105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116
Chaska, MN 55318
March 14, 2002
While the House bi-partisanly voted 109 to 22 in favor of eliminating the Profile of Learning, the Senate remained tied, 33 to 33, in their opposition. We had expected the Senate to reconsider concurring (agreeing) with the House’s amendment to eliminate the Profile. It was thought that one more Senator could be convinced to vote in favor of eliminating the Profile.
However, on Tuesday, May 14, 2002, three House and three Senate members met for a conference committee meeting to work out differences between the House and Senate bills relating to the Profile of Learning. Representatives Marty Seifert, Gene Pelowski, and Sondra Erickson, along with Senator Dan Stevens, rigorously opposed the Profile and remained steadfast in resisting attempts to give Commissioner Jax more rule-making authority. Commissioner Jax calls this "fixing" the Profile, but Profile opponents recognize it as entrenching the Profile of Learning and bypassing legislative authority. As expected, Senators Larry Pogemiller and Sandra Pappas were unwilling to allow districts any freedom from the Profile. And so, again, the Profile has reached a dead-end. But it is clear that the momentum to eliminate the Profile is building, as more and more legislators feel the heat from their constituents.
While the entire transcript is not quoted word for word, it is faithful to the substance of the discussion. All emphasis has been added. To view the entire meeting (75 minutes), link to the House Television Archives and find the "Clean Indoor Air Act rules / Profile of Learning Conference Committee" dated Tuesday, May 14, 2002.
Seifert moved the F3133a11 amendment that allowed the Commissioner to adopt rules to establish new standards. Nothing would stop them [the Commissioner] from taking the standards that are working and that are already in the Profile. The rules could not take effect until they are approved by law so the legislature would actually, God forbid, have a say in what the laws of this state are, instead of the department. Then it [the amendment] would focus in on the fact that the students should have the opportunity to excel into rigorous academic standards using curriculum requirements to exempt those with knowledge and skills above the foundational skills which is what the original intent of the Profile was. The Profile language, in relation to the Pawlenty amendment which was adopted on the floor, would stay in the bill.
I think this incorporates the best part of what everyone has brought forward-the Senate offer in concept-the ability of the commissioner to do rule-making-and the House wanted to do away with the Profile. What this does is incorporates both these things where we can get the legislature back in the game of oversight of what these rules actually are. The commissioner can adopt rules, it can be the old rules or new ones or a little bit of both. I think this is originally what should have happened 12 years ago and it did not unfortunately. So I think it's a good compromise and incorporates the concerns we spoke about earlier. And I think it would pass both bodies.
Quite frankly, I think if Senator Lessard was there [Sen. Lessard has voted to eliminate the Profile in the past, but was absent the day the vote was taken in the Senate] the other day, our bill would have gotten 34 votes. So that's where we're at and what we'd like to offer.
Pappas: I think that it's, I certainly appreciate the House's effort to reach a compromise but given the atmosphere around this difficult reform effort that we are engaged in and given the fact that it is a campaign year I guess I'm just not willing to take the risk here given the fact that my own colleagues said that even though their school districts overwhelmingly are implementing the Profile many have adopted beyond the 24 and Representative Erickson's school district has adopted 25 standards (Erickson corrected her-27-but just in one area). I really think its irresponsible to now kind of give up on this without making any effort to address, to give the department the authority to address the specific problems with all the problems, real or perceived, I think we need to go out and work with them and fix them. So I will be voting "No" on this house amendment.
Seifert: This does illustrate the willingness of the House to compromise. Nothing stops the school that have loved the Profile, some schools have loved it to death, to the point where it is collapsing under its own weight, but I think the concept behind adopting this is that if you like the Profile, you can certainly adopt it if you want to. And I think it goes back to what we discussed yesterday that the Senate wants an Opt Out and the House wants an Opt In. If you like the Profile, you can go ahead and do it but we're not going to have it as a state mandate. The Senate wants it as a state mandate and you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get out from under it. We heard testimony from the Department yesterday that Hastings, Little Fork Big Falls, and Sleepy Eye were operating a year or two ago with 0 Profile standards and the last I heard those three school districts have not gone down in flames in that their kids are still graduating and moving on to better things in life so it does confuse me a little bit. And it's election year-I'm actually trying to help you a little bit Senator Pappas with the election year stuff-I'm trying to save the Senators from themselves. You saw when the votes came up, a lot of scurrying around on the floor to muscle enough people to get the vote tied. And if you'd come back with this on the floor I'd think we'd have overwhelmingly bi-partisan support to pass this. We can do the same in the House and that will keep this from being an election issue.
I'm actually trying to help you out by not having this issue fester as a boil underneath the school teachers skin through the rest of the summer and the fall and so those teachers who like this concept can go forward with it and those teachers who don't can anxiously get involved in a partnership with the Department coming up with new rules and the legislature actually having to approve them. I think it would be a wonderful concept of grassroots involvement (as much as we've heard there's been grassroots involvement in implementing the Profile) apparently 109 members of the House don't feel that there was. I think this is a wonderful compromise that everyone can hang their hat on, including those Senators whom I think with some trepidation voted No on the motion to concur with the House amendment. So we're helping you actually in the process and I'm happy to help you out.
Pappas: I just wanted to correct you on one rule regarding Senate procedure. During a roll call vote, you're not allowed to scurry around and lobby other people, and twist arms, people have to stay in their seats. So none of that did take place. [How did she know?] I was called to come from home-I had just gotten off an international flight that morning and jetlag... I did get called to come over for the vote so I was fortunate.
Stevens: Even though in the rules we don't allow that, however the President did have to remind some of the members that particular day on that particular vote to abide by the rules because some of them weren't. You did come in late...
Pappas: I feel-since Senator Pogemiller has been so involved the past few years and chaired the committee that I would have to consult with him before finalizing this offer, but if the House members would be willing to consider deleting Section 2 of the house bill and only having your new language apply to the future rule-making that the department would have that would be subject to legislative approval, I'd be willing to look at that and I'd have to ask Sen. Pogemiller and I'd also like to ask the Department about that. But before I do all that work, I'd want to see if you would be interested. [Pappas would like to give the Commissioner rule-making authority, with the legislature approving it, but does not like the language eliminating the Profile.]
Seifert: Is Senator Pogemiller coming over soon? As I said earlier, and Senator Stevens would concur that there was scurrying on the floor and you scurried over from the flight that you had just gotten off of, and I honestly do think that...I don’t think he is in the grove with other members of the legislature on this. I think that this whole issue is being held up by one person. That may be impolite to say but I think it's reality...a bill like this would have passed a few years ago.
Pappas: The governor also does support maintaining the Profile. The reason why I don't want this to fall off the cliff...I'm really worried that we're putting at risk the 200 million dollars that we expect to get and the money we're already getting from the federal government through Title I if we don't have standards in place. If you have this kind of language that says well we're eliminating these standards and then maybe we're going to approve some future rule-making standards that I don't even think the department could complete before the next legislative session, I think that's too risky-I'm not willing to risk $200 per pupil in this case without a more concrete plan/proposal/giving the department a chance to work out the problems, I'm just not willing to risk that.
Pelowski: ...Do you think we could wait until 2005 before we issue the letter saying that districts are going to lose 200 dollars [per pupil] maybe in 2005.
Pappas: Given the stress that school districts are in right now, we don't need to add to their stress level. Saying that all the hard work they've put into trying to make the Profile work for the kids, that we're just going to throw it out the window. Oh, and by the way, we're also going to lose the federal money.
1) It's not clear that it would happen
2) Doesn't happen until 2005
If the Senate wants to cry into it now, I suppose we can, but the reality of the situation is, we have a problem. So I pose the question yesterday and will continue to pose it, "If your solution is...let’s not do something because in 2005 it might hurt us," I don't quite understand what you're doing.
Pappas: The solution is let's give the department rule-making authority and as soon as we vote on this issue we can vote on the other issue which is to give them rule-making authority so they can fix the problem. Why are we going to throw the baby out with the bathwater-let's fix the problem.
Pelowski: The bathwater stinks.
Seifert: It is very difficult when the department came up with something that doesn't work. And I think we're all kind of committing that there is a problem here.
Pappas: (interrupts-talks over chair)
I absolutely disagree. You're assuming that it doesn't work.
Seifert: We've agreed I think that there is a problem. Otherwise we wouldn't think that the chairman should have rulemaking authority. And to me giving the Commissioner rule-making authority is like giving Bill Clinton the keys to the white house intern's sorority house. I mean you don't give someone…the authority to correct a problem they have created. You take them out of the picture, or at least you put oversight authority over the department so if they do mess up again the legislature has imput and authority because these rules have to have the force of law. So if we're going to have rule-making authority granted, I think that the legislature should have to approve that I think if we're going to put new rule making into effect that we should get rid of the bad rules that we have now.
So that's why it would be a good idea to adopt what we've put together in the A11 amendment because it adopts what was best out of both proposals that were brought forward.
Erickson: What did the Senate do this session to enable the department to have their expedited rule making or to...the recommendations given by the academic panel. What did the Senate do?
Pappas: We had a hearing on the department bill. We put together a package on the Departments bill and that included giving the department rule-making authority, but given the objection that was coming from the other body, we were trying to build a consensus bill, we decided to drop giving the rule-making authority. It wasn't my desire, I wanted to give them rule-making authority, but I also wanted to get all of the other provisions in the bill passed. In the end, the house refused to pass out of committee or vote on the floor any education bill whatsoever and so we were left with a session of wasted work.
Seifert: If the Senate wanted to give the department rule-making authority then I'm assuming that they've acknowledged there's a problem with the Profile.
Pappas: The department has acknowledged there is a problem with the Profile and we've talked a little bit about the history of where the problem comes from. It comes from the administrative law judge and it comes from experience. You know, they never said they don't need to fix things in the Profile. They need some ongoing rule-making authority to address all of learning areas and that is in one of the options that I handed out earlier. People learn from experience [with our children]...this was a difficult job to take on...No one's saying it's perfect. But by and large throughout the state, it is working.
Stevens: Senator Pappas, let me ask you a question. Having not served on the education committee, but having served on the other committees, particularly when we had government operations and reform, we have the authority when we want to change something that is brought forth because of a rule, because of the agency having the rule-making authority, but we may disagree with it in other instances, oftentimes when I've worked with Senator Hottinger, when we've brought something back, in taxes for example in feedlot regulations, we've made changes in statute. Has any bill been brought forth before either the house or the senate education committee that has the necessary changes that in statue vs. in rule? Have we looked at some of this as a means of addressing the shortcoming in the Profile. [Put changes in statuette rather than rule.]
Pappas: Not since I've been chair. You could ask Senator Pogemiller
Pogemiller: ...Has been some things like that through the years.
Stevens: Too often when we start something, and writing something into our bills and rule making authority is granted I think with a lot of assumptions that it is going to be done the way that the legislative intent is and that's as we see is not always the case. Maybe I can have someone come up here from the CFL. Has the department come through, since you don't have the rule making authority, has the department come through with a bill that would make some of these changes that would have been done in rulemaking and put them into a bill that would have made statutory changes in this.
Rose Hermodson (from CFL): When this was originally passed, at that point I was not with the Department...it was assigned to the state board of education who then went forward and put these rules into official rule-making. The agency provided the facts to, the work and some of the necessary background. They gave assistance to state board.
Stevens: I want to make myself clear-I don't want to go back through the whole history. What I want to know is since you have not had the rule-making authority to do the things that you have felt need to be done, was there a department bill that said, look, we're not going to do this rule-making, let's put it into statute and let's come with a department bill and give it to the house and senate and have them make the changes in the statute vs. rules. Has there ever been such a bill as that?
Rose Hermodson (CFL): Implementation did not go forward until 98. At the same time the board of education was abolished and so then the rule-making technically got transferred to us I think it was in 99 or 2000. In 2000 we had legislation before the legislature insisting on implementation powers, that was in 2000. We were also directed at that time to work with ACHIEVE and the academic panel was put into place and at that point in time, we took some of the issues that were raised to the academics panel, they issued a report, the commissioner adopted the plan, actually during the last legislative session. During the end of the last session, we then went forward with some of the suggestions.
It is in rule. We saw it as our obligation to fix it in the rule...
After the academic panel and the commissioners plan came out, we then start the process of attempting to fix the issues in the actual rule that were brought forward.
This is actually the first year we've had to come forward and we asked for rule-making authority to fix some of the issues. That's why there's not been any attempt to, and I don't think it would be appropriate, to bring legislation to imbed rules into statute. I think the process here is done through rule-making and that's what we're attempting to do is make the corrections by rule-making or getting the authority to do rule-making.
Stevens: The rulemaking has been granted by this body and the oversight that the legislature has. So I think the other thing members, when we do things in the future, I think we want to be specific, I think we need to have better language in statute and make sure the rule-making is minimal. Having said that though, we do have the A11 amendment before us...(told what amendment would do). Other segment is on the Basic Skill test-which they've reached agreement on.
Motion does not pass-there is not a majority from each body-
Pogemiller: Moved the department (CFL) amendment allowing for rule-making authority.
Stevens: Option 1: Profile of learning which would give Commissioner of CFL authority to amend the rules relating to the Profile of Learning and the necessary...MN rule 3501.
Pogemiller: This language from 2 to 3 years ago. The session where Rep. Pawlenty negotiated an agreement on the Profile of Learning and I had suggested to him at that time that we would want to agree to that agreement on this authority and he rejected this authority. But at this point I am sure he would agree to this. Has Representative Pawlenty been part of this compromise on the Profile? He's been supportive in some instances and not supportive in others and I think that he probably today regrets that he didn't allow this language to go into that compromise that he helped fashion several years ago. That's Representative Pawlenty, majority leader of the house.
Seifert: I was involved in that as well, and Rep. Pawlenty was brought in in regard to the Profile compromise, but voted against it because it didn't allow us the Profile like the original house bill did. So I think we are getting into politics rather than policy when we say Rep. Pawlenty somehow was involved in putting the compromise together from a couple of years ago. He voted against it. He spoke against it. He did not want this, as a matter of fact, without abolishment, I think a majority of my caucus voted against that particular compromise as you were chasing Rep. Ness around on the House floor to get him to sign the compromise. So let's be consistent and give full faith on what actually happened. Rep. Pawlenty voted against that compromise and it was because it did not have an abolishment of the Profile in it.
Erickson: Sen. Pogemiller, in what way will your Option 1 improve achievement for the Mpls. School district?
Pogemiller: I think the Option 1 is something that has been recommended by the department to accommodate some of the questions given not only by the Mps. School districts, but also by teachers throughout the state. I think without this rulemaking authority the department basically is stuck in limbo and it's like "In the Spanish or Mexican pinata you hang it in a tree and want to take a club and bat it. My sense is that the department has been feeling like a pinata over the years has been keeping them in the tree and batting them with a bat without giving them some authority to respond to the complaints and the issues and I think it is a reasonable request to allow them some rule-making authority to try and accommodate the concerns and Rep. Pelowski and Erickson and everyone seems to have."
Erickson: Sen. Pogemiller, you didn't answer my question. How will amending this particular section 3501.300... specifically improve achievement for Minneapolis? What's happening is this section of the rulemaking Sen. Pogemiller, that will make education "better" for Mpls students/or Mpls teachers too?
Pogemiller: Is this a trick question?
Erickson: It is not a trick question. I want to know what you think will be a way to improve. Why would we adopt this if its not going to improve at least your school or St. Paul, because I think Pelowski, Seifert, and Erickson and Stevens feel pretty comfortable with the education that's being delivered in our rural schools, but I'm interested in St. Paul and Mpls schools. What are you thinking will happen here, for Mpls school district with this authority for them.
Pogemiller: You know Representative Erickson that your votes with regard to funding of Mpls and St. Paul have not been supportive of the concerns that you're demonstrating now, but I suspect that's a separate matter. The department has asked very simply to have the authority to make some adjustments and changes to the Profile rules based on imput from teachers and parents and I think that will help all the students, teachers, parents and school boards if they're able to express their concerns and issues and enhancements to the Profile and the Department would accommodate them. Today you have a circumstance where the House refuses to allow the Department to do their job. I think that's strange and I think it's a real reasonable request by the department to say, "Please allow us to do our jobs."
Seifert: What is the Department going to do with these rules. Maybe the department can explain to us what, I mean, this is getting back to the point that the Senate acknowledges that there is a problem or something is broken because if not, they wouldn't offer us anything, if everything is lovely.
And if the problem is Minneaplis, and St. Paul, because I think the delivery of education in rural Minnesota is wonderful, I could re-offer my amendment and say "This section applies to all schools except Minneapolis and St. Paul. So if the Profile of Learning is so wonderful, let them live under it, and if they don't like it, let them contact Sen. Pappas and you and let my people go and let them deliver the education the best way they know how because I think, You know, we're ending up just creating a statewide school board here, we're ordering school districts to create xyz through the department and through rulemaking."
Let our local officials who run the schools and know the community and the expectations of what they should be doing. I don't know what these rules, these particular rules, I don't know what the department is going to do with them. Why do they need to change these rules. What's broken? And maybe that's what the department asked for and you're just offering it kind of on their behalf. Maybe they can explain what can be fixed in these rules that is broken right now. Because I'm not exactly understanding, if there's not a problem, why do we need to have rule changes.
Pappas: I'm afraid that if you let you're people go, they'll wander in the wilderness for 40 years looking for the promised land so I think we need to kind of stay on course here.
Pelowski: I was just interested in Sen. Pogemillers analogy with the pinata. He took some pretty good swings at it but you know when you hit it just right it opens up and, the gifts come out, but I'm still waiting for the gifts to come out for our students and our education system. If getting the rule-making will give us gifts, I guess that's when we find out what the gifts are.
Rose Hermodson (CFL): 3 years ago, primarily at the behest of the House, we were asked to bring in ACHIEVE and have them look at our standards and suggest some improvement which we did. We issued a report and paid for a report. We also established an academic panel. They reviewed the standards. And they gave us some directions as well. They have made suggestions that we involved teachers directly. As I mentioned earlier, most of the states are also relooking at their standards. We have taken that advice and council and this past summer, actually through the fall, we had teams of teachers look at the Profile. Some of the issues were clarity, redundancy, do they have scope and sequence, there are two to three other things that we had them look at. They made suggestions. Criticism about the content not being specific enough.
During the initial rule making process, some of it was eliminated...asked teachers to do some revision of the standards. That feedback was then taken back to 6 different stakeholder groups, which included community members, teachers, students, businesses, administrators, school board members, and so we then had them look at what some of these revisions that came from the teachers were and asked them to give us input. We went to Wilmar, Mpls. Fergus Falls and Eden Prairie. We also brought in a group of education stakeholders including higher ed, principles, superintendents, MSBA...we had a business leaders, the military, and labor groups and asked for their input on these revisions. We took that input again back to the teachers and asked them for their input a 2nd time to start looking at some further suggestions that came from those groups. We are now preparing to take those suggestions and look at the initial rules and make some changes. We have to have the rule making authority before we can do that.
Erickson: Are all of the recommendations that the academic panel and commissioner Jax have responded to on the website and other handouts we've received or does it zero in on something. That's the question I was wanting to get Senator Pogemiller to answer because then we could have a discussion about what is Option 1 really about. So is this the overall change because then options 2, 3, and 4 become much more specific.
Rose Hermodson (CFL): Option 1 is the broadest rule-making authority. We'd be able to go in a do anything with the Profile, realizing that there is some resistance to giving us-Option 2 limits us to four areas and those four areas are the ones that we are going to be...those are the 4 areas that would make the most sense if you just wanted to give us some limited rule-making authority and the reason we chose those four is because of their relationship to testing and because of the federal requirements. Option 3 is another option that would provide some ongoing review option.
Most states are doing ongoing review.[It is a nationwide system.] They adopted them and are going through a review cycle, and you come back and see how they're looking again. Option 4 is just a little different way...statutory law...we're trying to give you a variety of ways if you don't want to give us full rule making authority...but we do think we need to proceed with starting to direct some of the issues that have been raised and continue to be raised, otherwise, they'll just be back here next time taking up the whole time with rule-making authority.
Pelowski: If you were granted rule-making authority would you then address all the concerns brought up by the administrative law judge and would you address the issues that were left unadressed.
Rose Hermodson (CFL): I'm not familiar with all of these concerns...but I was addressing the concerns that were raised legislatively and through the Achieve Report and academic panel. I have to go back and review what the administrative law judge's concerns were, if there were any. I'm assuming since he had the ability to make the rules that he or she fundamentally implemented the rules to address the issues, but I'm not familiar with other issues...
Pelowski: We've heard testimony in the last few days...we've heard that it was onerous because the administrative law judge got involved and you have not addressed all of the concerns of the administrative law judge, so my concern is if we give you more rule-making power, what guarantees that you are going to address any concerns, others than maybe make this worse.
Rose Hermodson (CFL): My explanation of the administrative law judge was to just explain to you how we got to where we are today. I'm not blaming the administrative law judge, I'm just saying from the information from other things that we've suggested when you make the original rules and had the administrative law judge, that he or she decided not to include some of them in the framework.
I think the suggestions that we've received from teachers in how we'd go forward in restructuring the rule would break them down into two parts. One would have the contact areas, the other would have the procedural things of implementing the content. Now what an administrative law judge does, with our suggestions for this rule making, they will take input and make the decision. At this point though, we have no authority to do anything...We can't totally control what comes out of the administrative law judge either, even in the revisions so it's a process, it's a process most people follow.
Pogomiller: If they actually amended to make it worse, that seems it actually strengthens the House position to repeal the Profile. If they make changes that make it better, that strengthens the Senate position to stay the course, but at least it gets us off the dime. Because for the last two years we've sat here...we've got the pinata in the tree just getting hammered without the ability to do anything. Not open to give the gifts apparently because it's too tightly wound. They are looking for some adults to give them the authority to do something, make it better or make it worse, do something, and I think that's why this could be a win/win for both of us in a sense.
Pelowski: Well then to make it a total win/win Senator Pogomiller, I think we should include the language that it would have to be approved by the legislature. That would be the perfect win/win. Something the house would vote for.
Pappas: That was the suggestion I had made before Senator Pogomiller got here was that if the new rules are subject to legislative approval, but we don't in the meantime repeal the old rules, we leave those in place, but the new rules are brought before the legislature. And then I think that we have kind of a safety system in place, which I want, and I want to make sure that we have some standards in place, as other states do, but yet we also are giving the legislature an opportunity to review those rules and have the kind of input that you're saying we didn't have over the last decade.
Seifert: What happens then if the Senate decides they like the Profile better than whatever the new system is and we're stuck with the Profile again, just like we are now. I think if we had an abolishment, that would force the legislature to deal with the issue. Otherwise, we'll get a report from CFL on the new rules, we'll find a convenient shelf, we'll put it on there, and it will start to gather dust much like the OBE, Mastery of Learning...and all the other wonderful plans that have come down from central bureaucracy and education in the last 25 years.
Pogomiller: All of that may be true, but when the Carlson administration asked us to do this, we tried to accommodate them. The Ventura administration has asked us to stay the course, we're trying to accommodate them. At some point, you have to allow the executive branch to try to accommodate the concerns they're receiving with regard to complaints and I think I, Sen. Pappas has convinced me that if there is an amendment on my amendment that would say that if there is any new rules they want to implement come before the legislature, I would support that.
And I think then that we would have a compromise that gives you what you want, Let's get some legislative input on the new rule-making and accommodate Sen. Pappas's and mine and others concerns that we not throw out everything. And it seems to me that that is a very reasonable compromise and so I would amend my amendment…if the legislature doesn't act, I guess we're back to where we are now.
Seifert: I think this goes back to the fact that we're still stuck with the Profile and even if the rules come back and they have to have legislative approval, a. there's nothing to say we will even consider the new rules. I think with the number of Profile supporters in the Senate, I would think it would be unlikely to get on the dime with the issue in the House unless we get the abolishment so it forces us to deal with the issue...so if we put the sunset in there I think it would be a good complement to what Sen. Pogomiller wants to do.
Erickson: I would highly recommend that we include and that we amend to this amendment that before there is legislative approval there would be review by legislators who are sitting teacher or retired teachers because it's not a in the perview of the entire legislature to figure out whether or not there are improvements and what the positive effects will be on our teacher and our students. And those of us who practice or have just finished practicing in this profession would be the best reviewers and to bring a recommendation to the legislature for approval or disapproval...
Pogemiller: Option 1 with the amendment that it must be approved by law...
Seifert: The recent study released by the University of Minnesota showed that only 1/3 of teachers liked the Profile. (See the Study)
Pappas: Mr. Chairman: I've been waiting for you to bring up that infamous report. I was not going to pass this out until it got brought up.
There was a letter to the editor from the authors of the report in response to criticism that was in the paper on Sunday from someone who is from the Maple River Education Coalition (See the letter to the editor) so now I know where this all is coming from the report. There have been many reports.
Seifert: Did Maple River, Mr. Chairman do that report?
Pappas: No they were criticizing it. And perhaps some house members saw this letter criticizing it. However, this is from the authors of the study and I wanted to enter it into the records that they objected to the letter that misrepresented the report. They said, "It selectively interpreted results of our U of M study to imply that the Profile should be scrapped. Our study indicates the profile has both positive and negative aspects." The [authors] did say that there was a negative side which you alluded to, but you never mentioned the positive.
Pogemiller: Does this imply that the authors of the report that Maple River is using to criticize the report believe that the Maple River Coalition has not been totally truthful with their analysis of the report?
Pappas: I would say so.
Pogemiller requested a roll call vote-incorporating his amendment to his amendment-must be approved by law.
Stevens: As someone who has not usually sat on the education committee, I've heard much more than I've ever wanted to know. I've heard about the standards, federal government, the CFL, the state board of education. One thing I haven't heard in three days here. I have not heard anything to do with the best interest of the child.
I think we talk about groups, coalitions, unions, the process, but you know what, at the time that we're wrestling with this, what is happening with the students in our schools system. I've heard from two teachers and I was particularly taken with the question that Rep. Pelowski posed yesterday at what point when he was teaching did he not have standards in his classroom. And I think it's a very fair question. I think it's a question that we have how many thousand teachers…and they have standards in their classroom.
At some point we were looking for some magic bullet that would guarantee that every student that went through the school system is going to come out at least above average. I don't know that that's possible...I have heard, and members I can't go anyplace where there is teachers, that I don't have a teacher come up to me and talk to me about the Profile of Learning. And I think it's one thing that I've been able to step back at look at this at a little bit different light because of the fact that you're on the education committee. I see some real Problems in the Profile of Learning. It's one of the things that I think, as we saw in our vote in the Senate, the Senate is pretty evenly dividing in whether or not the Profile should...tide has changed...patient may not be on life support yet, but it's getting awful close. But again I want to know what is in the best interest of the child. And is fixing it going to give us...what is in the best interest of the child.
Pogemiller: House needs to recognize that it is the roadblock to fixing the standards in our schools and I think that's unfortunate. I know that Mr. Sullivan is committed to eliminating the Profile. I think we'll find out within the next few months where Pawlenty stands. Moe wants to fix the standards. Jesse wants to fix the standards. One has not determined what his position is since he's negotiated the standards in the past. Mr. Sullivan will eliminate the Profile...
Pelowski: Juniors every week spend the entire week in the House...In the debate on the Profile amendment on the floor I said many of the same things that I've said today-I received a note from one of the pages saying "Thank you Rep. Pelowski for representing us and our viewings toward our education. Thank you." These are from 11th grade student. Now, I may not have learned much in the 26 years I've taught but I know when student voluntarily make an effort to say something, we should listen...they know there's a problem and its their education that is at stake.
Pogemiller: A mother's day back I had two students who happened to be relatives show me projects that happened to be done in their school districts that were incredible. And they said to me, "Is this that Profile thing that everybody keeps talking about?" and I said, "Yes", and they said, "Thank you Uncle Larry".
"You know, they don't call you Senator."
The meeting came to a close with no agreement being reached.*******
EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and distribution work is entirely dependent on individual contributors. If you want to assure that our work continues, Link to -- www.edwatch.org
Please e-mail us to subscribe to this EdWatch e-mail service.
(c) EdWatch - All rights reserved.