House Kills Profile
Future of Controversial Education Plan Hinges on State Senate Vote

(See how your legislators voted.)

Minnesota's controversial Profile of Learning suffered a potentially fatal blow Feb. 11 when the Minnesota House voted 92-35 to completely eliminate the state-mandated education program. House members chose to replace the Profile with an emphasis on educational basics and local control.

The veto-proof majority vote in the House gives anti-Profile efforts momentum as the battle shifts to the Minnesota Senate, where the Profile enjoys broader support.

Though the Profile of Learning was introduced in response to a call for higher academic standards, critics say the experimental system replaces solid academics with politically correct busy work, robs local school districts of control and imposes burdensome paperwork on teachers and administrators.

Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard has characterized the Profile as "a bureaucrat's dream and an educator's nightmare."

Although some influential House leaders had urged that the Profile be revised rather than scrapped, the House Education Policy Committee voted 25-9 Feb. 9 to eliminate the Profile after the head of Minnesota's teacher's union presented survey results indicating that 63 percent of the state's teachers opposed the Profile.

"The message … is clear," said Judy Schaubach, co-president of Education Minnesota. "Fix the Profile or get rid of it."

The bill passed by the House eliminates state-mandated performance packages, content standards, lifework plans, and performance-based assessments.

The effort to repeal the Profile was led by House members who are professional educators with more than 140 years of combined classroom and school administration experience.

"It's good to see the Legislature finally responding to the broad public dissatisfaction with the Profile of Learning, not just fine-tuning a fundamentally flawed system," said Prichard. "It's said that the state has wasted millions of dollars on this education fiasco, but it's better late than never to change course."

The repeal effort is expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate. Sen. Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis), who chairs the Senate K-12 Education Budget Division, is a staunch Profile supporter who once said the state mandate would be repealed "over my dead body." Pogemiller has moderated his stance a bit, but still says, "We've gone too far to backtrack now."

The new Commissioner of the Department of Children, Families and Learning, Christine Jax, is also expected to fight the repeal effort. She's called the repeal effort "troubling" and has insisted that state bureaucrats "could solve" the problems with the Profile.

Most observers expect the Minnesota Senate to change, rather than repeal, the Profile of Learning.

"But that's what they were planning to do in the House," observes Julie Quist, a board member with the Maple River Education Coalition. "Originally the House bill did nothing but what the Senators have said they are going to do. That was just a few weeks ago."

The fact that the DFL-controlled Senate will face voters next year may help change some minds. State Democrats lost control of the House and finished third in the governor's race last year, and are anxious to retain control of the Senate.

"If the Democrats produce a bill that does less than eliminating the Profile, they will get full credit for leaving this in place, while the Republicans will be the ones who worked to eliminate the Profile," notes Quist. "People need to turn their attention to the Senate, and let them know that they want the Profile eliminated."

Public pressure against the Profile continues to build. One Senator's office indicated that they had received 400 calls on the Profile - with only two in support of the law.

Phone lines and voice mail systems are jammed as citizens-including many teachers -flood the Capitol with calls of protest.

Pogemiller has indicated that he believes anti-Profile callers are misinformed, and will be ignoring them.

Other Senators are being more responsive to their constituents, and the backlash against the Profile of Learning has already resulted in a language change.

Now, rather than using the phrase "Profile of Learning," supporters are more likely to say that they support "high standards." But critics say the lack of high standards is one of the things that's wrong with the Profile.

The depth of opposition to the Profile was evident at a Feb. 20 anti-Profile seminar which drew more than 900 parents and teachers.

The Profile has also been criticized on financial grounds by the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

In a letter to State Senators, Darrell McKigney, President of the League, said, "By any 'results oriented' approach to fiscal policy, the Profile project has been an utter failure. It is a huge financial boondoggle that is wasting hundreds of millions of tax dollars and education resources."

McKigney said trying to reform the Profile would be throwing "good money after bad."

Prichard concluded, "The state needs to get out of the curriculum business and return that responsibility to the local school district. We want to see more local control and accountability.

"Ultimately, school choice needs to be expanded to truly make schools accountable to parents, who are the primary consumers of education."

Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute
2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265
phone 612.789.8811, fax 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org