Posted Online 4/2/04

by Joe Nathan

Will Minnesota, and the nation’s reaction to the federal No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) repeat the Profile of Learning pattern? A teacher asked this intriguing question last week. Already, there are similarities between opposition to the Profile and NCLB.

First, both efforts were launched with widespread, bipartisan support. Each had laudable goals. The Profile tried to insure that all high school graduates had academic and social skills. NCLB is designed to insure that all students have strong skills, and that the nation knows how youngsters in various groups are doing – boys, girls, students with some form of disability, those who don’t speak English at home, racial minorities, etc. NCLB also seeks to insure that all teachers are highly qualified, thus increasing the likelihood that students will do well.

Second, as time went on, Minnesota educators (generally considered politically moderate to liberal), joined with conservatives to question, challenge, and ultimately repeal the Profile. Educators thought the Profile created too much paper work. Some thought Profile standards were unclear.

Meanwhile, conservatives concluded that the Profile did not give enough attention to traditional academic subjects. Conservatives also wanted greater use of standardized tests, and less use of so-called performance assessments, somewhat similar to the on the road driving exam that people must take before getting a license.

State Senator Michelle Bachmann, (R-Stillwater), one of Minnesota’s leading Profile opponents, has joined Republican state legislators in places like Utah and Virginia. They are suggesting that states reject federal funds and the NCLB strings they bring. Although these conservatives support President George Bush, they believe that the federal government has gone too far in dictating how states should operate via NCLB.

The third similarity is that before the Profile was repealed, there were a number of attempts to modify and improve it. Minnesota’s state education officials proposed, and carried out, a number of modifications. Even so, opposition continued, and grew.

The same thing may be happening. In the last month, U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige announced several changes in NCLB. He suggested giving teachers in small rural districts more time to pass tests or obtain degrees showing that they are “highly qualified” in each area they teach. He also proposed permitting students who do not speak English a year to learn our language before being tested.

But these proposals do not seem to have reduced opposition to NCLB. Some researchers report that it takes several years for some immigrants to learn English well enough to take exams in this language. Last week I chatted with Alyson Mike, Montana’s current state teacher of the year. Mike has won state and national awards for her science teaching. But questions have been raised about whether she is “highly qualified” because she does not have degrees or has not passed statewide tests in all the areas where she teaches. Mike calls NCLB “rather ludicrous” despite recent changes.

Details matter. Coalitions produce change. It will be fascinating to see how much of the Profile pattern is repeated with NCLB.

Joe Nathan is director of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He can be reached at jnathan@hhh.umn.edu.