Browsing articles in "Curriculum + Standards"
Apr 27, 2012
ELW

John Fonte Review of Minnesota Social Studies Standards

April 19, 2012

Review of Minnesota 2012 Social Studies Standards

To: Greg Marcus

Senate Education Committee

Minnesota State Senate

 

From John Fonte

John D. Fonte, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture
Hudson Institute
1015 15th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
202-974-2435 direct
johnf@hudson.org

Let me preface by stating that my experience includes examining and vetting history-social studies curricula for around 25 years:

 

  • · as a member of the steering committee of the congressionally-mandated National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), “the nation’s report card” for content in civics;
  • · as a senior researcher at the U.S. Department of Education for nine years, who worked on content issues in history and civics for NAEP;
  • · as principal advisor for CIVITAS: A Framework for Civic Education funded the Pew Charitable Trust, and appointed by the general editor to write the chapter on The Federalist Papers;
  • · as an educational consultant for the Texas Education Agency, the Virginia Department of Education, the California Academic Standards Commission, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania.
  • ·as a history and social studies teacher in junior high school, high school, and college

REVIEW

In reviewing the 2004 Minnesota History and Social Studies Standards I wrote at the time, “Overall, I believe the Minnesota standards are outstanding, among the best that I have seen in reviewing many state documents.”  The most important task of social studies-civic education in American public schools is to prepare our children for citizenship in American liberal democracy. Therefore, standards should delineate what is most important for students to know in order to prepare them for citizenship in the United States in the Twenty-First Century.

Continue reading »

Mar 14, 2012
ELW

Early Childhood Scholarship Testimony

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee – My name is Karen Effrem, and I am here on behalf of Education Liberty Watch.

Despite our usual concerns about the data collection and parental autonomy in home visiting programs, we want to thank Rep. Loon for bringing forth this bill.  We enthusiastically support a program that is voluntary, private, free-market, faith and home based, literacy focused, and does not require the top-down, one size fits all, government mandated program or curriculum standards without statutory authority.

This program is in stark contrast to the Department’s implementation plan for the early childhood scholarships that were funded to the tune of $4 million very precious taxpayer dollars last session.  Education Liberty wishes to thank chairman Garofalo and this committee for exercising their proper oversight authority via the hearing held here on January 26th.  We join you in the deep concern that the Department is unilaterally changing the implementation of those scholarships as passed by the legislature from making it a first come, first served to requiring scholarship recipients to attend a three or four star rated program under the Parent Aware quality rating system with all of its problems that this legislature explicitly refused last year.

A strong related concern for us is that according to Department documents such as the Race to the Top application,” to reach 3 or 4 stars requires both familiarity with the ECIPs and also alignment of curriculum and assessment with them.” Even if these standards were perfectly academic and non-controversial, which they are not, as our handouts show, the imposition of one top-down, government mandated set of standards on all programs – public, private or religious who “volunteer” for this rating system cannot be allowed to stand.

Again, we thank Rep. Loon for authoring this bill and look forward to this committee asserting its proper authority under separation of powers doctrine, as well as protecting parental and provider authority and autonomy.

Feb 7, 2012
ELW

Suggested Caucus Resolutions

The “Whereas” language is for information purposes in order to guide discussion. The proposed language is in bold font.

1)      Oppose imposition of mandatory state preschool standards on private preschool programs via state and federal funds

Whereas parents, not government, are responsible for raising and educating their preschool children, neither the state nor federal governments have authority to set preschool curriculum standards especially via the executive branch and especially for private and religious institutions;

Whereas the Dayton administration is using state and federal grant programs to impose a single set of preschool curriculum standards on those institutions regardless of parental choice and without legislative review;

Therefore be it resolved that:

We are firmly against the establishment of universal pre-school programs in Minnesota, including the imposition of statewide early childhood standards and curricula via state and federal funding.

2)      Oppose the imposition of national (Common Core) K-12 standards

Whereas, according to the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, education, since not listed as a power of the federal government, is reserved to states and the people;

Whereas the Common Core National standards are being funded and promoted by federal education programs like Race to the Top and creating a national curriculum that is unconstitutional, violates federal law, is unnecessary and unhelpful for improving national  academic performance, and in many cases are of lower quality than current state standards;

Therefore be it resolved that:

We oppose the adoption of the Common Core national standards and the national tests that accompany them.

3)      Oppose federal and executive branch control of education

Whereas, both the Obama and Dayton administrations are ignoring separation of powers doctrine and implementing various aspects of federal and state education programs, most of which are unconstitutional,  such as No Child Left Behind waivers, Race to the Top, and early childhood scholarships without statutory authority or legislative input;

Therefore be it resolved that:

We oppose reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act and until then, Minnesota should opt out.  This also applies to No Child Left Behind waivers, Race to the Top, Head Start, and early childhood scholarships.

4)      Oppose unionization of private businesses and independent contractors

Whereas several states have or attempted to designate individuals like personal care attendants or small independent childcare businesses that care for clients that receive government subsidies for the purposes of unionization and automatically deducting union dues from those subsidies resulting in decreased funds for poor, sick and disabled children and adults;

Therefore, be it resolved that:

We oppose the forced unionization of individuals or businesses whose clients receive government subsidies and the deduction of union dues or fair share fees from those subsidies.

5)      Oppose federal education data tracking from birth.

Whereas, the federal K-12 and early childhood versions of Race to the Top as well as the Stimulus bill all require the states to set up or expand a comprehensive data tracking system of all children from birth on that includes much sensitive family data;

Whereas, the Obama administration has by rule effectively gutted student consent and privacy protection under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment;

Therefore, be it resolved that:

We oppose the use of state or federal funds to implement this longitudinal education data system and that our state should opt out.

Feb 6, 2012
ELW

Dayton DOE Admits Plan to Control Preschool Curriculum via State & Federal Funds

Karen R. Effrem, MD – President

In three different and very significant ways, the Dayton administration has admitted that their ultimate aim is to have the state control the curriculum standards first for those governing all preschool and childcare programs in the state that “volunteer” to become involved in the Parent Aware Quality Rating System (the QRS), the Race to the Top preschool grant program, or the early childhood scholarship program regardless of whether these programs are public, private or religious. This seems to be the foundation for then controlling ALL preschool curriculum. (More on that in future alerts).

Minnesota’s Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant application neatly ties all three situations together. The document unabashedly states (p. 87):

“Minnesota’s Early Learning and Development Standards (called the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress, or ECIPs-see C1) for children birth to five are at the foundation of [Parent] Aware. Parent Aware Program Standards require that instruction and assessment be aligned with the ECIPs and the ratings are built on the ECIPs, which function like a scaffold. For example, ELD Programs must ensure that their staff members are familiar with the ECIPs before earning 1 star, and to reach 3 or 4 stars requires both familiarity with the ECIPs and also alignment of curriculum and assessment with them.” (Emphasis added)

In other words, the Parent Aware QRS, even though “voluntary,” mandates a top-down government run curriculum in order for programs to receive the highest ratings, and therefore all of the financial and policy goodies that accompany those top ratings. Adherence to program standards of the QRS that include curriculum alignment to these standards is then the cornerstone of both the Race to the Top Application and the early childhood scholarships. The quality rating system was the top point garnering criterion on the $500 million Race to the Top application which also requires statewide preschool standards and wide participation by preschool programs, including private and religious ones, which comprise more than 80% of the childcare market in Minnesota. The scholarships were a high priority of some of the lead House education negotiators during the final closed negotiations of the shutdown at the end of the 2011 session. The Dayton Education Department recently and arrogantly reported (January 26th) to the House Education Finance Committee that, despite the lack of statutory authority to use the QRS in distribution of those scholarships, they are going to allow use of scholarship funds only at programs that earn 3 or 4 stars, i.e. that require these standards, and parents may not conscientiously object to these standards if they want a scholarship. Are we seeing a pattern here?

Here is a summary of the problems with this approach:

Continue reading »