|
|
|
 |
EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
May 13, 2003
Print Version
New K-12 standards
hobbled from the start
By Ellen Hoerle
Star Tribune
Only one sentence in the May 4 editorial "K-12 Standards / Compromise
on best of two plans" is on the right track. It's the sentence,
"This time they need to get it right."
Compromise on education standards that will affect delivery of education
in this state for years to come is not the answer. The problem is that
both sets of standards (the House and Senate versions) have already been
compromised in their creation. The Senate version was compromised from the
outset because it was originally intended to beef up the Profile of
Learning. The House version was compromised because several dark clouds
hung over the minds of too many members of the standards subcommittees
that were given the daunting task to create new standards in a few short
weeks.
The budget crisis influenced many subcommittee members to try to
accommodate all types of math curricula so that districts would not have
to drastically change their math curricula because money to do so won't be
available. Fear that many schools would be labeled as "failing"
under No Child Left Behind led to an easing of requirements and
expectations. The math group was given math standards from other states to
use as a starting point.
In the current final product, however, almost all math standards have been
moved to higher grades to assure mastery of content by all or nearly all
students. Our children won't be competitive on a national level, much less
an international level, if our expectations are not at least at the same
level as those in other states.
Yes, the politicians and decisionmakers in this state are going to have to
accept the fact that other states beat it to the punch. While this state
was bickering over how to save the Profile of Learning, other states were
writing rigorous, content-based standards that bring praise from national
experts.
Furthermore, given the division that was apparent between the parents and
many educational experts in the subcommittee meetings and during the
public hearings, is it really possible or necessary for educational
standards to "have broad-based community and bipartisan
support"?
If that is the case, then we have forgotten that our most important
responsibility is to create the best possible education standards for the
children of this state, so that they can be competitive in the national
and international community. That is not possible in a political
atmosphere, where compromise is the rule. It is not possible in a public
atmosphere, where the loudest voices tend to want to keep the status quo.
Compromise between the Senate and House versions is not the answer.
Reinventing the wheel is not the answer. Insisting the standards have to
be "Minnesota-grown" is not the answer. Growing up and admitting
we must do what is best for Minnesota's children is the answer.
With time running out, the best and fastest way to do that is to take the
best ideas from other states, add clarity and rigor where needed and get
on with our most important mission: ensuring that the education Minnesota
children receive will adequately prepare them to be competitive in the
national and international community.
Ellen Hoerle, Eden Prairie, is a member of the Minnesota Standards Math
Committee.
|