Response to Proposed Standards

A standard never taught a child
MCTE's Response To The Commissioner's Academic Standards Proposal

Minneapolis Public Meeting - March 21, 2003
There was a 4 minute time limit. General comment -- audience was friendly to teachers, much applause after critical remarks

Yecke's opening comments addressed the timeline and process of the committee's work. She did not talk about the Quality Counts grade of our state standards.

• Sandy Hayes, speaking on behalf of MCTE -- got about half way through a rushed and summarized but impassioned delivery of the MCTE position paper. [The remarks ended before the endorsement of the Kelley/Opatz bill, but Senator Kelley was in the audience and received a copy of the position paper.]

• Edina teacher
Process -- Edina took an entire year for studying for their local curriculum.
Ludicrous time line. Few urban educators. Rushed. Omission of media literacy in grades 9-12.
Response to concern about urban education: Pia Payne -- she brought the committee copies of Mpls standards/curriculum

• Director of teaching and learning, Minnetonka
Profile has brought alignment and rigor; Profile brought professional conversations.
K-2 math proposed standards -- gaps and lack of sequence. Concern about lack of MEEP coordinators

• Parent and literacy coordinator
Concerned with primary reading and writing standards.

• Martha Strom Gosgrove Parent, Edina teacher
Concern about literature standards 9-12; erratic picture of what we want kids to know or do -- minutia of literary terms.
What is troubling is what is left out -- media literacy.
Response from committee member -- wants kids “reading more great literature”

• Member of Richfield City Council
She attended National League of Cities in DC last week. Impressed with emphasis of education at the convention. Concern that critical thinking skills be developed.

• Ross Taylor -- math also on Mpls Board of Education
Impressive background and articulate concerns about the math standards. His closing: Math standards in grades 3-8 would be a Deterrent to Achievement in Mathematics -- “which would be a DAM shame”

• Edina media person
Research skills concern -- inconsistent -- research base? media literacy

• Elk River high school math teacher
8th grade standards need to be moved to 9th

• Math methods instructor
many proposals fall short of NCTM standards. Settles on rote skills• math teacher with a varied career
“When educators weren’t as involved as they should have been we have problems with the outcome.”

• Speaker from Rosemount-Apple Valley
speed of process is a concern

• Parent - Roseville
“Profile of Learning wasn’t satisfactory for our needs” --high school daughter in private school because of Profile
“I don’t have a credential in my pocket, but I like what you’re doing”

• Concerned citizen
Seen a “decline in quality of education in my lifetime -- my parent’s friends, I and my peers received a good education” Emphasis on good grammar and spelling and phonics. Keep each as a category through 6th grade. “Have standards that err on the tough side.”

• Adjunct at Hamline
Concern about process and content of standards -- needed greater representation from teaching experts. Concern about two day revision -- how to review all the testimony and email -- in a reflective and thoughtful way. Extend the deadline
Concern about developmental levels.

• Literacy coordinator
1) is the standard so important that it’s worth the expense of time? A high priority for the children? Are they at risk of failure if they can not accomplish?
2) are the standards clear?
3) does it reflect most recent research and expertise?

• Mentor of inner city kids (taught in 1970s. )
Well-organized scope and sequence of reading -- students should be held to a higher standard of excellence.

• 9-12 lang arts Edina - former attorney -- National Board Certified
little consistency, rigor seems to decrease in some areas.

• National Board Certified math - chair of Robbinsdale school board
Grade levels remove local autonomy. Have grade level bands. High school math standards provides some kind of priority. “K-8 throws in everything but the kitchen sink -- the standards need to give direction about what is critically important.” Need to have kids take three years of math in high school. Little mention of technology. Go back and look at existing standards -- especially in the frameworks.

• ELL teacher (began her remarks in Spanish -- to which Commissioner Yecke responded “gracias”)
Speaking for ELL parents -- no addressing of needs of ELL and the assessments for them. Don’t punish kids for things they’re not supposed to know yet.

• K-8 math resource person
Look again at what is a standard? Need fewer standards with benchmarks under that standards. Districts pick the curriculum objectives. Too much of a laundry list. Going back to World War II, not what is necessary for today’s work world. Time needs to be lengthened. Needs to have cross level articulation. Look at all the research.

• Parent - teacher on spec assignment Mpls
Committee needs time to be reflective, studious. Some math concerns.

• Parent , ex secondary teacher - prof in U of M - math methods
These standards will not be supported by MCTM -- throw back to 1950s -- useful in a nostalgic way for parents. Hundreds of isolated skills and concepts, unrelated to each other. Ignored research on development.

• Sandy Nesvig - Minneapolis teacher
Concerns about process and content -- no research -- broken into artificial levels. Very few teachers involved. Middle Schools standards -- overly detailed, repetitive, developmentally inappropriate. Including process is also important -- the how AND the what.

• Curriculum and instruction person, representing Mpls schools
Concern about math standards -- alignment and developmentally inappropriate -- not placed at the expected level of mastery.
Concerns about reading and lang arts -- do not include higher order thinking skills -- no viewing standards at all levels -- do not challenge students to analyze questions. Standards need to respect research on second language acquisition.

• Former teacher now in business
Apologized to the committee “on behalf of the people of the state for asking this impossible task of you.”

• Fellow with a Ph. D, as a high school student in Bloomington in the ‘80s was a student rep on Nation at Risk task force
“Left my school with a Eurocentric education -- I speak with white privilege --
When I look at the literature standards, they are woefully inadequate in culture -- I regard this as political.”
“What are the implication of these standards for school districts and students? I see them as teaching to a test -- my daughter is more than a test score.”
Questioned t the cost. Financial. Time cost. Cost in engagement and relevance and opportunity to learn.
Questioned the four "propaganda" quotes that were printed in the program handout as representative of public response

• Deborah Dillon -- University of Minnesota Curriculum and Instruction chair
Opened with experience as a parent who moved here a year and a half ago [She came late to the meeting, having been working at her daughter’s school’s fundraiser] Wonderful comments about the lack of research base in the reading standards, particularly primary level. Eloquent closing to the public remarks.

Each committee member made a short statement in closing. Representative Mindy Grieling, a guest at the head table, held out a great deal of hope that the process will be delayed to a more reasonable level. The most striking comments were committee member Jenny Norlin-Weaver’s (curriculum director, Edina) tactful yet direct disclaimer about the quality of the products.

Rochester Public Meeting - March 13, 2003
There were 8 members of the standards committee present as well as two legislators from the Rochester area.
Yecke's opening comments addressed why we need to retire the Profile, demonstrated the failing grades given to our standards by Education Week and the Fordham Foundation. And gave an overview of the committee's charge, explaining that this process really won't cost the taxpayers anything because we will be using $1.5 million in federal funds.
The remainder of the meeting was public comment, with response either by Yecke or a member of the committee or both to several of the speakers.

• Concerns raised by a Rochester curriculum coordinator
1) the time line in regard to the possible need to re-register students. Yecke's response: The requirements for this year's 8th graders will not change; this year's 7th grade will be the first class impacted.
2) the process for future change. Yecke's response: "the document is not expected to be set in concrete forever." She suggested that the standards might be put on a review cycle (she mentioned 5 years). [Which could be a nightmare as, when you consider that in a staggered review cycle you could have a staggering number of permutations of the various standards.]

• Specific math concerns by chair of Rochester math-science partnership

• Rochester math teacher
1) standards are 2 miles wide and 1/2 inch deep, with canyons of some age-inapproporate standards
2) Profiles needed change in their administration, not their content. Let districts and communities choose how to implement.
3) There was no representation from the Rochester area on the committees, despite its history of excellence and partnerships in math & science. What was the rubric for selection? Response from Yecke: they are "holding" Rochester for the science committee. Did not address the criteria for selection. She did state that there is 6.7 million from the federal governement for grade specific content tests and "we don't want to return it."

• Rochester elementary parent:
Liked the phonics, thought spelling could be "beefed up a bit". Talked to teachers in private school, talked to her sister who is a teacher -- they liked the standards

• Rochester coordinator for secondary reading
How will the testing be different?
Yecke's response: From the list of standards, not all can be tested. "We" will be looking at the test scores diagnostically. Schools need to look at the aggregate of scores -- eg, "We're doing well in everything except reading." [Wow! That's specific diagnosis!!!] Talked a lot about reviewing the test items for bias [nothing about reviewing them for quality or importance]

• Micheal Thompson, co-chair of this daughter's school's PTA group (also mentioned that he has had many roles in education)
1) Cited the disappointment of the African-American and Hmong parents in the group in the standards and in the lack of diverse representation on the committees
2) The standards "mistake rigidity for rigor"
3) There are 633 English/reading standards, 208 standards in the three middle school grades; 43 standards in middle level literature, 22 in high school. Cited McRel: trying to put everything into standards is one of the huge mistakes often made. The standards haven't made choices about what is important.
4) Viability: Do our teachers and schools have enough time to do a good job with these standards?
5) Cited Hillock, that states with high stakes testing see no decrease in the amount of college remediation needed.
6) Why does Fordham get to tell us what our standards should be?
7) Concern of urban parents that these standards are not engaging for students -- their number one concern. The standards are designed for testing and are deprofessionalizing. Many parents think we are going backwards. What does a guaranteed curriculum mean?
No response, but Micheal didn't end with a question.

• Rochester Community College math instructor
math standards concerns, but mostly support

• Rochester Math-science facilitator
1) Concern about many (particularly elementary) standards that are not age-appropriate and cited NCTM references.
2) Congratulations that the high school standards include a division between what all students should know and an advanced level.
3) Cited NAEP statistics on math achievement of MN students; "While Fordham gave us a D- in standards, students are performing at an A level." No response from Yecke or committee

• Rochester parent (engineer)
Wondered what is the purpose of the standards: challenge the best, middle of the road, or basic assessment.
No response from Yecke or committee

Response to Standards, MCTE Ad Hoc Committee, March 11, 2003
Introduction: We are speaking not just for our profession but also on behalf of all our students, including the ESL, the non-pre-college, the marginalized as well as the students who can exceed any standards devised by any state.

1. The current Profile standards are very appropriate for English/reading. MCTE's objection to the very original drafts was that there was no inclusion of literature. This was later revised, resolving the objection. The dissatisfaction of English/language arts teachers with the Profiles is generally not dissatifaction with the actual standards as much as it is dissatisfaction with
• difficulties with placing standards, particularly at the senior high level, so that all students have the opportunity to take them (and re-take them as needed)
• the inordinate burden of record-keeping
• the erroneous confusion, promulgated by mixed messages from CFL staff, when the packages were confused with the standards. It was confusing for everyone since the term "Profiles" was (and often still is) used interchangably to refer to the standards and to refer to the assessment of the standards ("packages" were to be considered just one method of assessment, but again, some staff gave the impression that the packages themselves were mandatory). Once the difference between the standards and the assessment was clarified, many language arts teachers imbedded the standards in their existing curriculum so seamlessly that students might not even be aware that they were completing a graduation standard. Shouldn't this seamless coordination of standards and curriculum be the ideal?

2. Money. An obscene amount of money has been spent on the Profile standards. Each year, as refinements have been made, the Profile standards in English/language arts have become more workable. An additional factor in expense and in the effectiveness of the Profile standards has been expenditures in staff development. "Teachers who had received "good" or "excellent" training, with access to resources were much more likely to report positive student outcomes associated with the Profile." [Richard Beach. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n7] To provide retraining to the same level in these vastly different standards will again need similar funding, not likely in these times. So these standards are likely fated for ineffective implementation, if districts can even implement them at all.

3. Specificity. These standards read more like local curriculum than STATE standards. To specify standards in handwriting down to concern for spacing between letters and words [grade 4] is to give no leadership in any kind of sense of what is really important. The 52 page document for English/language arts alone contains a total of 633 standards, with 208 standards for grades 6, 7, and 8 alone. Are all these standards to be assessed? Many standards, setting aside debate about the importance or validity of the standard, (eg, "Perform expressive oral readings of prose, poetry, or drama" - grade 6) are not expressed in assessable terms as there is no indication of degree or level of achievment. The example would be assessed as a yes/no. Other "standards" are lesson plan activities: "Increase vocabulary by learning words from a teacher-generated list and appropriately use these words." -- grade 10 -- and as a lesson plan activity is, as research will indicate, is not an especially effective one. (The standards are 52 pages; even Virginia's are only 35 pages.)

4. Lack of professional participation on the committees. Credentialed teachers made up less than 20% of the committees. Not one of our nationally recognized university experts was on a committee.

5. The standards are a significant step backward. Many of the prposed standards (eg, number of standards requiring reading of classics) are predicated on a past that cannot be regained, where society, students, resources were less sophisticated, less connected to the global community, less diverse. It would have been a lot cheaper to dig out the SELOs (Some Essential Learner Outcomes) of the '70s. But the SELOs were intended to be used as a menu for developing local curriculum, not as a mandate for every district.

6. If we are merely emulating the standards of other states, Wisconsin's (one of the 6 states whose standards were given to the committees as "models," but who also received an F in the Fordham report) would have been the most compatible with the needs and achievements of our students, our social, political, philosophical, and political values, and the education ethic of our state. Wisconsin's standards are standards of the big picture, the kind of direction that is the role of the state to take in assuring an equitable education for all Minnesota students. (Wisconsin's English/reading standards are 15 pages)

7. It is artificial to design standards for every grade level. For example, there is an inordinate amount of repetition of standards in grades 6, 7, and 8. Are all these standards expected to be addressed each year? And if so, what is the measurable difference between a 6th grader's achievement and a 7th grader's achievement on the same standard?

8. Testing. The content testing in Virginia cost 18 million in 2001. Not only will Minnesota have this cost of administering the test, but there is the cost of constructing the tests, a huge investment if the tests are to have any kind of validity, reliability, or usefulness, goals that will certainly be impossible if the tests are to be constructed this summer. And where are the personnel from CFL to direct this process? At present the Reading Specialist and Writing Specialists have been cut, with the responsibilities assumed by other personnel who already had full-time responsibilities in other areas, and who, while wonderful and capable people, do not necessarily have expertise in these areas.

9. Unrealistic timeline. Schools have aligned curriculum and courses to meet the Profile standards. To realign to such vastly different and such a huge number of "standards" over the summer is not just retooling; it would be like BMW deciding that in 3 months they will now be manufacturing yachts.

10. Support. In any endeavor, in any profession, there are always the nay-sayers. The Profiles were implemented with great effort and professional resolve in school districts by the yea-sayers as the nay-sayers stood by proclaming that "it will all just go away." What motivation do the yea-sayers have implement these standards? And do you think the nay-sayers will???

11. Research base. More and more in their practice, teachers expect to be research-based. Where is the research base in these standards?