The new mantra of education reform is "academic standards" and while much of the debate centers on whether and how to set national standards, the actual battle is being fought out on the state level. As attractive as the notion of statewide standards is -- and the appeal is undeniable in a era of educational mush -- the actual process has seldom lived up to expectations. Wisconsin's attempts to set such standards has been typical. And as someone directly involved in the process (if often on the losing end), I can attest to the fact that developing standards is not easy, pretty, or the panacea some reformers had imagined. In Wisconsin, it has been closer to a nightmare.

Beginning with Governor Thompson's Task Force on Education and Learning chaired by the late Carl Weigell, and proceeding through to the Governor's Model Academic Standards Council chaired by Lieutenant Governor Scott McCallum the ideological battle lines were clearly drawn. On one side stood the forces of the educational elite with their armament of ill-founded theories, and on the other side stood concerned citizens clinging to the hope that common sense would prevail. It didn’t.

At issue was the wording of so-called "academic" standards. Unfortunately, the Department of Public Instruction's (DPI) initial attempts at standard writing would set the tone for future debates. The DPI's 17 Learner Goals and Outcomes, released to the public in February of 1994, consisted of vague and nebulously worded standards that were devoid of academic content:

Respond to the aesthetic and intellectual aspects of an event, performance, and product.
Recognize and devise systems and describe their interdependence.
Conceive of places, times, and conditions different from one's own.
Identify personal interests and goals and pursue them.

Greatly expanded upon from the 17 Learner Goals and Outcomes, the new draft for Wisconsin's Academic Content and Performance Standards left many wondering wherein lay the supposed "content." The new draft standards were not only content-free but also written in a language only remotely understood by those outside of the education establishment. "Time, Continuity and Change" was the heading for what one would assume were history standards. "Spatial Sense" presumably meant the study of geometry and "Individual Development and Identity" left quite a bit for the imagination to ponder.

The standards were a monument to vacuity. The following are examples of "content" standards in English Language Arts:

Students in Wisconsin will listen to understand what they hear.
Students in Wisconsin will read to understand.
Students in Wisconsin will use media and technology critically and creatively to obtain and share information, to entertain and be entertained, and to influence and persuade.

The proposed standards did, however, have a very clear ideological flavor. Eighth-graders, DPI insisted: will recognize the origins of language variations and their impact in various social, cultural, and work situations and will demonstrate awareness that no variation is linguistically superior as a communication system. (emphasis added)

If that is indeed the case, critics wondered, then why bother to learn proper English at all? This same standard to "recognize the origins of language variations" is expanded upon in the 12th grade and requires that students will:

• distinguish language communities and explain variation as a reflection of age, culture , gender, social class, occupation, race, and ethnicity
• explain how standard usage is the result of one dialect achieving national status
• connect language variation with identity

With the backdrop of DPI's untenable standards, the stage for conflict was easily set for Governor Thompson to launch his own -- separate -- attempt to write academic standards. In January 1997, as DPI was releasing it’s second set of standards, Governor Thompson proposed the development of a new Model Academic Standards Council (MASC) in his annual state of the state address. As Governor Thompson charged the MASC to "conduct a statewide public engagement process to approve and modify" a completely different set of standards, a modified version of the Hudson Institute's Modern Red Schoolhouse standards, the DPI was poised to hit the road with its dog and pony show. Even to the casual observer the divide could not have appeared any wider.

The then-upcoming statewide election for state superintendent only seemed to intensify the power struggle. Outsiders who were interested in standards reform were skeptical that the MASC would be able to tighten the reigns on the already out-of-control process. Governor Thompson appointed Lt. Governor Scott McCallum to chair the endeavor, while DPI's Superintendent Benson was appointed vice-chair of the MASC. Rounding out the council were State Representatives Luther Olsen and Marlin Schneider, State Senators Alberta Darling and Cal Potter, and University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Special Education Professor Ed Sontag.

These seven individuals were charged by gubernatorial executive order No. 302 to "develop a set of standards to establish what students should know and be able to do in the subject areas of reading, writing, mathematics, science, history and geography." The executive order recommended the MASC obtain "input and assistance from citizens of Wisconsin not affiliated with the educational community" and to deliberate academic standards developed by the Modern Red Schoolhouse Project as well as standards developed by other "organizations" and states.

Notably left out of the governor’s formula was any mention of DPI's standards. As we would find out in later months, the obvious slight had little effect on DPI's resolve to forward their own agenda.

Given this scenario, the logical question one would ask is, "Why would I even consider entering the fray by accepting an appointment from the Lt. Governor to join the newly formed English Language Arts standards writing team?" I continue to ask myself that very question and the answer remains the same. Despite what appeared to be overwhelming odds, I truly believed there was a chance for the common-sense ideas of concerned parents and citizens to have an impact on the standards process. I had watched the standards-writing process unfold in the Commonwealth of Virginia and marveled at the academic focus of their final product. I wondered why we couldn't do the same in Wisconsin. Finally, I believed that one could not complain about the final outcome, if one had not participated fully in the process.

And so it was with this in mind that I, along with nine other newly appointed citizens, joined forces with DPI's original English Language Arts writing team of approximately 30 education officials. Our group of ten entered our first meeting with high hopes and enthusiasm. Not a shabby lot, we represented a cross-section of school reformers. Complementing our group were two University of Wisconsin professors who provided both an alternative to the "progressive" educational pabulum and the essential qualifications of being members of the educational community. Dr. Sara Tarver of the University of Wisconsin-Madison was appointed co-chair, and Dr. David Mulroy of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee was appointed as a member. Despite our unity of ideas, I do not believe any of us were prepared for the events we were about to witness.

At every turn, we met with resistance to our suggestions for change. The core of the conflict immediately centered on two questions:

(1) Should standards be written for each grade level, or instead be benchmarked at grades four, eight and twelve in order to provide latitude to local school districts?

(2) Should standards be focused on specific, objectively measurable content, or should they be more generalized so as not to dictate a curriculum to the local districts?

We strongly supported grade specific standards that were objectively measurable (i.e., through standardized testing) but found ourselves at odds with the majority -- which favored more generalized benchmarked standards that purportedly allowed for greater local control. It seemed ironic that those of us who had historically fought for local control would suddenly support state-developed standards. Likewise, it was an odd turn of events to see the state education establishment, notoriously known for meddling in local district affairs, to suddenly be found defending the rights of local districts. We were compelled to believe -- rather naively, as it turned out -- that if the state were to develop truly rigorous, easy-to-understand, grade-by-grade standards similar to Virginia's, this would then restore a sorely needed academic focus to our Wisconsin classrooms.

Our rationale for supporting grade- and content-specific standards was repeatedly outlined in our initial meeting of the English writing team. This eventually served as the basis for a minority report which we submitted to the Lt. Governor.

The minority report of ours, signed by several distinguished academics, has essentially been consigned to oblivion. It is not included in the draft-standards booklet currently being circulated, purportedly for purposes of "public engagement" in the process of writing the standards. In fact, the booklet being circulated for comment does not even reference the dissent in any way; to the education establishment, it does not exist.

Senator Darling of the MASC, however, has shown an open mind as to the content of the dissent. She has also, in fact, expressed an interest in filing her own.

In our minority report, we stated the following reasons for our support of grade by grade standards:

"There is a growing body of research supporting grade-specific standards. They are the norms in the European countries with which we compete in the global marketplace. Grade-specific standards are gaining the support of many teachers and parents as evidenced by the growing popularity of E.D. Hirsch's series of books entitled, "What Your First Through Sixth Grader Should Know," as well as by a marked increase in the number of Hirsch Core Knowledge schools developing throughout the country. Grade-specific standards are essential for the following reasons:

1. They ensure continuity across school district boundaries. Year-by-year standards would prevent major discontinuities in the education of students who move from one community to another. Student mobility is a fact of life in lower income households. For this reason, grade-specific standards are of special interest to disadvantaged children as is borne out by the research of the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement. (E.D. Hirsch, Jr.., The Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them [New York: Doubleday, 1996] p. 33.)

2. They assure students who remain within single districts of logical progression in their studies. Currently, there are far too many examples of children re-learning the same subject matter over the course of several years within the same school district.

3. They establish a foundation for accountability within the school system. Teachers often report frustration over the number of ill-prepared children who enter their classrooms. Grade-specific standards help ensure that students have mastered necessary material before they proceed to the next level. This is particularly important in view of the current movement toward a high-stakes graduation exam. If standards are benchmarked at grades 4, 8, and 12, unfair pressure will be placed on teachers at those grade levels, especially the twelfth, to prepare students who may have substantial gaps in learning from previous years. A set of clearly defined, grade-specific standards would alleviate this problem and reduce the likelihood and merit of lawsuits which could arise when students fail a high school graduation exam.

Our purpose in advocating for "content" standards was based on our growing concern that children were not learning basic academic knowledge -- e.g., grammar, parts of speech, multiplication tables, and historical timelines. Too often, these fundamentals have been overlooked in their districts' efforts to cultivate "critical thinkers." Not denying the importance of critical thinking, our goal was to restore the foundation of knowledge that must first be obtained if one is ever to become a critical thinker. Enamored with the idea of critical or "higher-order thinking," the education establishment has often ignored this necessary first step in educating children, naively believing these skills can be developed in isolation.

In our early deliberations on the writing team, Dr. Tarver eloquently defended the need to delineate, at a minimum, standards leading up to the first benchmark of fourth grade. As a parent, it made no sense to wait until fourth grade to determine whether or not my child was achieving as was expected. Again, as we argued in our minority report:

The goal of developing clear, assessable standards cannot be achieved when each standard must encompass four years of education. Grade four standards, for example, cannot communicate adequately the expectations that students must have met in grades K through 3 to be prepared to acquire the content reflected in grade four standards. Most important, Wisconsin's grade four standards fail to meet the criterion of "specific enough to assure the development of a common core curriculum," one of the criteria established by the American Federation of Teachers. In the absence of a common core curriculum, many students will not acquire a base of foundation knowledge that is essential to the acquisition of advanced knowledge, higher order thinking, and complex problem solving. If, and only if, children acquire a firm foundation in the early grades, will the achievement of excellence and equity in later grades begin to be possible.

Little did we know that we had just been set up for failure. Over several weeks, Dr. Tarver laboriously developed a framework to use as a basis for our six-member group discussion. After our smaller group pored through the document with a fine-toothed comb, we eagerly looked forward to presenting our work to the larger English writing team at our next scheduled meeting. It was at that point that Dr. Tarver's co-chairs and representatives of the DPI pulled the rug out from under us. We were told that contrary to what they had originally thought, the writing team did not have the authority to recommend grade-specific standards. This authority lay in the Governor's seven-member MASC chaired by Lt. Governor McCallum, which had since decided that grade-specific standards were a non-issue.

Not willing to admit defeat, Dr. Tarver tried one more time to convince the MASC of the importance of our proposed K through 4 "foundation" standards. Given her personal expertise in the area of reading disabilities, she bravely testified before the MASC and emphasized the critical need to develop specific reading skills at each grade level prior to the first benchmark in order to ensure that children will indeed become proficient readers by grade 4. Based on the most current reading research, the "foundation" standards lay the essential groundwork for developing literacy skills.

At this meeting, in what I believe was one of the most embarrassing moments in our involvement in this process, we learned that Dr. Tarver was openly referred to by MASC members as the "problem child" co-chair of "that problem child" English writing team. Because she had lead an effort to combine her expertise with the latest in education research, she was branded a "problem." Without much explanation and certainly without any debate over the merits of our suggestion, Dr. Tarver was in essence told the idea was dead and she should return and follow the directives of the larger group.

A dedicated, eminently qualified scholar of English and education had just been cavalierly dismissed by individuals who had appointed her to the team in the first place. The mantra of diversity never sounded more hollow.

As the final wind was taken out of our sails, so too were the political winds changing. John Benson was re-elected as State Superintendent and a new spirit of cooperation between his office and the office of the Governor was forged. Suddenly, time was of the essence, and the standards process was to proceed on a timely basis. In the interest of meeting deadlines, the standards process was hurried along. It appeared as though all that mattered now was having a final product in hand.

And so we were "sent back to our rooms" for the final meeting of the English writing team. The sole purpose of this meeting was to grind out an acceptable document of standards, all in the span of eight hours. Our task was to pull the best ideas from a variety standard documents and -- voila! -- come up with a Wisconsin version of standards.

We were dutifully divided into small groups of four to five individuals and literally instructed to "cut and paste" together the "best" from documents such as the Modern Red Schoolhouse, the Virginia standards, and of course DPI's second draft standards. Markers, "post-its", scissors became the tools for the development of world-class Wisconsin standards. It was at this moment that the sheer absurdity of what we were doing was revealed, as we engaged in one skirmish after another in our attempt to write standards that both made sense and reflected the best research available on teaching children the basic elements of our English language.

In my small group, the funniest and perhaps saddest moment of all came during a discussion of the following 12th grade standard:

Use the dictionary to explore word origins, changes, and variations in meaning.

Use the dictionary to explore Greek and Latin word origins....

Sitting next to me during this exchange was the esteemed Dr. David Mulroy, classics professor of Greek and Latin. Our eyes met and we instantly wondered if perhaps these same standards should be set for the teacher colleges.

Dr. Mulroy also tried in vain to include an eighth grade standard which stated:

Students will be able to explain the significance of the invention of the alphabet.

The politically correct thrust of previous drafts continued to dominate this final writing session as the education-establishment members in our groups pushed for standards that required students to:

Explain the nature and role of a standard or "privileged" dialect.

Demonstrate competence and versatility in standard American English usage.

The classic battle between phonics and whole-language advocates played out like a broken record. A few smatterings of words, such as "phonemic skills" and "knowledge of letter sound relationships," were added to the document to appease the minority on the team, but, in general, the standards promoted by the majority embraced the whole-language ideology rather than incorporate the recent research on the critical importance of phonics instruction.

Members of the education establishment could not even decide on a literature list to be included in standards. We tried to argue that meaningful standards ought to include, at minimum, a list of essential works of the English language that every child should read. This was another contentious point debated at length in our meetings.

Our suggestions were actually quite modest. In the dissent, we recommended that, starting with eighth grade, teachers be urged to include one or two classics (specified by name) in the year's reading lists and that students should be tested on their knowledge of such works: "Classics suitable for younger readers should be selected in consultation with experienced teachers, but would certainly include such works as The Odyssey, Julius Caesar, Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, Wuthering Heights, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc."

We acknowledged that the selection of the titles of the classic works to be studied might be somewhat arbitrary, but argued that the benefits would greatly outweigh the expected criticism: "Not only would students have the benefits of having read some classics, those transferring to different schools within the state would have a common frame of reference with their new classmates."

Again, our ideas were rejected. Because no one wanted to offend anyone, no agreement could be reached on the types of literature. Instead, the writing team opted for a lengthy list of bibliographies for young readers. Even this list was removed from the currently circulating draft, out of a professed concern for local control. The draft goes so far as to state that it is most important for "students [to] learn to read well enough to meet their various needs and interests" (emphasis added).

Before the removal, it had been left to the minority report to point out the obvious: that such a bibliography "sets no real standards in the level of difficulty or the merit of the readings to be assigned." But perhaps that was the point.

It was now clear that the powerful influence of the educational establishment on the standards writing process could not be stopped, even from within. The forces for fuzzy standards prevailed in the noble name of, among other things, local control. I now realized that the local-control argument was merely a way to avoid the issue of accountability. So, in their eagerness to aide local districts, they have essentially created a "user-unfriendly" document that is of little help to parents and teachers in the very trenches they were protecting.

Despite attempts by the Lieutenant Governor to reign in those from the education establishment, their ideological stranglehold has left an indelible imprint on Wisconsin education. This third draft was written with perhaps the most input from outside the ivory towers, yet the presence of "outsiders" did not diminish the fervor with which the "progressives" strong-armed the consensus-building process. In many ways, it intensified their resolve to fight for continued ownership of their fuzzy standards.

At the time of this writing the English writing team's draft has been professionally edited by the Hudson Institute and is being debated at public engagement forums around the state. Many parents, discouraged by their experience with previous forums, declined to participate. In addition, eight of the ten newly added members of the English Language writing team signed on to the minority report submitted to the Model Academic Standards Council.

In the end, the standards have been improved upon, yet they still remain a creature of the establishment. Parents around the state who had hoped for a grade-by-grade road map to guide their children through the often uncharted waters of their school districts will be disappointed. Teachers who were hoping for an academically enriched guide to help navigate those uncharted waters will also be disappointed. Only the politicians will be happy that, at long last a document has been produced and their attention can be turned to another issue.

The unspoken truth underlying the struggle between the opposing forces in this debate is that in order for the mainstream educational establishment to accept truly objective, content- and grade-specific state standards, they must also accept accountability measures which inevitably follow from the standards' prescriptions. In a world that celebrates self-esteem, it is difficult to acknowledge that perhaps students' failure to reach standards might actually serve to motivate future success. In a world where competition is downplayed, it is difficult to insist that schools be responsible for actually teaching children the important and essential knowledge found in standards such as Virginia's. But perhaps the greatest irony is that in a world incessantly preaching that "all children can learn," it is hard to imagine that they must learn something.

Return to PRESS Home Page