AUGUSTA, Maine — After a last-minute amendment, members of the Maine Senate on Thursday went against their House counterparts and voted for a standards-based education bill.
LD 1422 was first discussed at length, amended considerably and then approved unanimously several weeks ago by the Education Committee. The measure directs the Department of Education to develop a plan that transitions all school districts to high school diplomas awarded based on a student’s demonstrated proficiency in all areas of assessment, not how long a student has been in school.
How districts move toward a standards-based diploma is up to them. Teachers can do what they have always done as long as their students meet proficiency goals. The bill would require implementation of a standards-based diploma by 2017, or 2020 if a waiver is granted, but would not necessarily provide funding to school districts to help meet that requirement.
In the last several days, support for the measures have wavered. Many were worried about the mandate stipulated in the bill, while others worried that it would not be funded. Some critics said the mandate aspect of the bill is reminiscent of former Gov. John Baldacci’s plan to force school districts to consolidate.
The amendment to LD 1422, offered by Sen. Brian Langley, R-Ellsworth, removed the mandate and provided some funding for teaching training to address those concerns.
The Senate vote was 22-13.
The House had voted 76-67 on Wednesday to reject the bill — it needed a two-thirds majority to pass — but the amended version now goes back to the House, where it now only needs a simple majority.
The bill has the strong support of Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen, who worked hard this week to convince lawmakers to support it.
The House debate on Thursday was long and fractious.
Rep. Dick Wagner, D-Lewiston, the lead Democrat on the Education Committee, was among those who supported the bill.
“This is a change for sure,” he said. “No change is pretty; no change is nice and neat. You can’t package this and put a bow on it. But we’ve got to get started somewhere.”
“I feel like it has come at the last minute; there is still a lot of controversy remaining,” said Rep. Kerri Prescott, R-Topsham. “All I ask is that we slow down. Sometimes the best action is no action.”
A similar debate followed in the Senate and, like the House debate, the bill divided Democrats and Republicans almost equally.
Follow BDN reporter Eric Russell on Twitter at @BDNPolitics
American high schools have been doing the same thing, the same way, since the committee of ten in 1892 (Google it). Everything else has changed. It might be time to try something new.
Couldn’t have said it better.
Absolute hogwash and it is absolutely ignorant to paint with such a broad and hyperbolic brush. You call yourself “WaldoTeacher.” Try something new? I guess if you ever were a teacher you haven’t been around for the last 40 years. There have been RIVERS of education “models” and methods, some pieces of which have had merit, others complete failures. We now have the second generation of learning results, IEP’s and 504’s for special needs kids, Student Improvement Plans, Response To Interventions, Educational Extensions, accelerated learning, honors classes, AP classes, vocational education, special education, varied methods, teaching to multiple intelligences, technology integration, extracurriculars of all types, and on and on. Are you the one lost in 1892? Here is what successful education looks like: functional educational organizations where teachers and administrators work well together and help each other for the betterment of students; order and discipline in the halls and in the classrooms and in all school areas from top to bottom coupled with caring and many things for kids to say yes to make the school experience more meaningful; well-trained and dedicated teachers who know their subjects well, understand the age groups they work with, know how to engage kids and form positive working relationships with them, use a variety of methods, and know how to run an orderly classroom with a culture of learning and high expectations. It is the CULTURE of the school and the classrooms that is very, very key. Yet, in the end, that still can not replace the home environment where some structure and high expectations are absolutely CRITICAL. Two-thirds of all factors that determine a person’s academic performance are those that occur beyond the control of the school and the classroom.
Want higher performance? Have families and a broader culture that highly values education and bears that out in their nurturing. We don’t need to constantly reinvent the wheel. We put people on the moon. We know how to educate, and we know what works. Give schools and teachers the tools, and let them do their jobs.
I think a lot of what you say here is right on. What has changed is a culture that does not hold students accountable for actual learning. All we ask of most students is that they jump through the bare minimum of hoops and then we pass them up to the next grade. School should never have been about age-determined grade levels.
I can understand your objection to SBE as a new fad. But I don’t think it is a fad. I think it is a sensible way of structuring education that we moved away from in the 70s in order to focus on making sure students developed self-esteem. What we have come to learn is that self-esteem is not produced by having others praise you, but by actually feeling satisfied and proud of one’s own achievements. People can work at their own pace, focusing on subjects they are most interested in–there is no need to label one student successful, and another student a failure like letter grades do. We just let them be different.
I took a college course in Algebra/Trigonometry when I went back to college as a “non-traditional” student. I wasn’t sure how much math I had retained over the years. This class was excellent. The math faculty had developed a big white binder with 20 levels in it (it cost only $20–imagine that, for a college class text!) The teacher set up a schedule of lectures for each level. It was up to the student to decide if she needed the lecture. The students had the option of taking a test on the material for each level at any time–if they passed, they moved on to the next level. IF not, they attended additional classes that were work sessions with the professor. They took the test again until they passed it. Then they moved on. I bet every student in that class ended up passing the course.
School should not be about the number of days, or hours, or years you spend in a classroom. It should be about a core of knowledge that you master, and then about learning subjects that interest you most.
SBE is a model that may work in some schools or content programs and smaller self contained classrooms, but can not work well in others, and those others should in no way have this forced upon them. You don’t need a “self paced” situation to obtain accountability, and in fact that can diminish accountability as some students need to be pushed forward. – If a teacher, for example, in a middle or high school is assigned a hundred students to bring through a given US History curriculum in one school year, you can’t have all 100 students across five classes a day on some “self paced” plan. It is just not manageable given the curriculum, the scope and sequence, the nature of the content, and how the teacher must manage it to ensure that alll students have acquired the knowledge by the end of the year. And that is a structure which works well for many schools, including many high performing schools. Schoolwide self pacing was tried with the “Open Classroom” model in the 70’s which failed badly in most cases. It was a mess, and “self paced” would be a total mess in MANY instances now as well. One reason it fails is because many students who need to be pushed are not pushed under this model, and they stagnate. It also failed because it removed the STRUCTURE that is NEEDED to teach and learn. It may work, again, in some settings and for some particular programs, but it would not work well in others. It may work in a Montessori school setting, but those are small schools and they are entirely designed for that type of programming. So, if you want a completely self paced situation, either homeschool or go to a Montessori school.
The example you use is a college level situation. There may be some programs at that high level where a self paced model can work. But that is a very different situation than bringing 100 assigned middle schoolers through a given body of content that none have ever experienced. Imagine a music or art teacher trying to teach new content and skills and provide projects in a given amount of time to hundreds of kids will all on some self paced plan. IT WOULD BE A TOTAL MESS AND WOULD NOT BE MANAGEABLE. And what do you do for kids who want to move faster in many subjects? You have an accelerated level program for those who choose that, which many schools do including those in my district. You also offer independent extensions activities for extra credit to allow kids who want to go deeper to do so. — No, we do not need to eliminate grade levels by ages nor numeric and letter grades. Most kids need to be with appropriate peers. Letter grades are good incentives as I always see, and as long as the assessments and grading processes are done well they absolutely do reflect proficiency. And students also NEED some whole-group interactice experiences as well which are rich learning experiences. There are whole-class dynamics and also smaller group based projects within larger classrooms that are very valuable and also present the kinds of learning and interactive experiences they will face in many other life situations and the world of work. There is no one silver bullet approach to education. It is very complex. However, as I have said, if you generally want high proficiency and successful schools, do as I have said in my other post. And again, we must all understand, that without a value of education in the home setting which is reflected through strong nurturing, high expectations, and some structure there, any school program can only do so much. No educational model can replace what happens at home which is THE most important life determinant.
Change is hard, but this one isn’t going away.
It will if people speak to their legislators and school boards – this is pure snake oil combined with smoke and mirrors, in other states it has resulted in a dumbing down of content – we don’t need a “dumber” citizenry. You might want to check with teachers/parents and students in RSU 2 – they are very vocally not happy with SBE and the way it is being implemented, and the legislators heard that loud and clear. Time to toss another garbage cure all educational theory down the toilet – btw; my masters is in educational theory.
Remember Learning Results? Local Assessment Systems? NCLB? School consolidation? They’ve all come and gone in the past decade.
Changing governors will be both pretty and neat.
In ten years we’ll all be looking for something new again to try to engage our students in school work. American education has been through so many “fads” in teaching but it always boils down to the family’s whole interest in education for their children and how connected the parents are to their children and their well-being, which is sadly being eroded more and more in modern life. I work with students daily and am appalled at the growing lack of curiosity about learning among our young people. Standards are just one more way to assess students, but even standards can be “dumbed down”.
Every study out there shows that about two thirds of a person’s academic performance is determined by nature and NURTURE factors OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL. Kids who come from loving healthy stable families that value education and reflect that value at home through high expectations and support of learning do well. Kids from families that do not value education and don’t support often struggle. Schools and teachers can never, ever replace the parents and the homes and should not be expected to do so.
This is the latest “flavor of the month.” It is interesting that Commissioner Bowen tried to pass this bill as an unfunded mandate for the school districts. When he was at Maine Heritage Policy Center, he wanted to slash state money for local schools, and now he wanted to force an unfunded mandate on them. I will never understand why conservatives and liberals conspired to get this bill passed. Whatever happened to personal responsiblity and striving for excellence?
As I understand this, there is no across-the-board mandate, and now at least a little bit of funding has been added. That was at least one good compromise. Schools who want to try it can and will get some funding to do so. Those satisfied with their current model can stay with it as long as they show students are meeting learning standards. I don’t think Camden, MDI, Cape Elizabeth, etc. need some new model of schooling foisted upon them. They provide an excellent product now. Others may want to try it. It should be a matter of local choice. Some pieces of it may have some merit in some schools and some programs within those schools. But yes, I absolutely oppose this thing being foisted upon every single school and community across the state. And yes, that runs completely counter to a “conservative” philosophy which is supposed to favor LOCAL CONTROL and be opposed to heavy-handed top-down expensive government mandates, especially unfunded ones.
The amended bill has not removed the requirement that all schools must transition to Standards-Based eduation. So Camden, MDI, Cape Elizabeth, and other similar schools will need to change. The only difference the amendment makes is who will pay for the change. In the original bill it was local school districts and in the amended bill it is the state. This is a said day for local control and a said day for education in the state of Maine.
Before going whole hog into any education bill profered by the MHPC, considerable research needs to be done. Results from several schools that are willing to test drive this “new model” need to be analyzed and compared to the existing system over a period of time. It seems that studying to “meet” a standard is not an inducement to achieve excellence, but rather an invitation to be satisfied with mediocrity.
Mooselake,
It is unfortunate that the term “standard” has been used here for in conjures up visions of the status-quo at best and mediocrity at worst. In reality the “standards” have been raised significantly from what is acceptable now. Under these “new”standards nothing less than an old fashioned B would be indicative of the standard being met–no more Cs and Ds. A simple “3” signifies the standards has been met while a 4 would proclaim mastery. A 1 or 2 mean only that the student must keep at it–no more social promotions. Whether or not this seeming paradigm shift will result in a better education lies in the makeup of the core of the system–unfortunately now named “common core”.
If students can pass a standard based proficiency test not based on age or time in school, what will stop students from leaving school early. How about GED classes. The whole idea is bad. No diploma will lead to more chaos.
So that means they can go to college or enter the workforce earlier.
Students are not ready to enter college until age 17 at the earliest. (or at least most of them are not.) Even if they are intellectually ready, they are no where near mature enough. YET ANOTHER UNFUNDED MANDATE. Enough already Lefrog…go pick on someone else.
One of my sons took his first college class in the summer before 9th grade. The other two took their first college classes when they were sophomores in high school. They tried high school, but were so bored and frustrated that we took them out of school and began having them take college courses.
The one who started the youngest, ended up working full-time when he was junior/senior in high school while taking college courses. His same-age peers slaved away at public school, many of them doing just enough to get by and counting the days until they could be set free.
Many, many of the most talented students in high school could easily be full-time college students by their junior year of high school. Why does it need to be funded? It takes no money to embrace, in fact it could save taxpayers money because the top notch students would be entering college by 11th grade.
Taking classes and being in college full time are two very different things. And, if you read my post, I clearly stated MOST students were not ready. This program would take a ton of money to get started. Perhaps if you don’t have experience in education, you may not understand that.
There is no doubt in my mind that the top students at most of our schools could transition very well into college at an earlier age. They tend to be the most mature, dependable and organized.
Some of the greatest human minds that we know began studying intensely well before they were eighteen. They were given the freedom to advance to a more appropriate level when they met certain standards or passed certain tests. They weren’t forced to wait around for the others. If they had I doubt that our civilization would be so advanced.
If they don’t go off to college, students could live at home and attend classes at the nearest university or community college. For their last two years of high school they can work part-time and take classes part-time in order to pay for the classes and to build a resume that will help them later. Then when they reach the traditional age of college they already have college experience, college credits and can easily make the transition from living at home to going off to live at college. In the long run it may help them be more successful overall once in college.
I am in education. I have been involved in education for fifteen years. Well, actually since 1969 when I entered the American school system.
Most of the high schools offer the option to enroll in college courses while they attend high school. We have programs in place for the students who desire it. Forcing this change will not help anyone. I work with these children every day. Time to stop derailing their futures. The schools need more funding, not more mandates or more critics. It’s too bad that the people who expend their energies on this site criticizing and demeaning public education can’t put that energy into supporting it. I know our government loves to say we want educated citizens. It’s too bad that actions speak much louder than words.
If we keep doing what we are doing we will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world in education. These changes are positive changes and do not need more money to implement. The more that education money has increased, the more inept our system has become. The schools do not need more funding. They need well educated and skilled teachers who are willing to stretch and grow so that our education can evolve rather than continue to decline as it is doing. I am also involved in education every day and have been making some important observations because my mind is open to all possibilities.
Although I have criticized the current system, I have mostly offered positive solutions based on my educational experience. I am supportive our educational system by looking at the bigger picture and offering proven suggestions. My energy is going into thinking about new solutions to make things better. If I didn’t support it I would give up on it and focus on alternative education or private education. You seem to be the one stuck in tradition and in the thinking that we need more money when what we really need is a new way of delivering education.
Truthfully, I am not “stuck in tradition” as you state. I am always open to innovation, creativity and exciting new possibilities. However, the last year have struck a hard blow to the teachers in Maine. Told we have a failing system, and then forced to listen to people who have little to no classroom experience tell us how to do our jobs “better” only serve as ammunition to deter young, bright people from entering this profession. How dare you assume anything about me? I am an exceptional teacher, well versed in technology, and always looking for ways to improve my classroom. I love my students; I adore what I do, and DESPITE being criticized by this administration, I go to work each day and try to educate our youth to the best of my ability. These programs, this current one and the dozens more like RTI, are being forced down the throats of teachers and taking them away from the importance of the classroom instruction. Teachers need time. We need time to plan, time to grade, time to learn, and we receive NONE. I’m all for positive change, change that is implemented by those who will do the changing. Our system is not failing, it is different. Time for people in our state and country to recognize that our system isn’t like other countries, and to compare us to others is much like comparing apples to wood. Both stem from trees…and that is where the comparisons end. As I’ve stated, support and protection is what our teachers need. What you offer is not.
Our system is failing. It has been failing for many years. We need to approach education differently.
What teachers need is to have an open mind and a willingness to try things differently in order for us to continue to compete in the world. Those who can’t or won’t will probably get lost in the dust.
If they pass all of the standard based proficiency tests, then award their diploma at that point. As TrueNative said, they can then enter college or the workforce earlier with a diploma.
Which is good why Maine_Auntie? A standard based proficiency isn’t available for college, most jobs, or even life. The world’s problems will not be solved with multiple choice options. Schools teach high level problem solving, tolerance, and independence. It isn’t the schools who are failing our children.
I am just having a grammatical day:
Proof reading point: “In the last several days, support for the measures have wavered.”
should be has wavered. support has wavered, not have.
Says Rep. Kerri Prescott, R-Topsham. “All I ask is that we slow down. Sometimes the best action is no action.”
I agree with the “slow down” part, but not the “no action” part.
It has become crystal clear that our current system is failing our students, our teachers and our society. Action is necessary if this is to be corrected– prudent, cautious action.
I am struck by the fact that the very persons who have been deriding government intervention in our primary and secondary education have no problem mandating what is taught, when it is taught, and how it is taught from offices on high while at the same time merely suggesting that such important factors as class size be kept small (MRS Title 20-A Sec 4252), seriously penalizing all “rural” schools by cutting their funding based upon a fictitious model of efficiency (EPS) etc., etc..Education on the cheap only results in cheap education. To hand out unfunded mandates shows a lack of the moral and political will necessary if we are to provide more than lip service to the education of our children. As John Dewey wrote, “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children.”
Go ahead and set your standards. The parents and their lawyers will defeat them every time. We tried 1,2,3 way back in the 70’s and the parents in our school system rebelled. Somehow we have the idea that parents know best, so why doesn’t the state step back and let them have their say at the local level Don’t forget that we have a constitution, though.