," said Governor Pawlenty. "Some might say that it was the enormity of the task that made her the target of such bitter partisanship. We all can stand here today with Dr. Yecke, heads held high, proud of this major accomplishment for Minnesota."

Governor Pawlenty pointed out that Commissioner Yecke brought educators together to forge a compromise between the two different social studies documents before the DFL-controlled Senate removed her from office.

"These new standards reflect the hard work of many people and represent a giant step toward higher academic achievement," said Governor Pawlenty. "When joined with our new standards in math and reading, Minnesota has completed the transition to rigorous, grade specific standard-based instruction."

The science standards included in the bill were identical to those created by a citizen committee appointed by Commissioner Yecke and approved by the Minnesota Senate. School districts have until the 2005-06 school year to transition to the new science and social studies standards.

New tests based on the science standards will be implemented in order to comply with the requirements of No Child Left Behind. There will be no statewide test for social studies.

"I am proud of the open process we used to create these standards for Minnesota's schools," added Dr. Yecke. "Involving parents and educators in the development of the standards gives us the confidence they will be right for students for years to come."

Date: May 28, 2004
Subject: Ideological bickering

At the apparent mirror image of Scholar's Notebook, the MinnBEST blog, I noticed this statement in a recent entry:

"Private schools are a drain on the resources of the public schools. They are subsidized by the public and we have nothing to show for our investment. Providence academy and these new religious schools seem to be producing nothing but arrogance."

This was posted in response to some unflattering comments about education activist Wendy Swanson-Choi that were posted by Ben Blackhawk of Providence Academy on the SCSU-Scholars blog.

I for one hope that the Internet can be used to increase understanding between the education stakeholders (including parents, teachers, legislators, taxpayers, homeschoolers, private schoolers) and advance the state of education in Minnesota, rather than merely increase the speed and efficiency of ideological bickering.

Toward this end I have invited folks from these stakeholder groups to comment on the newly-passed Minnesota science and social studies academic standards. You have already read EdWatch's comments in this blog. Michael Boucher from MinnBEST has agreed to participate. I will share others' comments with you in the future. I hope that they will focus on the merits of the standards and in so doing help the rest of us start to make some sense of how they will affect our kids.

Date: May 27, 2004
Subject: New Standards: Improvement over the Profile but still flawed

EdWatch issued the following press release, which contains reactions to the new standards from EdWatch board members.

(SAINT PAUL, MN) EdWatch, Minnesota's largest parent/citizen education advocacy group, stated that the new social studies standards that were passed by the legislature on May 16th are an improvement over the Profile of Learning, but they remain deeply flawed.

"The new standards improve on the Profile of Learning in some important ways," stated Renee Doyle, EdWatch Board member, and former school board member. "They represent a noteworthy step forward. Unfortunately," she added, "they are also a tremendous disappointment." EdWatch has spearheaded public opposition to the Profile of Learning since 1998 when it was fully implemented in Minnesota. The group has been an outspoken advocate of knowledge-based academic standards on behalf of thousands of Minnesota
citizens.

Michael Chapman, EdWatch board member, noted that the new standards, while flawed in areas, at least expect students to know a few important facts about our own government. "We're somewhat encouraged to see that inalienable rights and self-evident truth, for example, are included as founding principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence," he stated. "Students will also learn that the United States is primarily a free market economy," Chapman continued, "and that protecting property rights is a primary role of government. These are important education goals for maintaining liberty."

EdWatch remains critical of the total package, however. "The newly adopted standards primarily use the framework of Sen. Steve Kelley," said Julie Quist, Vice President of EdWatch. "The Kelley standards never moved very far from the old Profile standards which were rejected by both the public and the legislature." She said. "The new standards adopted by the legislature make no requirement that schools teach national sovereignty, ignore the central role of Western civilization in our history, and focus on the negatives about America," she stated. She described the standards as an opportunity largely missed.

Doyle also described the process as flawed. "The open process involving the citizens of Minnesota was abandoned," she said. "The Kelley standards were written by a few University of Minnesota professors and social studies teachers behind closed doors, The so-called 'blended standards' were written the same way," she said. "The adoption of these standards, unfortunately, attempted to protect the confirmation of the Education Commissioner, Cheri Pierson Yecke. By using the Kelley framework, legislators hoped to appease the radical education elite. In the end," Doyle concluded, "they lost both good standards and a good Commissioner."

Date: May 21, 2004
Subject: EdWatch appraises new standards

Excerpted from an update to EdWatch members:

A futile effort to appease Sen. Kelley's angry political base produced a new set of flawed social studies standards that were crafted in secret by curriculum directors, bureaucrats and so-called "experts" who support the radical federal curriculum. Sen. Kelley's strategy of tying the Commissioner up in politically motivated confirmation hearings effectively sidelined her from the process for weeks. Without a shepherd, the citizen standards were orphaned.

The new science and social studies standards passed both the House and the Senate in the last hour before the final session adjourned. No time remained for lawmakers to read or debate them.

In spite of their flaws, however, the new social studies standards improve on the Profile of Learning in a number of important ways. Since the old Profile standards are currently integrated throughout the public school curriculum, most notably in language arts, the passage of these new standards represents a minimal, but noteworthy, improvement.

The problems remaining in Minnesota's social studies standards, however, are considerable. They adopt the framework from the radical Kelley standards, which we have vigorously opposed.

The newly adopted science standards do NOT include in the life sciences that students will study the full range of scientific evidence related to controversial issues such as evolution, in spite of almost universal public expectation that this information should be taught.

Most revealing was Sen. Kelley's absolute refusal to include national sovereignty as one of the founding principles of our country. National sovereignty is included as mere examples twice, neither time in a positive light.

Finally, the process by which the "compromise" was adopted is disturbing. The final language was assembled in complete secrecy by a team who were obviously in sympathy with the radical approach to social studies.

The "compromise" was distributed Saturday afternoon to conference committee members and to others present; then the committee adjourned. The final version was accepted by the conference committee in a hastily called meeting in the wee hours of Sunday morning. Those of us standing vigil all night were not even informed of the meeting.

A few hours later, and minutes before final adjournment, the Senate adopted the entire education bill. Senator Bachmann pleaded to see a copy of the standards before the final vote. She was not recognized to debate them.

Critics claimed the Commissioner didn't listen to their complaints, a totally false charge. In the end, it was the radicals who bludgeoned through standards compiled by a one-sided, handpicked few who disregarded the intense desire of Minnesota parents and taxpayers for standards that pass on the knowledge of our freedom to the next generation.

Date: May 21, 2004
Subject: Taking the "public" out of "public education"

J. E. Stone, Ed. D.
Education Consumers ClearingHouse & Consultants Network
www.education-consumers.com

If anyone wonders why regulation of the public schools by state education agencies has done so little to promote the kind of changes wanted by the public, they should consider what happened to Minnesota's Cheri Pierson Yecke.

She was well qualified and experienced, and she was trashed—primarily by educators—for siding with the parent and taxpayer critics of the public school curriculum.

"[Senator Steve] Kelley whose Education Committee recommended Yecke's firing last month, argued that the commissioner had split the state's education community of parents and educators into two warring camps." (Star Tribune, "Senate fires Yecke," May 17, 2004.)

Yes, but wasn't it the job of Yecke's agency to set directions for the schools and to hold them accountable to the public—and not vice versa?

It can be argued that her curricular views were biased, but bias is a relative matter. As all post-modernists know, the question is, "whose bias?"

The real issue in her downfall was that she shared the biases of parents and the lay public, and she opposed the biases favored by educators.

Had she gone along with the curricular preferences of Minnesota's education establishment, she would have been welcomed and affirmed.

So if the education establishment is able to exercise that much control over the choice of a state education agency's leadership, is it realistic to expect that that agency will be able to lead education in the direction wanted by the public?

The object lesson is clear. Congress, governors, legislators, and school board members are free to enact all of the reform policies they would like so long as implementation and enforcement remain in the hands of a captive agency.

Date: May 21, 2004
Subject: Minnesota's loss

THE EDUCATION GADFLY
A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
http://www.edexcellence.net
Volume 4, Number 20. May 20, 2004

Minnesota's loss
By Chester E. Finn, Jr.

Minnesota is a diminished place this week, Cheri Pierson Yecke having been rejected (by the state Senate, on a straight party-line vote of 35-31) as commissioner of education. Her sin was being an educator of strong principle who would not bend to expediency and whose concern for the state's children overrode the temptation to pander to adult interests. By which I mean not just the teacher unions but also the sizable band of frenzied ideologues that populates the education system of the Land of 10,000 Lakes. She stoutly supported high standards, rigorous and substantive content (especially bona fide history), school choice, and results-based accountability. Educators balked. And by targeting her, Minnesota's faltering DFL party was able to score a rare victory over GOP governor Tim Pawlenty—evidently, a higher priority than closing the state's $160 million budget gap. Having dispatched Yecke, the legislature adjourned for the year. Dr. Yecke will live to fight another day, perhaps in another place. She's one of the all-too-rare human treasures of American education. It's Minnesota that will suffer from her (temporary) eclipse.

Date: May 16, 2004
Subject: DFL terminates Commissioner Yecke

The following statement was issued by Governor Tim Pawlenty today:

"In the dark of night, the Democrats in the Minnesota Senate have done a great disservice to our state. By rejecting Commissioner Yecke on a party line vote, they have rejected innovation and accountability for our education system. My disappointment in their action and the loss to our state is deep and profound.

"The DFL and other defenders of the status quo must know that their action this morning will not change our reform-focused mission for education — nor our confidence and respect for Dr. Yecke."