A Brief Chronology of Education Reform in the USA and in Washington State
June 17, 2008
By CURE
June 17, 2008
Ever since the late 1960s, the academic abilities of public school students have been declining. Think tanks, government policy-makers, the business community, and teachers’ unions have all come up with solutions, and they are right to be concerned. However, somewhere in the process, the parents and children have become lost in the shuffle.
In 1965, the federal government passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and gave federal funding to the states for the first time as a part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. However, the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes control over education a power reserved to the state governments or to the people. Federal control over local education is unconstitutional and ill-advised.
In 1972, at the national level, the Business Roundtable was established, ostensibly to improve US economic health. Since then it has been dealing with many issues, including education.
In 1983, here in Washington State, George Weyerhaeuser formed the Washington Business Roundtable and became its first chairman.
In 1987, Washington State established the Schools for the 21st Century project, promoted by Marc Tucker. Tucker’s specialty was and is human resource development. These pilot schools followed new education “reform” measures.
At the national level, also in 1987, Marc Tucker proposed the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). This organization promoted new education “reform” policies such as those used by the Schools for the 21st Century-setting standards, assessing students, separating them into career tracks, creating a data base system, and changing school structure and teaching methods. The federal government has no Constitutional authority over the states’ education, but it was through the NCEE and other non-governmental centers that national, but not federal, control could be established.
In 1989at the National Governor’s Association conference in Kansas, the speaker Dr. Shirley McCune stated ,”…we no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education”.. “What it amounts to is the total transformation of our society.” Dr. McCune is now Washington State’s Federal Liaison to the federal Department of Education.
In early 1991, at the national level, the NCEE with Learning Research & Development at the University of Pittsburgh established the New Standards Project (NSP). (More on this below.)
In 1991, Washington State’s Governor Booth Gardner established the Governor’s Commission on Education Reform and Funding (GCERF) to restructure education. This was not a Legislative action, but was done unilaterally by executive order, with the strong urging and support of the Washington Business Roundtable. The purpose was to implement a WASL-type (NCEE-type) system. Dr. McCune acted as a consultant to GCERF, prior to taking the position with Washington’s education bureaucracy. The GCERF report became the basis for Washington’s education reform law of 1993. (See Below.)
In November of 1992, just after Bill Clinton won the presidential election, Marc Tucker wrote what has come to be known as the “Dear Hillary” letter.
This eighteen-page document, now part of the Congressional record, congratulates Mrs. Clinton on the successful election and proceeds to lay out the skeleton of his plan for a cradle to grave system encompassing education and the economy. This is in the Congressional Record in PDF format, and spans 7 pages, starting at the bottom of the first page in the link: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 .
The plan was later fleshed out and ultimately became a document called “A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States.” From this blueprint sprang Goals 2000, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and a re-write and reauthorization of the federal role in education through an act known as HR6.
In 1992, the federal SCANS report was published. SCANS is the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. This report paralleled Marc Tucker’s vision and spelled out how the entire education system would be aligned to serve the labor market. Students would earn certificates and be put into government-defined career tracks. The Secretary issuing this report was the Secretary of LABOR, not the Secretary of Education. This causes an uneasy feeling in anyone who remembers that, in the Communist Manifesto, one of Karl Marx’s recommendations to “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” was, “Free education for all children in public schools,” along with the “…Combination of education with industrial production….”
In 1993, Washington State passed ESHB 1209, establishing the NCEE vision of education reform. The NCEE New Standards were adopted. Illogically, the pilot project, Schools for the 21st Century, was still ongoing, and there was as yet no final report. In fact, a final report was never written, even though the consultant was paid anyway. The evaluation testing (the Metropolitan Achievement Test) required in the pilot-program law was also never administered.
In 1994, the Federal Government passed Goals 2000, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Later a federal Workforce Incentive Act would be passed. This implemented the NCEE system nation-wide. Washington State also passed its own school-to-work bill.
In 1997, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) was given for the first time, to fourth graders. The seventh and tenth grade WASLs were phased in during the next two years. The WASL is not a standardized test; it is a subjectively graded standards-based assessment that relies heavily on essay questions. The assessment and the curriculum emphasize process instead of information.
In 1998 at a hearing in the Washington State House Education Committee, researchers presented data showing that the students in the Schools for the 21st Century Project, who were taught under NCEE recommended guidelines-using the New Standards mentioned above-had worse scores on the newly created WASL than students taught traditionally, yet the Legislature did not alter its course.
In 2002, the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed, requiring testing as an accountability tool for schools receiving federal funds. The purpose was to measure the effectiveness of schools and districts, not individual students. Washington was permitted to use its WASL for this. NCLB did not require the assessment to be used as a graduation requirement. That decision was left to each state. (See Public Law 107-110 or NCLB, Title I, Part A, SubPart 1, Section 1111(l).)
In 2003, the Washington State Board of Education issued a Certificate of Mastery report which stated that all board members were not convinced that the WASL was sufficiently valid and reliable to be used as a graduation requirement.
In 2004, despite the negative 2003 report, the Washington Legislature made passing the WASL a graduation requirement, beginning with the class of 2008. Four retakes were allowed. (3ESHB2195)
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature reconfigured the State Board of Education into a mostly appointed board, instead of an elected board, and changed its duties. (ESSB5732)
It also eliminated state funding for the Iowa Test, the only statewide objective, normed and standardized test. (EHB1068)
Also in 2005, a Fordham Foundation study which analyzed the learning standards of each state gave Washington’s math and reading standards an “F.”
In 2006, in view of the dismal WASL pass rates and increasing public dissatisfaction, the Washington State Legislature developed some alternative ways for students who did not pass the WASL to show they met the “Essential Academic Learning Requirements”(ESSB6475).
In 2006, the Legislature also laid the groundwork for a Civics classroom-based assessment which would be added to the other assessments. The law specified that the curriculum should incorporate ideas from the We the People program and its activity component Project Citizen. We the People promotes world citizenship along with more traditional concepts (EHB2579). By specifying this curriculum, the Legislature furthered its encroachment upon local districts’ curriculum decisions.
Also in 2006, the Legislature also laid the groundwork for more control over children from birth to preschool by creating the Department of Early Learning. (SSHB2964)
In 2007to address the poor math and science scores of students in Washington state, the Legislators pushed back the deadline for passing the math and science WASLs to 2013, and also added course requirements. (ESSB6023)
They also created math and science panels to rewrite the math and science standards and stated that the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) shall use the new standards to recommend three math curricula and three science curricula to school districts. This again is an intrusion by the State into the local districts’ decision-making. (SSHB1906)
Also in 2007, the Legislature mandated that districts which teach sex education must use a state-approved “comprehensive sex education curriculum” which means that abstinence-only cannot be taught. Besides mandating a controversial approach to sex education, this legislation further interferes with local control. (ESSB5297)
Also in 2007, The goal of basic education was redefined (in E2SSB 5841). The law now states: “The goal of the basic education act for the schools of the state of Washington set forth in this chapter shall be to provide students with the opportunity to become responsible and respectful global citizens, to contribute to their economic well-being and that of their families and communities, to explore and understand different perspectives, and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives (emphasis added).
Note the addition of “global citizens” and the glaring omission of “US Citizenship.”
In 2008, the Washington State Legislature allowed additional alternate ways for students who did not pass the WASL to show they met the “Essential Academic Learning Requirements.” It also called for a transition to End-of-Course assessments in math and science by the end of 2013, at the latest. A WASL appeals panel was also created. (ESSB6023)
In June 2008, an election year, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) released WASL scores showing that 91.4% of the high school students passed the reading and writing portions. (Students currently, do not have to pass the math portion to graduate.) This was the first year that passing the WASL was a requirement for graduation. Please note that WASL scores are neither valid nor reliable, and that there are at least three ways that OSPI can control scores: 1. Change cut scores, 2. Choose easier or harder items from the item-bank, and 3. Use more lenient grading rubrics for the essay questions. Another way to improve WASL statistics is to not count drop-outs or students who have been “reclassified” into a different grade – that is, students who flunked. Since the Iowa test was dropped in 2005, there is no objective, normed, standardized test which can measure actual student learning or can compare Washington’s students with students in other states.
The “education reformers” may have thought it would be good to set standards, teach those standards, and then test the students to see if they meet those standards. Those who passed would receive a certificate permitting them to progress to the next step. That system works if one is producing widgets: one makes a blueprint, assembles the product, puts it through quality control (testing), and certifies it as a finished product. However, children are not widgets. Furthermore, “reform” supporters who emphasize “higher order thinking skills” did not anticipate the adoption of such poor learning standards or the subjective nature of the assessments which guide the whole system. Grading pupils’ thoughts is problematic. The chain of events has resulted in a system which is based upon wrong premises and poor curricula. The entire focus of education is now on assessment. Funding is being used to grow a top-down bureaucracy, rather than to enhance classroom flexibility in dealing with individuals.
Children are unique, precious human beings. They should be given the academic tools they need to become responsible, independent adults and be free to develop their own thought processes and career choices. While the businesses certainly have valid concerns, they are not the customers, and the children are not the product. Most importantly, public schools should not be used for social transformation.
Tags: History of Ed "Reform"
In 1965, the federal government passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and gave federal funding to the states for the first time as a part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. However, the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution makes control over education a power reserved to the state governments or to the people. Federal control over local education is unconstitutional and ill-advised.
In 1972, at the national level, the Business Roundtable was established, ostensibly to improve US economic health. Since then it has been dealing with many issues, including education.
In 1983, here in Washington State, George Weyerhaeuser formed the Washington Business Roundtable and became its first chairman.
In 1987, Washington State established the Schools for the 21st Century project, promoted by Marc Tucker. Tucker’s specialty was and is human resource development. These pilot schools followed new education “reform” measures.
At the national level, also in 1987, Marc Tucker proposed the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). This organization promoted new education “reform” policies such as those used by the Schools for the 21st Century-setting standards, assessing students, separating them into career tracks, creating a data base system, and changing school structure and teaching methods. The federal government has no Constitutional authority over the states’ education, but it was through the NCEE and other non-governmental centers that national, but not federal, control could be established.
In 1989at the National Governor’s Association conference in Kansas, the speaker Dr. Shirley McCune stated ,”…we no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education”.. “What it amounts to is the total transformation of our society.” Dr. McCune is now Washington State’s Federal Liaison to the federal Department of Education.
In early 1991, at the national level, the NCEE with Learning Research & Development at the University of Pittsburgh established the New Standards Project (NSP). (More on this below.)
In 1991, Washington State’s Governor Booth Gardner established the Governor’s Commission on Education Reform and Funding (GCERF) to restructure education. This was not a Legislative action, but was done unilaterally by executive order, with the strong urging and support of the Washington Business Roundtable. The purpose was to implement a WASL-type (NCEE-type) system. Dr. McCune acted as a consultant to GCERF, prior to taking the position with Washington’s education bureaucracy. The GCERF report became the basis for Washington’s education reform law of 1993. (See Below.)
In November of 1992, just after Bill Clinton won the presidential election, Marc Tucker wrote what has come to be known as the “Dear Hillary” letter.
This eighteen-page document, now part of the Congressional record, congratulates Mrs. Clinton on the successful election and proceeds to lay out the skeleton of his plan for a cradle to grave system encompassing education and the economy. This is in the Congressional Record in PDF format, and spans 7 pages, starting at the bottom of the first page in the link: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 .
The plan was later fleshed out and ultimately became a document called “A Human Resources Development Plan for the United States.” From this blueprint sprang Goals 2000, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and a re-write and reauthorization of the federal role in education through an act known as HR6.
In 1992, the federal SCANS report was published. SCANS is the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. This report paralleled Marc Tucker’s vision and spelled out how the entire education system would be aligned to serve the labor market. Students would earn certificates and be put into government-defined career tracks. The Secretary issuing this report was the Secretary of LABOR, not the Secretary of Education. This causes an uneasy feeling in anyone who remembers that, in the Communist Manifesto, one of Karl Marx’s recommendations to “centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state” was, “Free education for all children in public schools,” along with the “…Combination of education with industrial production….”
In 1993, Washington State passed ESHB 1209, establishing the NCEE vision of education reform. The NCEE New Standards were adopted. Illogically, the pilot project, Schools for the 21st Century, was still ongoing, and there was as yet no final report. In fact, a final report was never written, even though the consultant was paid anyway. The evaluation testing (the Metropolitan Achievement Test) required in the pilot-program law was also never administered.
In 1994, the Federal Government passed Goals 2000, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Later a federal Workforce Incentive Act would be passed. This implemented the NCEE system nation-wide. Washington State also passed its own school-to-work bill.
In 1997, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) was given for the first time, to fourth graders. The seventh and tenth grade WASLs were phased in during the next two years. The WASL is not a standardized test; it is a subjectively graded standards-based assessment that relies heavily on essay questions. The assessment and the curriculum emphasize process instead of information.
In 1998 at a hearing in the Washington State House Education Committee, researchers presented data showing that the students in the Schools for the 21st Century Project, who were taught under NCEE recommended guidelines-using the New Standards mentioned above-had worse scores on the newly created WASL than students taught traditionally, yet the Legislature did not alter its course.
In 2002, the Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed, requiring testing as an accountability tool for schools receiving federal funds. The purpose was to measure the effectiveness of schools and districts, not individual students. Washington was permitted to use its WASL for this. NCLB did not require the assessment to be used as a graduation requirement. That decision was left to each state. (See Public Law 107-110 or NCLB, Title I, Part A, SubPart 1, Section 1111(l).)
In 2003, the Washington State Board of Education issued a Certificate of Mastery report which stated that all board members were not convinced that the WASL was sufficiently valid and reliable to be used as a graduation requirement.
In 2004, despite the negative 2003 report, the Washington Legislature made passing the WASL a graduation requirement, beginning with the class of 2008. Four retakes were allowed. (3ESHB2195)
In 2005, the Washington State Legislature reconfigured the State Board of Education into a mostly appointed board, instead of an elected board, and changed its duties. (ESSB5732)
It also eliminated state funding for the Iowa Test, the only statewide objective, normed and standardized test. (EHB1068)
Also in 2005, a Fordham Foundation study which analyzed the learning standards of each state gave Washington’s math and reading standards an “F.”
In 2006, in view of the dismal WASL pass rates and increasing public dissatisfaction, the Washington State Legislature developed some alternative ways for students who did not pass the WASL to show they met the “Essential Academic Learning Requirements”(ESSB6475).
In 2006, the Legislature also laid the groundwork for a Civics classroom-based assessment which would be added to the other assessments. The law specified that the curriculum should incorporate ideas from the We the People program and its activity component Project Citizen. We the People promotes world citizenship along with more traditional concepts (EHB2579). By specifying this curriculum, the Legislature furthered its encroachment upon local districts’ curriculum decisions.
Also in 2006, the Legislature also laid the groundwork for more control over children from birth to preschool by creating the Department of Early Learning. (SSHB2964)
In 2007to address the poor math and science scores of students in Washington state, the Legislators pushed back the deadline for passing the math and science WASLs to 2013, and also added course requirements. (ESSB6023)
They also created math and science panels to rewrite the math and science standards and stated that the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) shall use the new standards to recommend three math curricula and three science curricula to school districts. This again is an intrusion by the State into the local districts’ decision-making. (SSHB1906)
Also in 2007, the Legislature mandated that districts which teach sex education must use a state-approved “comprehensive sex education curriculum” which means that abstinence-only cannot be taught. Besides mandating a controversial approach to sex education, this legislation further interferes with local control. (ESSB5297)
Also in 2007, The goal of basic education was redefined (in E2SSB 5841). The law now states: “The goal of the basic education act for the schools of the state of Washington set forth in this chapter shall be to provide students with the opportunity to become responsible and respectful global citizens, to contribute to their economic well-being and that of their families and communities, to explore and understand different perspectives, and to enjoy productive and satisfying lives (emphasis added).
Note the addition of “global citizens” and the glaring omission of “US Citizenship.”
In 2008, the Washington State Legislature allowed additional alternate ways for students who did not pass the WASL to show they met the “Essential Academic Learning Requirements.” It also called for a transition to End-of-Course assessments in math and science by the end of 2013, at the latest. A WASL appeals panel was also created. (ESSB6023)
In June 2008, an election year, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) released WASL scores showing that 91.4% of the high school students passed the reading and writing portions. (Students currently, do not have to pass the math portion to graduate.) This was the first year that passing the WASL was a requirement for graduation. Please note that WASL scores are neither valid nor reliable, and that there are at least three ways that OSPI can control scores: 1. Change cut scores, 2. Choose easier or harder items from the item-bank, and 3. Use more lenient grading rubrics for the essay questions. Another way to improve WASL statistics is to not count drop-outs or students who have been “reclassified” into a different grade – that is, students who flunked. Since the Iowa test was dropped in 2005, there is no objective, normed, standardized test which can measure actual student learning or can compare Washington’s students with students in other states.
The “education reformers” may have thought it would be good to set standards, teach those standards, and then test the students to see if they meet those standards. Those who passed would receive a certificate permitting them to progress to the next step. That system works if one is producing widgets: one makes a blueprint, assembles the product, puts it through quality control (testing), and certifies it as a finished product. However, children are not widgets. Furthermore, “reform” supporters who emphasize “higher order thinking skills” did not anticipate the adoption of such poor learning standards or the subjective nature of the assessments which guide the whole system. Grading pupils’ thoughts is problematic. The chain of events has resulted in a system which is based upon wrong premises and poor curricula. The entire focus of education is now on assessment. Funding is being used to grow a top-down bureaucracy, rather than to enhance classroom flexibility in dealing with individuals.
Children are unique, precious human beings. They should be given the academic tools they need to become responsible, independent adults and be free to develop their own thought processes and career choices. While the businesses certainly have valid concerns, they are not the customers, and the children are not the product. Most importantly, public schools should not be used for social transformation.
Tags: History of Ed "Reform"