I’ve finally finished polishing up the Outline for a Standard of Education. It’s too large to post comfortably here on the home page, but you can follow the link. It’s also accessible from the Politics page, of course.

I’m probably not going to finish the critique and analysis of the No Child Left Behind program I mentioned back on July 20th. I’ve got some thoughts on this subject, but I think they’re probably going to end up part of another project.

(EDIT: Now that the site is hosted on WordPress, I’ll just hide it behind this convenient “Read More” tag here.)

(more…)

The first two goals of my campaign deal with the need to create and enforce knowledge-based standards. Education is the bedrock on which the future is built, and we need to guarantee that the foundation we provide to our children is a firm one.

But our educational system should not be a lowest common denominator; it should be about giving our children the opportunity to be the best they can be.

The great fallacy of our school system as it exists today is the demand for conformity. Instead of acknowledging that different students learn different skills at different rates, our current system demands a rote progression defined by some sort of mythical average: If a student is capable of achieving more than that average, they are held back. If a student is unable to maintain the pace demanded by that average, they are dragged along in ignorance.

There needs to be opportunity for our best students; support for our worst. We can no longer endorse a system whose first interest is making sure that no one feels bad about themselves. An educational system must encourage success, or it will breed only failure.

By the same token, we must be careful: A mistake of the past has been segregating students into “smart” groups and “dumb” groups. The educational system should not be about choosing which students are going to be given a chance to succeed and which students are not: The system should give the same opportunities to all students, and those opportunities should never be taken away. A student who needs help in third grade should be given the chance to blossom in twelfth.

Implementing opportunity means allowing students to prove they are capable of more – and that requires a standard against which they can measure themselves. Implementing support means allowing students to see where they need to be – and that, too, requires a standard against which they can measure themselves.

PRINCIPLE OF OPPORTUNITY

If a five year old is capable of doing what a high school senior can do, then the five year old should be given the same educational opportunities as that high school senior. Because otherwise we’re cheating that five year old of their potential: Instead of teaching our children what they can be, we are telling them what they can’t.

Opportunity – Extracurricular Classes: Let’s offer extra classes as an extracurricular activity. Our schools are already open to support sports, theater, debate, and other after-school activity, why not take the extra ounce of effort to give those students who want to learn more the chance to learn more?

Opportunity – Independent Study: At the high school level, the challenge of setting standards which allow students to get ahead is that students will exceed the opportunities we have defined for them. But if a student is capable of outrunning our system, then the student is capable of charting their own course. Independent study programs will allow them to define their own curriculum, and post-secondary opportunities will give them additional opportunities to get ahead in their preparation for college or the professional world.

Opportunity – Support for Gifted Students: At the elementary level, the challenge of setting standards which allow students to get ahead is supporting those students who are gifted in certain areas. In some cases, students will be best served by skipping grades. In other cases, special study groups will allow those with an aptitude for math or science or art to push themselves to whatever level of excellence is right for them.

PRINCIPLE OF SUPPORT

If a sixth grader has not yet learned the things a sixth grader needs to learn, then the sixth grader is not yet ready for the seventh grade. Indeed, promoting them to the seventh grade would be a punishment, because we would only be forcing them into failure.

Support – Kindergarten Plus: There is a great disparity between the students who enter kindergarten for the first time. If we can win this one, big battle – and even the playing field before students enter the first grade – then all our other battles become easier. Many disadvantaged students will be able to benefit for Kindergarten Plus – a summer program which would extend kindergarten education for those who need it.

Support – Summer Self Study: At higher levels, district-supported self study programs will allow students to catch up – or move ahead – through home study.

Support – After School Study: Opportunities will be made available for after school study, to give additional help to those students who need and want it.

Knowledge, not process.

Teachers, not bureaucrats.

Education, not socialization.

My first goal in running for the Minneapolis School Board is to establish comprehensive, knowledge-based, grade-by-grade minimum standards that students must meet in order to advance.

The reason this is necessary leads to my second goal: Guaranteeing that our children are given a firm foundation for success.

In the big picture, this means guaranteeing that when a student graduates from a Minneapolis high school they have been given the tools necessary for success in life – that they have been given a foundation on which the rest of their life can be built.

But for that goal to be a reality, the first building blocks of that foundation must be laid down in the first year of school. Any architect can tell you that if the first layer of bricks isn’t laid properly, then the building will fail – but that’s a lesson we seem to have forgotten, and which the Minneapolis Public School system will need to relearn before the deep, structural flaws in our educational process can be corrected.

Starting in Kindergarten. It should not come as any sort of surprise to learn that students enter kindergarten with a wide range of capability. Some students enter kindergarten already able to read, write, and perform simple arithmetic. Others enter kindergarten without even knowing which way to hold a book. Armed with this knowledge, it shouldn’t take much for us to realize that these students will not perform at comparable levels in the first year at school. Nor is there anything we can do about that.

But what we can do is acknowledge that the problem exists, and take the most logical course to resolve it. If we set a standard of what a kindergarten student should know before entering the first grade, and then hold students to that standard, we level the playing field.

Does this mean that some students will be held back at the end of kindergarten? Yes. And, in fact, that is the purpose of the standard.

This is what I’m talking about when I say we need to form a foundation: By ensuring that the student does not leave kindergarten until they are armed with the knowledge that kindergarten is meant to impart, we have given that student the foundation they require to succeed in first grade.

The alternative is what we do now: Promote the student to first grade, even though they lack the skills needed to succeed there. Doing so, of course, condemns the student to failure again. Not only are we permanently degrading the educational experience of that student, but we are degrading the educational experience of the other students in the class.

Now, extend the principle. Standards are set not just for kindergarten, but for every grade level thereafter. Instead of playing a hopeless game of catch-up, we get on top of the problem from the very beginning by making sure that a student has been given the foundation to succeed at the tasks they are given.

Assessing the Student. At the city-level we can enforce the formation of this foundation by assessing the students according to a set of knowledge-based standards. The term “test” is not a good fit to what I envision: I cannot perform an objective test to determine whether or not a student is “capable of discussing the Civil War in a comprehensive fashion” – the bulk of education is not something that can be tested in a standardized fashion.

But I can test a knowledge-based standard in order to perform an assessment: If the student cannot tell me that Abraham Lincoln was the President; that the Dred Scott decision was passed by the Supreme Court; and that the North won the war, then I do know that the student can’t discuss the Civil War.

The danger in such a system is that students will simply learn by rote: They won’t learn how to discuss the Civil War – they’ll learn a collection of trivia (who was President, who made the Dred Scott decision, who won the war). So where’s the other half of the assessment come into play?

The teachers. Because they’re the only ones who can make an informed, case-by-case judgment. The assessment provided by the standards will enforce a minimum, and the judgment of our teachers will provide the rest.

Knowledge, not process.

Teachers, not bureaucrats.

Education, not socialization.

For the past three decades, the state of our educational system has seen nothing but consistent decay. In math, science, literature, language, history, and every other subject, the educational standards to which we hold our children are lower than the standards to which their parents were held. We are supposed to be a nation of progress, and yet our children suffer in an educational system which continues to backslide out of control.

This is not the way it is supposed to be.

So we have a problem. What’s the solution?

Well, if our standards have declined, then it’s time to draw a line in the sand. In fact, we need to do better than that: We need a set of standards that says we can do better. We need to challenge ourselves. We need to challenge our teachers. And, most importantly, we need to challenge our students.

You may think we already have a set of standards: The state’s Profiles of Learning. But the truth is, they aren’t doing the job. There are two important areas where they fail:

Nature of the Standard. The state’s standards are vague, emphasizing methods of learning over the content of what is learned. Setting those standards as a minimum would result in students dotting i’s and crossing t’s… instead of knowing what the i’s and t’s actually mean.

What I’m proposing, on the other hand, is a knowledge-based standard. A standard which sets out what students need to know, and which can be used in an objective manner to determine whether or not students have learned what they need to learn.

Application of the Standard. The other problem with the state’s standards is that they are applied at the end of a student’s career, instead of being used as an integral part of the educational process. The Basic Skills Tests are given in 8^th grade, and are then given again and again – while the student continues to advance in school – until they are passed… at which point the student is allowed to graduate.

This is not an effective way of solving the problems our schools have. We have to address these issues earlier – and that means detecting problems before they become insoluble. Furthermore, we can no longer ignore problems in the hope that they will disappear of their own accord.

What does this mean? It means we begin assessing the progress of students at every grade level. And, furthermore, it means that we actually take action – on an individual basis – as a result of those assessments.

In the system as it exists today, we already conduct aptitude tests – but we ignore the results. Applying a standard means making those aptitude tests mean something. It means applying a minimum standard of knowledge for advancement.

Why is this important? Because the first time you push someone beyond their capabilities, it’s over. You’ve doomed them to failure. If you take someone who cannot read and promote them ruthlessly until they find themselves in a high school setting – still unable to read – you have not done them a favor: You have crippled them for life.

Is testing going to solve our problems? No. But setting a standard – and having a willingness to enforce that standard – will. A child who cannot read should not be prevented from graduating; they should be prevented from reaching the second grade. Why? Because the high school setting is not – nor should it be – designed to teach reading and writing: That’s what the first grade is for. And attempts to rectify in high school a problem which should have been corrected ten years earlier compromises the educational quality of the high school experience. If we make sure that the only students who reach second grade are those students who are ready for second grade, then we’re going to have a lot fewer students reach high school who aren’t ready for the experience.

It’s a matter of not letting children slip through the cracks.

Knowledge, not process.

Teachers, not bureaucrats.

Education, not socialization.

Three years ago I ran for the Minneapolis School Board. I believed then, as I believe now, that education is the fundamental bedrock on which a successful democracy is built. And I believed then, as I believe now, that the dire and worsening condition of the American education system is the largest and most troubling threat to this nation’s long-term security and prosperity.

I believe that many of the problems in our educational system today can be traced back to the fact that, by and large, we have no understanding, at a very basic level, of exactly what our schools are attempting to accomplish. And that’s a charge which I direct not only at our community as a whole, but, more importantly, at the school system itself.

The problem is that our educational goals — our standards — are often left unspoken. And because they are unspoken, they are unclear. The result is, inevitably, not only a lowest common denominator, but a lowest common denominator which becomes poorer and poorer with every passing year.

To make matters worse, when attempts are made to set goals for our educational system, the standards which result are usually vague, poor, or both. For example, when I was attending public school in Minneapolis (I graduated in 1998), students were required to pass a Basic Skills Test in order to graduate. This test was given in 8th grade and then, if the student failed, given again in 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades until the student passed. For all intents and purposes, this Basic Skills Test was the graduation standard for the Minneapolis Public Schools.

And what did the Basic Skills Test require? Basic reading skills. Arithmetic, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, and basic geometry.

In practice, the school district waited until we were in 8th grade to test whether or not we had skills which should have been learned in 3rd. If we didn’t have those skills, we were simply promoted into 9th grade and given the test again.

It shouldn’t take too much effort to understand the fundamental problems with this system. And it shouldn’t come as any particular surprise to learn that, in 1996, only 50% of 8th grade students managed to pass these tests.

But here’s the scary part: The Minneapolis Public Schools consistently test in the top 10% of the school districts in Minnesota. And Minnesota is routinely ranked somewhere in the Top 5 states for education. So when we talk about the problems of the Minneapolis Public Schools, we’re talking about the problems of the top 10% of the top 10%.

Things have gotten a little better in the Minneapolis Public Schools. Four out of every five 8th graders are now passing the Basic Skills Tests on their first attempt. This tells us that merely setting goals and then assessing our success at meeting those goals can be an effective way of achieving improvement in our educational system. When clear goals are communicated, those within the system can work towards achieving those goals in a substantive and meaningful fashion.

But I still believe there is a fundamental failure to take meaningful and substantive action to address the educational needs of those who fail the Basic Skills Test. And I am even more concerned by the fact that the Basic Skills Test are, essentially, an expectation of mediocrity.

Over the next few days I’m going to be posting the three position planks I used for my 2002 campaign. I’ll be following that up with a very general outline of what I believe a truly effective educational standard would look like. Then I hope to wrap things up by posting my thoughts on the No Child Left Behind initiative, which has begun to change the landscape of public education.

SCHOOL BOARD GOALS
Goal 1: Setting a Standard
Goal 2: Forming a Foundation
Goal 3: Opportunity and Support

An Outline for a Standard of Education