MnAEYC Resources

A Commentary Submitted to Minnesota Monthly:

Graduation Standards/Academic Standards:The Goings and Comings of Education Trends in Minnesota

Carping the Deum

Since the election, the striking shift in Minnesota politics is now rippling toward a no-less dramatic change in Minnesota education.With the Governor’s active support, the new Commissioner, Cheri Pierson Yecke, jumped on board and immediately called for a reversion of the name, Department of Children, Families, and Learning to the “Department of Education.”She requested the speedy repeal by the legislature of the established Graduation Standards, with its Profile of Learning and project-based approach to documenting learning.Under the banner of the No Child Left Behind Law—which she helped to author--the Commissioner initiated a procedure to replace the Graduation Standards with a new system of “Academic Standards,” largely to be gleaned from other states.

In short order, the Governor and his Administration convened for the Commissioner an “Academic Standards Committee” to develop a curriculum of what students should know at every grade level, Kindergarten through high school.Within a matter of weeks, the Committee’s draft of several hundred separate standards was being circulated at a series of hearings around the state for public input.In the Department’s publicized time line, the “Draft Standards” were to be ready for presentation to the legislature on April first—the Commissioner has asked that the target date be extended by a few weeks.

In other words, on behalf of the Governor, Commissioner Yecke commenced a high-speed retro-assault (back again to the “basics”) on the countless people-years of work that the State had put into the progressive if unwieldy Graduation Standards.It is not so much that the Pawlenty administration wanted to reform the Grad Standards system--eliminate its weaknesses, and build upon its strengths--the Administration wanted to unceremoniously scrap about fifteen years of diligent, concentrated, statewide effort by Minnesota’s educators. By scrapping the Graduation Standards, in the eyes of many Minnesota families, the administration was also rendering “questionable” years’ of schoolwork by hundreds of thousands of our State’s students.{Delete if too inflammatory.}

To many, I think, the pace and scope of these changes has been startling— especially given the fact that Minnesota’s education system is now, and has been, one of the best in the nation!   The cost of dropping an established multi-million dollar education system, rather than refashioning it, needs discussion in this time of deficits.Our good system will not collapse if it operates a year or two without a new State-prescribed curriculum.

The Added Hearing

On March 22nd, 2003, the Commissioner presided at a special added hearing date for the Draft Academic Standards in Northwest Minnesota.(According to the Commissioner, the date was added when countless e-mails to the Department pointed out the geographic disproportion of hearings in the southern half of the state.)On this sunny Saturday afternoon, more than 200 people, mainly teachers and administrators, gathered at the auditorium of Northland Community College in Thief River Falls.Participants were pleased that the Commissioner added this session, even though they joked that she flew. (The round trip driving time (St. Paul-Thief River Falls) for the 600 miles is 11-12 hours).

At the front of the auditorium, three members of the Academic Standards Committee sat stoically throughout the proceedings; their role seemed to be to listen to the testimony.Commissioner Yecke commented that the Academic Standards Committee is working hard—and they are--to meet the terms of the federal “No Child Left Behind” law.The Commissioner ran the hearing with professional cordiality and, as a colleague of mine said, “charm.”She showed dedication to the “No Child Left Behind” law and commitment to the drafting procedure and to the hearings.

The first to testify, I was able to read a six-page statement, with the Commissioner reading her copy simultaneously—impressive. She showed little obvious interest in my reference to the joint NAEYC/IRA Position Document, Learning to Read and Write:Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children (Preschool – third grade).   (This document, featuring 128 scholarly citations, is well respected across the country.)I did not see it in the list of references, flashed as an overhead, which the K-2 Reading Sub-committee cited.

She remained appropriately non-committal toward my first recommendation:

• Because so many kindergarten children are in half time programs
• And because the standards assigned by the Committee to Kindergarten are too advanced for children in full time kindergarten, when compared to the Standards both of the joint NAEYC/IRA Position Statement and the well- established Work Sampling System, then
• Work-Sampling should continue to be used in kindergarten at this time.

The Work-Sampling Assessment System, developed by Samuel Meisels, has been used for a few years now in Minnesota kindergartens.Work Sampling is recognized nationally for its ability to document the progress of young children across seven major learning areas in relation to their chronological development.Though it takes effort by the teacher across the school year, “Work-Sampling” works well with children too young for standardized tests.Even with children old enough to take standardized tests, the System provides a more comprehensive, and so more valid, picture of the child’s learning than one-time standardized assessments.

Commissioner Yecke noted the second recommendation that I made:

• That the language of one comprehension standard be that the kindergarten child can “fluently retell familiar stories,” corrected from “fluently re-read familiar stories” in the draft.

I pointed out that to read familiar stories (such as The Grouchy Ladybug with its third grade vocabulary) is a developmentally in-appropriate requirement for kindergarten children.

My final recommendation was that the pace of the switch from the Graduation Standards with Profile to the Grade-specific Academic Standards be slowed, so that additional, scholarly deliberation can be brought to the process.I based this recommendation on the apparent hasty process in rule formulation and on the apparent political nature of the revisions process.

The Commissioner’s Response

The Commissioner took the unusual step at a public hearing of replying to my testimony--and that given by others that day.    My remarks about her replies, since she did give them, follow.

In replying to the first recommendation, the Commissioner did not show specialized knowledge about early childhood, and appeared to interpret developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as being equivalent to setting a low standard of expectation for a group.   She did not seem to recognize that DAP means teachers work just as hard with kindergarten children who are independent readers and writers as with children for whom literacy skills are just emerging—they just work with these children differently.(Ironically, with highly accountable instructional expectations, teachers may at all levels work less with advanced children—these kids will do fine on standardized assessments.)

To the second recommendation, the Commissioner said the suggested change in language of the standard would be duly considered, as this comment was specific to the standards—what the hearings were about.

.The Commissioner was critical of my concerns about the political-seeming nature of the procedure.(I voiced some of the same concerns in my testimony that were given at the start of the article.)To the third recommendation, she did comment that in general she wished the “Education” Department had more time for promulgating the new system, but was meeting a timeline the Legislature expects: that members needed to see the new system before ending the old.

Despite the Commissioner’s less than enthusiastic reaction to my testimony, I got quite a hand when I walked back to my seat--and several compliments after the hearing was over.Many felt similarly about the major points in my statement, including a principal who “agreed with the Bemidji State professor” that Work-Sampling should be continued in the kindergarten.The good news is that the annual testing will not start until third grade.The commissioner is interpreting the “No Child…” Law literally on this point.This “gift of time” gives early childhood teachers at the public school level a bit of professional leeway in how they teach the standards—important with young children just beginning school.

In general discussion after the testimony, the Commissioner indicated that the Department is mainly paying attention to specific feedback on individual standards, and is accepting, but not necessarily doing much about, feedback on larger issues.This to me is sad because over half the speakers mentioned that the grade-level standards lacked responsiveness to learners’ differing developmental characteristics and personal circumstances—teachers and administrators at all levels said this.

The Commissioner seemed to suggest that the only reason educators would object to the new system is to avoid challenging children to reach high standards.   She did not give much response to the frequently expressed concern that in many classrooms prescribed standards, assessed in non-forgiving ways, will further stress both learners and teachers.Several presenters made the point that teacher-child communications are already strained, due to the complicated personal and family situations so many children are bringing with them to school.Commissioner Yecke conceded that Minnesota youth are among the best in the nation in assessments such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test.I commented that a prescribed state curriculum seems more fitting for a state not educating its children as successfully as Minnesota.The Commissioner replied that yes, Minnesota students are doing very well nationally, but other states, using a prescribed curriculum, are catching up.

Again, I want to mention that the Commissioner was cordial and open to hearing all views, even if definite in her positions.She was commended by all for traveling the 300 miles from St. Paul to Thief River Falls.This write-up is not intended to be a personal commentary on the Commissioner.Her profile was so high at the hearing, however—and in relation to the Academic Standards push in general--that it is hard to avoid this appearance.

Near the end of the hearing, the Commissioner stated that the educational philosophy suggested by “No Child Left Behind” lends itself to a model of standards-based instruction with standardized assessment--rather than a more developmental approach.The problem here is the disconnect this “prescription” model causes, when so many Minnesota teachers place a higher philosophical priority on teaching in ways that accommodate developmental differences and personal circumstances among the students they care about so much.Despite the law behind it, the switch from the more developmental Graduation Standards approach to the more prescribed Academic Standards system may well turn out to be another passing fad in Minnesota education history.   What will make the difference is how well the Department and the Commissioner are able to convince Minnesota educators and families that they care more about the people in our classrooms than about the politics and appearances of test scores.

Dr. Dan Gartrell is a past Head Start teacher.He is a professor of education and director of the Child Development Training Program at Bemidji State University.His program has provided training for Head Start and child care staff, and their participating families, for over 30 years.Dan can be reached at 218-755-2073 or dgartrell@bemidjistate.edu