The future of Maine’s education depends on repealing Learning Results.

Since May 1997, when Maine enacted the Maine Learning Results, the children, parents and educators of our great state have endured a tiresome paradigm shift in education policy that is unmatched in the history of Maine.

In haste, our representatives adopted a “standard-based” form of education. The model was untested here in Maine but was tested and failed as pilot programs in other states or school districts. At the time it was called by another name, “mastery learning.” Although the so-called consensus and collaboration that took place leading up to the final document appeared to give acceptance to the change, it was in fact a “done deal.”

Let us not forget the parents of these children who struggle to make sense of the changes that so profoundly effect their children’s education and who, for the most part, have been conveniently excluded from the decision-making process – both locally and statewide – since the law took effect.

The following questions must be answered:

• Why have the voices of parents and taxpayers been ignored?

• Why has the Maine Department of Education failed so miserably in the implementation of the Maine Learning Results?

• And, finally, why have educators throughout the state become disillusioned with the process of putting into practice the Learning Results at the classroom level?

The answer to the above three questions is very simple. “Standard based” education does not work.

Parents and the public don’t understand it, educators cannot put it into practice, and the state cannot implement a model of education that has failure built into it. You will certainly hear all of the excuses from the state. That’s what they get paid for.

Let’s take a closer look at the problem.

The word “standard” is defined as: anything taken by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model. That means that a student must meet the standard 100 percent or fail. It is black or white. Meet the standard or not. There is nothing in between. Unless of course we modify the standard to meet certain circumstances, or as some have said, “dumb it down” so that all can meet the standard. So, then do we have high or low standards or something in the middle?

What is even more silly is how we define “exceeds” the standard. What does that mean? At the present time, we seem to be working with the following four categories: exceeds the standard, meets the standard, partially meets the standard and does not meet the standard. What do these mean and how do we grade them?

In a traditional system, we know very clearly what “meets the standard” means. When a student gets a grade of 100 or A+, he or she has met the standard. With the Learning Results model of education, standards are not standards at all, because the approved model is fluid. That is, the approved model as noted above in the definition has subjectivity built into it. One may decide that partially meeting the standard is adequate enough to pass a test or even graduate from high school. The model will force educators more and more to teach to the test.

When taken as a whole, the Learning Results have a degree of loftiness about them that are out of touch with the real world. They sound good on paper but don’t translate well into the reality of the classroom. What’s more, many of the reporting procedures are time-consuming and laborious. Hence, school systems are moving through the painstaking task of developing a new report card which, in the end, will prove to be a menace for higher education’s admissions process. What will colleges and universities do when high schools have replaced the diploma with a certificate? Has higher education adopted a standard based model?

We must face the facts. The Learning Results has been a boondoggle from the start. Maine cannot afford to wait any longer. The legislation must be repealed and now.

The future of Maine’s education depends upon it.

Stephen Schran of New Gloucester teaches music education at Lisbon High School.