New social studies standards nearing completion

According to a January 12 e-mail update from the Minnesota Center for Social Studies Education (CSSE), the latest revision of Minnesota's K-12 academic standards in social studies is nearing completion:

The state K-12 social studies standards are in the final phase of revision, with an estimated completion date of mid-February or sooner. The CSSE will send an e-blast as soon as the final draft of the standards is posted on the Minnesota Department of Education website.

The CSSE has received many questions about the possibility of delaying the implementation date. At this point, there has been no legislative action to delay the implementation of the new standards. Therefore, the implementation timeline remains in place and the newly revised social studies standards must be implemented no later than the 2013-2014 school year.

There will be a session on the new standards at the Minnesota Council for the Social Studies Conference on March 5 in St. Cloud. Please join us if you would like to spend some time "digging in" to the new standards with other teachers and curriculum coordinators!

There will also be multiple opportunities for training on the new standards this summer through the Minnesota Department of Education and Minnesota's social studies organizations.

The current standard for history and social studies was created to replace the Profile of Learning in 2004-2005. It was created with an unprecedented level of public input in a relatively short period of time, including public hearings that at times devolved into politically-charged shouting matches. The 2004 standards had plenty of room for improvement (earning only a grade of C from the Fordham Foundation), so after Minnesota schools lived with them for several years and a rigorous and public revision process was conducted, I am anxious to hear what teachers and outside experts have to say next month after the new standards are released.

Are the winds of educational freedom blowing towards Congress?

By Karen Effrem

With the rise of TEA party movement and general voter anger at the overspending and the strangling control the federal government into more and more aspects of our lives, it was quite encouraging to read a lengthy analysis on EducationNews.org of where federal education policy is headed that included an interview of Congressman John Kline (R-MN2).

Rep. Kline is currently the ranking Republican on the US House Education and Workforce Committee. If the currently predicted Republican landslide in the US House occurs in the November midterm election, then he could well be chairman of that all-important committee and will be very influential in federal education policy. This would include how No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will be reauthorized and what will happen with the Race to the Top initiative started by the Obama administration after passage of the stimulus bill. Here are some excerpts from his remarks.

National Standards: EdWatch has warned since July of 2009 about the dangers of the Common Core Standards initiative as an effort to impose radical national/international standards on the states that will do nothing to improve student academic achievement. (Legislative testimony is available here.) The Obama administration‘s blueprint for the reauthorization of NCLB even called for tying the receipt of federal Title I money to acceptance of these Common Core Standards. Rep. Kline opposes that concept:

For instance, Rep. Kline casts a wary eye on the federal role in championing the Common Core State Standards Initiative. That effort, which resulted in the creation of reading and mathematics standards that so far have been adopted by nearly 40 states, was state-led, through the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.

Rep. Kline has no problem with, for instance, Minnesota and Wisconsin getting together and coming up with their own set of more-rigorous academic standards. But the federal incentives for adopting the common-core standards make him—and many of his fellow House Republicans—uneasy, he said. [Emphasis added]

States that competed for a slice of the $4 billion in federal Race to the Top grants got extra points for their participation in the common-standards venture. And, in his blueprint for an ESEA renewal, Secretary Duncan proposed tying the Title I grants given to districts to help disadvantaged students to states’ adoption of either the common-core standards or to college- and career-readiness standards developed with state institutions of higher education.

“We’re watching this very closely,” Rep. Kline said of the standards push. “If we are, in fact, putting in a de facto national curriculum, my caucus will rebel. I’m very leery when [the action] shifts over to the U.S. Department of Education providing either rewards or punishment” for adopting certain standards. “That’s dangerous,” he said.

National Tests: Rep. Kline had similar views when discussing national tests promoted by both the Common Core Standards initiative and the Race to the Top program.

Rep. Kline also has qualms about the administration’s $350 million program aimed at helping states craft common assessments, funded with Race to the Top money. He wants to ensure that it doesn’t lead to Education Department involvement in creating the tests.

Continuing the Race to the Top: Fortunately there seems to be little enthusiasm among Republicans for this.

The Obama administration also asked for $1.35 billion in the fiscal 2011 budget to continue the Race to the Top program for an additional year and extend grant eligibility from states to school districts; Rep. Kline said he wouldn’t support that plan. He thinks the program was too rigid and imposed federal policy preferences on states.

“This is the U.S. Department of Education putting [out its] view of what needs to be done. ... It’s not the states deciding. It’s not local control,” he said.

Stimulus Money to Stabilize State Education Budgets: Rep. Kline and the Republicans uniformly opposed the stimulus bill.

The former Marine colonel and helicopter pilot said he wouldn’t be likely to support the provision of more money to help steady state and district finances, since he doesn’t think the $100 billion provided for education under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2009 stimulus law, helped the economy.

US Senate: The article also mentioned two Republican US Senate candidates, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Joe Miller of Alaska who have called for the abolition of the US Department of Education. Given that academic achievement, freedom, and state sovereignty have done nothing but suffer since its creation during the Carter administration, lots of support would certainly exist for that idea.

As the campaign continues, please encourage candidates for Congress that understand how important it is to dismantle the federal leviathan in education, that there is no proper role for the federal government in education in the US Constitution, and that the power to set education policy must be returned to where it belongs, to the states and to the people.

Karen Effrem is director of government relations for EdWatch.

Tim Pawenty: Education Governor, 2010

I started this blog in 2003 when I was appointed to Governor Tim Pawlenty's Academic Standards Committee, under the leadership of then-Education commissioner Cheri Pierson-Yecke. That newly-appointed Commissioner Yecke restored her department's name to Education from the "Department of Children, Families, and Learning," and replaced the fuzzy, process-oriented Profile of Learning with the more knowledge-oriented state academic standards, is a testament to the sweeping, high-velocity changes made possible by the 2002 elections. In 2002, Pawlenty beat DFL candidate Roger Moe by eight points, with 80 percent of Minnesotans voting. Republicans held an 82-52 majority in the state House, while the DFL held a slim 35-31 majority in the Senate. Since then I have documented on this blog Pawlenty's persistent advocacy for meaningful education reforms.

Under a year to the end of his administration, Pawlenty this week unveiled another sweeping education reform agenda. Some of his initiatives are new, some are dusted off from previous legislative sessions, and some are being touted by the governor as an attempt to attract federal education funds, but all are consistent with his ongoing commitment to innovative education reforms. They include:

Expanded Q Comp Minnesota's Quality Compensation for Teachers — Pawlenty's signature education reform includes professional development, teacher evaluations, and a performance-based alternative pay system. In 2010, Pawlenty proposes an extension of the program to include principals and strengthening teacher preparation.

Alternative teacher licensure — providing jobs for mid-career professionals and providing "real world" prospective to classrooms would be a win-win from this proposed new pathway to teaching. If you have any doubts about how well this could work, take a look at a similar approach used by Teach for America.

Easing the expansion of successful charter schools — nationally-proven programs like KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) would be encouraged by Governor Pawlenty to expand in Minnesota by streamlining the charter school application process for them.

In a statement, Pawlenty said, "The national education reform landscape is changing and leading reform states are adopting these kinds of changes. Eventually these measures will be enacted here, too. The only question is whether Minnesota will lead or be late to the game."

NEA: tell us how you really feel

In stark contrast to National Education Association (NEA) affiliate Education Minnesota's touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy, "it's for the children" public persona, the NEA's retiring general counsel made it perfectly clear in July that the NEA is a powerful union first, last, and always.

Neal McClusky of the Cato Institute provides this transcript of Bob Chanin's "salty valedictory" (McClusky's words; I really wish I had thought of the description). You can see and hear Chanin for yourself on YouTube (fast-forward to around 16 minutes, about halfway).

Chanin also plainly says what he thinks of all of you conservatives, even those of you with children enrolled in public schools and who support public schools and the teachers unions with tax dollars (via union dues extracted from teacher salaries). His speech got thunderous applause and a standing ovation from NEA delegates.

Why are these conservative and right-wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? I will tell you why: It is the price we pay for success. NEA and its affiliates have been singled out because they are the most effective unions in the United States. And they are the nation’s leading advocates for public education and the type of liberal social and economic agenda that these groups find unacceptable….

At first glance, some of you may find these attacks troubling. But you would be wrong. They are, in fact, really a good thing. When I first came to NEA in the early ’60s it had few enemies, and was almost never criticized, attacked, or even mentioned in the media. This was because no one really gave a damn about what NEA did, or what NEA said. It was the proverbial sleeping giant: a conservative, apolitical, do-nothing organization.

But then, NEA began to change. It embraced collective bargaining. It supported teacher strikes. It established a political action committee. It spoke out for affirmative action, and it defended gay and lesbian rights. What NEA said and did began to matter. And the more we said and did, the more we pissed people off. And, in turn, the more enemies we made.

So the bad news, or depending on your point of view, the good news, is that NEA and its affiliates will continue to be attacked by conservative and right-wing groups as long as we continue to be effective advocates for public education, for education employees, and for human and civil rights.

And that brings me to my final, and most important point. Which is why, at least in my opinion, NEA and its affiliates are such effective advocates. Despite what some among us would like to believe, it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children. And it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality, and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary, these are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights, and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay!

When all is said and done, NEA and its affiliates must never lose sight of the fact that they are unions, and what unions do first and foremost is represent their members.

It was never about the speech

"I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn." —President Barack Obama, address to schoolchildren, September 8, 2009

President Obama's speech today and the revised Department of Education "engagement resources" do not change the federal government's ever-increasing control of education, to the detriment of local control by the states and local school boards, and a cultural shift away from individual achievement toward a general dumbing-down to ensure equal outcomes for all.

The nationalization of education began in 1965 with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) with its funding to states (not families) to educate low-income students. It took a giant step forward in 1979, when President Jimmy Carter signed the law that created the U.S. Department of Education. It took a major leap forward in 2002 when Edward Kennedy's No Child Left Behind Act (a reauthorization of the ESEA) was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Q: Should it be the federal goverment's role to "fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn?"

A: See the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Unalottment: don't let this crisis go to waste

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." —Rahm Emmanuel, Obama White House Chief of Staff

In his July unalottment, Tim Pawlenty has an opportunity to put a nice bow on the signature education reforms of his two terms as Minnesota's governor. Although Pawlenty has been reluctant to cut education funding at all this biennium, holding education (mostly the teachers union) harmless will be problematic given that K-12 education consumes 39.1% of the state's $35 billion budget.

As detailed in an e-mail to supporters and their 2010-2011 budget recommendations, EdWatch sees unalottment as Pawlenty's opportunity to cut education programs that are ineffective and "undermine parental authority and autonomy."

Among the items on the EdWatch hit list are some programs that EdWatch has opposed for years:

Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) (Current: $51,850,000, Governor: $44,745,000, EdWatch: $0) - EdWatch reports that ECFE, "according to the Legislative Auditor, shows no evidence of developmental gains for children and only some increase in parental feelings of effectiveness."

Head Start (Current: $40,200,000, Governor: $40,200,000, EdWatch: $0) - This program is widely assumed to be effective, but EdWatch claims that "More than 600 studies show the lack of effectiveness of this program, there are several studies showing emotional harm to participants, and Minnesota already received $189.5 million in federal funds over the last two federal fiscal years for this."

International Baccalaureate (IB) - EdWatch would cut $2.7 million for IB tests and programs. It has long maintained that Advanced Placement (AP) programs are "locally controlled, prepare students better for college, comport with MN academic standards, and are far less expensive." In fact, some school districts have passed in adding IB course in favor of AP for these same reasons.

Kindergarten Readiness Assessment and Intervention Program (Current: $573,000, Governor: $574,000, EdWatch: $0) - According to EdWatch, this assessment "uses very vague and subjective criteria based on very vague, subjective, and politically correct outcomes, The Early Childhood Indicators of Progress. This ridiculous assessment gives fuel to the Nanny State falsely claiming that 50% of Minnesota children are not ready for kindergarten."

The EdWatch recommendations include a total of eight education items and eight health and human services items that are education-related. Governor Pawlenty and Education Commissioner Alice Seagren should seriously consider these proposed cuts as they work through unalottment.

John McCain on school choice

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.

—John McCain, acceptance speech for the Republican nomination for President, September 4, 2008

House votes unanimously to leave NCLB behind

On Monday, April 28, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted 128-0 (see Journal page 10824) in favor of an amendment to the omnibus education bill, SF 3001/HF 3316, that would ask the U.S. Secretary of Education to relieve the state of Minnesota from the federal No Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) educational assessment and accountability provisions, while continuing to provide federal funding under the act.

As EdWatch points out, NCLB is costing school districts more than they are receiving, while de facto putting the federal government in charge of local and state educational policy. Further, academic achievement, especially for poor and minority students is not improving under NCLB.

Unfortunately, reported EdWatch in an e-mail to supporters, the Senate and Governor oppose this amendment, so only constituent pressure will increase its chances of surviving in the conference committee report. Even if the measure passes and is signed into law, the Bush administration has resisted similar past requests by the states.

The apparent long odds for the withdrawal from the federal intrusion into the states' education mandate reminds me of that surprisingly engaging legislative and moral saga, Amazing Grace. The film follows the lifelong quest of William Wilberforce to abolish the slave trade in England. Beginning in 1791, Wilberforce brought the same resolution to Parliament year after year, to defeat after defeat, until finally the bill passed in 1807.

Although slavery is not at stake in this case, freedom is. Please contact your state House member, state Senator, and Governor Pawlenty and urge them to support state control of K-12 education.

NCLB: feds out of education in 2008

Minnesota schools could emerge from the financial and administrative burdens of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) if conservatives in the state and in Congress have their way.

In Minnesota, Sen. Geoff Michel (R-Edina) has announced that he will introduce a bill in the Senate to withdraw the state schools from the federal program. Although some estimate that the state would thereby forfeit $250 million in federal funding, "Michel said the state can absorb the loss of federal funds because of all the money it would save by not having to adhere to the law. Indeed, a legislative auditor's report released in 2004 said that Minnesota schools would have to spend tens of millions of dollars to meet No Child Left Behind's requirements (Star Tribune, January 1, 2008, "No Child Left Behind: GOP senators want it to be history," by Norman Draper)."

The bill is also supported in the Senate by Senate Minority Leader Sen. David Senjem (R-Rochester), Sen. David Hann (R-Eden Prairie); and Sen. Dick Day (R-Owatonna). The effort has had bipartisan support in previous years, although DFLers will be pressured by the Education Minnesota teachers union to "mend it, don't end it." Election year politics will also complicate the bill's support.

At the federal level, The Academic Partnerships Lead Us To Success Act, or A-PLUS Act (H.R.1539/S.893) would restore state and local control in education, while continuing to improve academic achievement through state-level academic standards and testing. The House bill is co-sponsored by Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-6), Rep. John Kline (MN-2), and Rep. Jim Ramstad (MN-3). Neither Minnesota Senator is a co-sponsor of S. 893.

Fred Thompson on education policy

One of the good things about campaign season is that, if you look hard enough, you can uncover substantive debate on issues you care about.

Presidential candidate Fred Thompson's white paper on education caught my eye. It sums up several points of the conservative position on education reform.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves education to the states, but thanks to President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the establishment of the federal Department of Education by President Jimmy Carter, and of course the Sen. Edward Kennedy/George W. Bush No Child Left Behind Act, federal bureaucrats have reduced local school boards to choosing colors for the carpet and conducting excess levy referenda to fund teacher contracts and federal mandates.

Fred Thompson would change the course of federal intervention in education. It would be like turning an ocean liner to be sure, but as presidents Johnson, Carter, and Geroge W. Bush have shown, the White House can have a profound effect on the schoolhouse for decades. Thompson's position recognizes practical and political realities of today's federal education system by not proposing an immediate abolition of the U.S. Department of Education (although we favor it), instead proposing a course correction in the form of block grants with accountability to replace today's increasingly onerous federal micromanagement of education.

From Thompson's education white paper:

State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools. They are best situated to implement changes and innovations that result in better educated children. A new, simplified, federal education block grant program with objective testing standards would bring us closer to reaching the shared goal of improving our schools, while preserving local control. We must begin by returning to our core principles of more parental control and choice, higher standards, and greater accountability as described below:

Empowering Parents, Teachers, and Local School Boards

• Give parents the ability to choose the best setting situation to meet the needs of their children--whether in a public, private, religious, home or charter school setting.


• Empower parents and provide choices through vouchers and tax credits.


• Help educators and school boards by removing federal bureaucratic red-tape and paperwork.

Promoting Higher Standards for Academic Excellence

• Give states greater flexibility to better measure individual student progress by encouraging the development of individualized state education plans.


• Remove federal mandates that penalize states for adhering to higher academic standards.


• Condition education funding on states setting objective, measurable test standards.


• Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Ensuring Accountability within America's Education System

• Measure individual student progress and provide assistance to those who need it.


• Challenge America's children to succeed in the competitive global economy by offering advanced course-work and more focused educational opportunities.


• Incentivize teachers who help close the achievement gap by rewarding them for serving in the most challenging schools.


• Promote transparency to assess academic performance and share innovations in education.

Merry Christmas from Scholar the Owl

Thanks to all of you who read Scholar's Notebook now and then, subscribe to our RSS feed, or just find us by entering "integrated math" into Google. I have gone from continual blogging during the Profile of Learning repeal battle with my friends at EdWatch (who are still doing yeoman's work for freedom, by the way), to joining Cheri Pierson Yecke in the academic standards battle, to raising awareness about integrated math. Now other projects and raising teenage children has taken more of my time, but I am no less committed to knowledge-based curricula and local control of education than I was on day 1.

Through it all, I have learned a lot from many of you smart, good people who are so selflessly dedicated to preserving this country's founding principles of freedom. You are the bedrock of our nation.

Although my posts have been infrequent, I will continue to blog at this location until further notice, as well as on "my other blog," North Star Liberty, and operate my old Minnesota Education Reform News web site. Keep the faith, have yourself a merry little Christmas, and have a happy 2008.

Matt Abe, a.k.a., Scholar the Owl

Pawently's education agenda preview

Our approach when it comes to early childhood will be to focus on kids who are at risk and disadvantaged. —Gov. Tim Pawlenty

Governor Tim Pawlenty gave a preview of his education agenda to Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant in yesterday's Strib. Presumably, Pawlenty will give a more detailed overview in his upcoming State of the State address.

About the best way to improve education: "We'll have a robust set of offerings in education. It will certainly include high school redesign and reform.

"The data are pretty compelling. School performance on average chugs along pretty well in grade school and middle school, and then with the exception of the high performers, it tanks in high school. We're putting a lot of money into a four-year experience that is not producing much academic ROI. We have to find ways for children in the middle, and certainly those who are at risk, to be engaged, passionate, on task, and advancing well in high school. We'll have a significant proposal when it comes to that."

What happened to putting 70 percent of school funds in the classroom? "We are going to do 70 percent whether the Legislature passes it or not. We'll make sure the department [of education] makes sure there's a rigorous, uniform measurement of where the resources go, and make that available to the public in a user-friendly form."

The stakeholders to whom Scholar has spoken say that these "x% of funding to the classroom" proposals sound good, but it is largely an accounting gimmick: like when you go to the doctor's office, whether insurance pays for it depends on what code they assign to the procedure. A more meaningful reform in this area would be to scrap the UFARS accounting system for a more straightforward, transparent system. Paging Pat Anderson!!

And early education? "There's an endless number of things that are good ideas in education. You could construct a list of 75 things that would be really good to do. But it has to be prioritized, in the context of the resources that we have available.

"For example, all-day kindergarten. It's a nice idea, and something we are open to. But if you do it full-blown, it's $320 million a biennium. The data says it helps, but in an era of limited resources, doesn't it make more sense to dial in resources to disadvantaged kids? Our approach when it comes to early childhood will be to focus on kids who are at risk and disadvantaged."

Perhaps the state of Minnesota's slide into cradle-to-grave, nanny state socialism at least won't accelerate during the second Pawlenty administration (statewide smoking ban aside).