On State Takeovers of School Districts

Roosevelt High School in Gary, Indiana

Recently there has been a number of high-profile cases of states taking over school districts. The Kentucky State Board of Education will soon decide whether or not they will take over Jefferson County Public Schools (Louisville), a move that both parents and teachers object to.

The Indiana Legislature voted in May to strip power from Gary and Muncie school district’s school boards. In Muncie’s case, Ball State University has been given control. In Gary’s case, MGT Consulting Group, based in Tallahassee, Fla., a $6.2 million contract to serve as Gary’s emergency manager. The emergency management team leader, former educator Peggy Hinckley (a native of Lake County where Gary is located), is the sole decision-maker.

The State of Louisiana took over New Orleans Public Schools after Hurricane Katrina in 2005 transitioning many of the public schools to charter schools. It was not a success. Mercedes Schneider writes in The Huffington Post:

An overarching goal of state takeover of Louisiana schools was for the state to assume control of most New Orleans public schools– which it did in 2005– and to convert all of those formerly local-board-run schools into charter schools– which it did by May 2014.

Louisiana’s RSD New Orleans (RSD-NO) was an experiment, one that was supposed to “turn around” those failing schools and make the RSD charter conversion a modern-day miracle.

By 2017– twelve years post-Katrina– it is clear that the experiment has failed. There is no incredible test-score-based miracle, and in no place is such failure more obvious than in the average ACT composite scores for RSD-NO in general and its high schools individually.

The state of Michigan controlled Detroit Public Schools from 1999-2006 and 2009-2016, the newly formed Detroit Public Schools Community District has an elected school board.

Tennessee has experience in taking over schools, with Memphis Public Schools being the largest district, and two studies show it is not working.

A 2016, paper by Michigan State University researchers studying the Detroit and Memphis takeovers concluded:

The formation of the EAA and ASD reflected the leadership of state and external partners in both urban districts. In practice, their introduction has added yet another district-like bureaucracy to the complex and evolving systems of school governance in both places. Key challenges involving finances, competition among schools, leadership turnover and lack of district-wide governance remain unaddressed by state policies.

The first study from Vanderbilt University cast doubt on the state’s achievement school district plan, The Tennessean reported in 2015:

District-run turnaround efforts of low-performing schools have yielded better results than that of Tennessee’s Achievement School District.

The finding, released Tuesday in a policy report by Vanderbilt University, casts doubt on the effectiveness of the district meant to help improve the bottom 5 percent of all schools in the state. The study, however, adds that most reform efforts take three to five years to change a school.

“Some years results are bouncing down or up, and across all years the change is basically a zero,” said Ron Zimmer, a professor of policy and education. “The overall story is that we’re not seeing an effect.”

And although he said reform efforts generally take years, district-run efforts have yielded positive results in a relatively short time.

A study from the Tennessee Education Research Alliance released on Tuesday shows three years later it still isn’t working. From The Tennessean:

The finding from a Tennessee Education Research Alliance research brief released Tuesday reinforces what researchers discovered in 2015 about the district over the course of three years. That district-run turnaround efforts of the state’s lowest-performing schools yield greater results than that of Tennessee’s state-run district

“The model that said to bring in a new manager and them give autonomy and good things will happen doesn’t work,” said Gary Henry, a Vanderbilt University researcher on the study and expert in education policy.

It brings about a moment where Tennessee’s education leaders must refocus on how Tennessee’s Achievement School District goes about its work because the threat of a state takeover has spurred action in districts, according to researchers of the study.

So the threat of a takeover appears to do more good than the actual takeover itself.

Local control in education is waning nationally and a state takeover of a local school district takes away the voice of the taxpayers and parents when elected boards are either abolished or neutered.

This is not to say each of these school districts were without problems, that certainly is not the case, but in the case of school takeovers, we see that the loss of local control does not produce the results the state promises.

Centralization fails yet again.

238 Education Data Bills Hit State Capitols in 2018 So Far

Photo credit: Nick Youngson (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Data Quality Campaign (not our ally in the fight against data mining) provided a snapshot of the number of education data bills hitting state capitol buildings near you.

They report there are 238 bills related to education data this year so far, and less than a third (70) have anything to do with protecting student data privacy.

They highlight bills before state legislators this year where they are trying to “make data work for students.”

Addressing inequities and underserved students’ needs

Echoing national conversations about disciplinary disparities and the unique needs of traditionally underserved students, numerous state bills this year target the reporting of data to address education inequities. For example:

  • Tennessee is considering a bill (HB 2651) to establish a commission on the school-to-prison pipeline. The commission would submit a report to the legislature including school discipline data and policy recommendations to implement restorative justice practices.
  • Indiana has a new law (HB 1314) requiring a report on how the state’s homeless students and students in foster care fare in school and how these students could be better supported.

Informing policy decisions and meeting state goals

Nearly 100 bills considered so far in 2018 have focused on how state policymakers themselves can use aggregate data to make policy decisions or meet their state’s education goals. For example:

  • California has introduced a bill (SB 1224) to create a state longitudinal data system (SLDS) with student data from kindergarten enrollment to workforce entry—a system that could help inform education policies across the state.
  • Mississippi considered a bill (HB 405) to use the state’s education data system to better understand the state’s workforce needs.

Empowering the public with more information

Over 60 bills this year would require states to publicly report more, or more useful and accessible, information about their schools. For example:

  • New Jersey is considering a bill (A 2192) to include data on chronic absence and disciplinary suspensions on school report cards.
  • Arizona is considering a bill (SB 1411) to create a new dashboard as part of the state’s school achievement profiles with new data on academic progress and school quality.

Empowering educators and families with student data

In years past, legislators have not frequently used legislation to give educators and parents secure access to their own student’s data. This year is seeing some more legislative activity on this important priority. For example:

  • Louisiana is considering a bill (SB 107) to ensure that teachers receive student-level assessment results in a format that is easy to understand and includes longitudinal student data if possible.
  • Massachusetts is considering a bill (S 40) that would create an electronic data “backpack” program for foster youth. The backpack would contain a student’s education record and would be available to the adults authorized to make decisions for that student.

The best way to “make data work for students” is to not collect it without parental knowledge and consent and to keep it at the local school level with the teachers where it could possibly do some good. The problem is, evidenced by the Louisiana bill, when data gets collected it heads to the state (and the feds and who knows what other third parties) who don’t teach the kids and have no business having that data.

Will Indiana Adopt Federalized School Discipline Plans?

Photo Credit: Drew Tarvin (CC-By-2.0)

In light of the failures of Broward County Public Schools administrators to report the Florida shooter to law enforcement, the recent passage of legislation that would allow the same thing to happen in Indiana has caught parents by surprise. It’s unclear whether Governor Holcomb will sign the bill, but parents and teachers are hoping that he will recognize the potential threats it presents to school safety.

HB 1421 provides that the state department of education “must” have a model discipline plan which will (1) reduce out-of-school suspension and disproportionality in discipline and expulsion; (2) limit referrals to law enforcement and arrests on school property to cases in which referral or arrest is necessary to protect the health and safety of students or school employees.

This language may seem harmless, but a similar discipline policy prohibited Broward County Public Schools from arresting the shooter for a long list of prior offenses. The discipline policy in question limits the involvement of law enforcement to student offenses that pose a serious threat to the school or students. A raft of misdemeanor offenses must be handled by the school, such as fights, theft, vandalism, criminal mischief, harassment, drug possession, and threats, to name just a few. Only after a fifth offense during a school year would a student be suspended, expelled, or referred to law enforcement.

It’s likely that adoption of such policies by BCPS and the Indiana state legislature was motivated by federal guidance issued in 2014 by the United States Department of Education (USED). The guidance, which is still in effect, requires schools to reduce the number of students receiving exclusionary punishments (sent to the principal’s office, suspended, expelled, or arrested). According to USED, exclusionary discipline is ineffective at improving student behavior, creates the potential for negative educational outcomes, and contributes to the “school to prison pipeline.”

The Florida shooting has provoked numerous calls to reverse this guidance. U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) asked Secretary of Education Betsy Devos to do so, stating that “disturbing reports have indicated that federal guidance may have contributed to systemic failures to report Nikolas Cruz’s dangerous behaviors to local law enforcement.” So far, Devos hasn’t indicated a willingness to take action.

According to analysis from Manhattan Institute researcher Max Eden, Broward County isn’t the only area to have suffered under these discipline policies:

In New York City, a majority of students at half of schools serving a high share of minority students said they saw more fights and that their peers were less respectful [since non-exclusionary policies were implemented] In Chicago, peer respect deteriorated and teachers reported more disruptive behavior. In St. Paul, the district attorney declared school violence a “public-health crisis.” In Syracuse, the district attorney ordered a restoration of discipline after violence surged and a teacher was stabbed. In East Baton Rouge, 60 percent of teachers say they’ve experienced an increase in violence or threats, and 41 percent say they don’t feel safe in school.

Supporters of these discipline policies deny that they have failed in these schools. They cite statistics showing that the number of suspensions, expulsions, and school-arrests have declined since implementation. But as Eden points out, not issuing these punishments for student offenses doesn’t mean the offenses aren’t occurring. Moreover, a student must commit the same offense (including misdemeanors, such as assault) four or five times before the student can be suspended.

Removing the threat of expulsion or arrest doesn’t make students less likely to break the rules. On the contrary — it emboldens offenders, and students and teachers feel less secure. It’s remarkable this obvious fact has been lost on Indiana legislators.

The superintendent of the high school involved in the Parkland, Florida shooting, Robert Runcie, has claimed that policies he implemented to limit the use of law enforcement referrals (as HB 1421 does) resulted in the schools’ becoming safer. According to school surveys, however, the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas had a different perception; the percent of students who agreed that the school provided a safe environment fell from 66% in 2009-2010 to 38% in 2014-2015.

Considering the evidence showing these discipline policies make schools less safe and even dangerous, why would Indiana legislators even consider adopting HB 1421? Do they fear the loss of federal funding if they don’t revise state law to accommodate these policies? If so, they have short memories. Parents are still feeling the burn after the state adopted Common Core for the same reason. If state legislators believe their constituencies will support them in sacrificing their children’s safety in exchange for compliance with federal intimidation, they are sadly mistaken.

Rural Schools and Online Education

 

Chalkbeat reported yesterday on how a small rural school district in Indiana has tripled its enrollment through online education which has helped the brick and mortar school survive.

At what cost, however?

In one year, a tiny rural Indiana school district more than tripled its enrollment, growing to nearly 1,000 students. But more than 800 of those students learn exclusively through a virtual education program — and despite fully funding it, the state has no way to know how well it’s doing.

State officials, researchers and the public can’t easily determine if students are learning because Union Schools’ virtual program and others like it are not distinct schools. Their student performance, enrollment, teaching staffs, and other data are rolled into existing brick-and-mortar schools.

Indiana lawmakers are starting to pay attention to the rapid growth in Union and realizing that programs like these could come at considerable cost. Unexpected growth in public schools is throwing off school funding estimates.

Indiana is not the only state experiencing this. In my home state of Iowa, two rural school districts opened virtual academies in order to draw in more students. Like Union Schools in Indiana, Clayton Ridge Community School District in Garnavillo, IA partnered with K12, Inc. to open Iowa Virtual Academy.   CAM Community School District in Anita, IA opened Iowa Connections Academy that is partnered with Connections Academy, a division of Connections Education LLC.

Unlike Indiana, Iowa breaks reporting down by school district and school so everyone who can access the Iowa Department of Education’s website can look at the district and school reports in order to compare students in the brink and mortar schools of those school districts with those who are enrolled in the districts’ virtual academies.

The Iowa Department of Education recently launched Iowa Learning Online as part of a change in the Iowa Code the Legislature authorized. Their purpose is “to help local Iowa school districts expand learning opportunities for their high school students through high quality, rigorous courses delivered online.”

Unlike CAM and Clayton Ridge’s virtual academies, ILO is supplemental and only targets high school students, and not a full-time K-12 program.

This trend I’m not certain it is a positive one – especially in terms of full-time, K-12 education that is solely online as we’ve noted some of the pitfalls of personalized learning utilizing ed tech that is being implemented in brick and mortar schools. I’m not saying all online education is bad, but parents who choose this direction, in particular, if it is full-time, need to understand the problems and the benefits.

It seems as though this particular trend was started because of the need for school funding, not because it is best for students.

Indiana’s Assessment Woes

Photo credit: Steve Baker (CC-By-ND 2.0)

Today’s editorial in The Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette highlights the testing woes that Indiana currently faces.

An unsuccessful bidder is crying foul over the state’s award of a three-year, $43.5 million contract to the American Institutes for Research. Data Recognition Corp. claims the state’s assessment director, Charity Flores, had a conflict of interest. Between posts at the Indiana Department of Education, Flores was deputy director of content for Smarter Balanced, a partner to the winning vendor.

Chalkbeat Indiana reports that Data Recognition Corp. has protested the Indiana Department of Administration contract award, also challenging its validity on the grounds it violates the state’s prohibition on use of Common Core State Standards. Smarter Balanced is a state-led consortium created to develop the tests aligned to the Common Core standards. AIR serves as the testing platform for questions developed by the consortium.

The charges offer more evidence of a testing culture gone awry, with entanglements in the so-called “education reform” community compromising well-intentioned efforts to ensure school accountability. The time and money involved are growing along with the frustration for educators.

Data Recognition Corp brings up a good point. For a state that supposedly rejected Common Core (they rebranded it instead), it’s telling they select a vendor who will use questions from the Smarter Balanced test bank to develop Indiana’s new assessment.

So much for the repeal.

They offer a suggestion.

Indiana doesn’t have the option of eliminating testing because the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, the replacement for No Child Left Behind, requires a statewide assessment. Nor would it want to eliminate testing, which serves as a check on school performance. But there’s tremendous flexibility with ESSA: States don’t have to administer a major summative test each spring – they can use smaller interim assessments and also evaluate students through portfolios or projects.

I can’t think of a state that is doing that. It would be interesting to see a state take that recommendation and put it in their ESSA accountability plan to see what kind of feedback they receive from the U.S. Department of Education.

(2nd Update) 2017 Legislation on Standards, Assessments, and Data Privacy

States with relevant legislation.

Updated on 2/21/17 – see Kentucky and West Virginia.

A couple years ago I published a list of active bills in various statehouses related to Common Core and its aligned assessments. Over the two years I just included a tag for a particular year’s bills so people could click on that to check on the bills that we had written on. Needless to say we didn’t keep up very well so I’m bringing this back.

This is a list that I will update of filed legislation in state houses across the United States dealing with academic standards, local control, assessments and data privacy. My intention is just to give a bill number, a link to the bill, and a brief description of the bill and the last action on the bill. Inclusion on this list does not mean we support the particular bill, but only that our readers in each state should be aware of it, read it, and decide whether they should support or oppose it.  I plan to keep this list as updated as possible. Individual write-ups on different bills can be found at “2017 Bills.” If I missed a bill just shoot me an email with the bill number at info@truthinamericaneducation.com.

Arizona

SB1314 – A bill that seeks to tighten student data privacy. Last action: Passed out of Senate Education Committee.

Connecticut

HB06839 – An Act Concerning A Review And Report On The Implementation Of The Student Data Privacy Act. Last action: Referred to the Joint Committee on Education.

HB06769 – To amend the student data privacy act of 2016. Last action: Referred to Joint Committee on Education.

There are several identical bills related to allowing a one year delay in the implementation of the Student Data Privacy Act of 2016. Here is one example.

Florida

S 0584 – Authorizing certain students to be eligible for an alternative pathway to a standard high school diploma; requiring a school district to establish an Alternative Pathway to Graduation Review Committee for certain students; requiring each district school board to ensure certain instruction, to waive certain assessment results, and to administer a hard copy of the grade 10 ELA assessment or the statewide, standardized Algebra I EOC assessment for certain students, etc. Last action: Filed.

Indiana

SB 0536 – Replaces the ISTEP test program with an assessment program using the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills or the Iowa Tests of Educational Development, as appropriate for the grade level being tested. Repeals a statute establishing the ISTEP program citizens’ review committee. Repeals a provision defining the ISTEP program. Repeals an expiration provision. Makes conforming amendments. Last action: Assigned to Senate Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.

HB1003 – Replaces the ISTEP test program after June 30, 2018, with a new statewide assessment program to be known as Indiana’s Learning Evaluation Assessment Readiness Network (ILEARN). Repeals a provision defining the ISTEP program. Makes conforming amendments. Last action: Referred to the House Committee on Education.

Illinois

HB0332 – Amends the School Code to add provisions concerning student data privacy. Amends the Illinois School Student Records Act. Makes changes to the definition provisions. Sets forth provisions allowing disclosure of student records to researchers at an accredited post-secondary educational institution or an organization conducting research if specified requirements are met. Amends the Children’s Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act to change the definition of “child” to mean a person under the age of 18 (instead of 16). Last action: Referred to the House Judiciary-Civil Committee.

Iowa

HJR 3 – A constitutional amendment that proposes “to provide home rule powers and authority for school districts.” Last action: Introduced into the House Education Committee (My write-up)

HF 26 – The bill authorizes a school board to exercise any broad or implied power, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, related to the operation, control, and supervision of the public schools located within its district boundaries. Last action: Assigned a subcommittee. (My write-up)

SF 30 – This bill eliminates references and requirements to the Iowa Common Core or core curriculum or core content standards in the Iowa Code, but continues to direct the state board of education to adopt high school graduation requirements and assessment standards. It also creates a new task force for the development of a new assessment. Last action: assigned to subcommittee. (My write-up)

HF 139 – Requires any statewide assessment to be developed by the Iowa Testing Programs (ITP) at the University of Iowa. It would prohibit the use of Smarter Balanced or PARCC as a statewide, mandatory assessment. Last action: assigned to subcommittee. (My write-up)

HF 140 – Makes the Common Core math and English language arts (ELA) standards that have been adopted into the Iowa Core voluntary for Iowa’s public and state accredited non-public schools. Repeals Next Generation Science Standards. Last action: introduced into the House Education Committee. (My write-up)

SSB 1001 – Repeals the requirement for the State Board of Education to adopt rules requiring a statewide assessment starting in July 1, 2017 that is aligned to the Iowa Common Core Standards. Last action: Before Senate Education Committee.

Kentucky

SB 1 – This bill would establish new learning standards and evaluation procedures for schools and teachers. Last action: Passed Kentucky Senate 35-0 (see write-up).

Maine

LD412 – An Act To Require the Completion of Courses of Study in Home Economics and Industrial Arts Education Prior to Graduation from High School. Last action: N/A

LD 322 – An Act To Reintroduce Civics to High School Graduation Requirements. Last action: Passed House, referred to Senate Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs.

LD49 – Requires the adoption and implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards. Last action: Passed by the House, being considered by the Senate.

Maryland

HB 705 – Authorizing a parent or guardian of a child with a disability who is nonverbal to refuse to allow the child to participate in a Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessment or its equivalent in a public school; and requiring that the refusal be documented in the Individualized Education Program of the child. Last action: Assigned to the House Ways and Means Committee.

HB 461 – Requiring the State Board of Education to adopt regulations limiting the amount of time in the aggregate that may be devoted to federal, State, and locally mandated assessments for each grade to 2% of the specified minimum required annual instructional hours; prohibiting time devoted to teacher-selected classroom quizzes and exams, portfolio reviews, or performance assessments from being counted toward the specified testing time limits; etc. Last action: Assigned to House Ways and Means Committee.

Michigan

HB 4192 – Education; curriculum; implementation of certain curriculum standards and assessments in place of common core curriculum standards and assessments in this state; require. Amends 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1 – 380.1852) by adding secs. 1278e & 1278f. Last action: Referred to the House Michigan Competitiveness Committee and will have a hearing on 2/15/17.

SB 0081 – Education; curriculum; implementation of certain curriculum standards and assessments in place of common core curriculum standards and assessments in this state; require. Amends sec. 1278 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1278) & adds secs. 1278e, 1278f & 1278. Last action: Before Senate Government Operations Committee.

Mississippi 

HB502 – An Act To Prohibit The State Board Of Education From Making Application To The United States Department Of Education Seeking A Waiver Or Request For Funding That Would Require A Revision Of The State Subject Matter Curriculum Aligned With The K-12 Common Core State Standards Developed By The Common Core State Standards Initiative; To Authorize The Board To Request Authority From The United States Department Of Education To Revise Curriculum Requirements That Condition Receipt Of Funding Or Waivers Upon The Board’s Action To Revise The Curriculum To Align With The K-12 Common Core State Standards; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee

SB2035 – An Act To Provide That Beginning With The 2017-2018 School Year The State Board Of Education Shall Replace The Common Core State Standards With The Ela Standards In Place In Several States; To Provide That The State Of Mississippi Shall Retain Sole Control Over The Development, Establishment And Revision Of Curriculum Standards; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

SB2593 – An Act To Provide That Beginning With The 2017-2018 School Year The State Board Of Education Shall Replace The Common Core State Standards With The Ela Standards In Place In Several States; To Provide That The State Of Mississippi Shall Retain Sole Control Over The Development, Establishment And Revision Of Curriculum Standards; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

HB357 – An Act To Provide For The Repeal Of The Common Core State Standards Curriculum Adopted By The State Board Of Education And To Prohibit Any Further Implementation Or Use Of Such Standards; To Restrict The Use Of The Partnership For Assessment Of Readiness For College And Careers (parcc), Or Any Other Assessment Related To Or Based On The Common Core State Standards, As The Required Assessment Required Under The Statewide Testing Program; To Require The State Superintendent Of Public Education And The State Board Of Education To Initiate Procedures To Withdraw From The Parcc Consortium; To Provide That The State Of Mississippi Shall Retain Sole Control Over The Development, Establishment And Revision Of Curriculum And Academic Content Standards; To Provide That No Curriculum Standards Developed Outside The State Of Mississippi May Be Adopted Or Implemented Without Public Hearings Held In Each Congressional District, A One-year Open Comment Period And Open Hearings Before A Joint Committee Composed Of The House And Senate Education Committees, Followed By An Act Of The Legislature; To Impose Restrictions Upon The State Department Of Education With Regards To The Expenditure Of Certain Funds And Disclosing Personally Identifiable Information Pertaining To Students And Teachers; To Amend Section 37-1-3, Mississippi Code Of 1972, In Conformity Thereto; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

SB2581 – An Act To Authorize And Direct Public School Districts To Allow Parents And Legal Guardians Of Enrolled Students To Opt Out Of Common Core Aligned Curricula, Certain Student Data And The Release Of Information Concerning Their Children’s Personal Beliefs; To Prescribe A Form For The Student Privacy Protection Opt-out Request By The Parent Or Legal Guardian; To Direct The State Board Of Education To Issue Regulations Consistent With The Student Data Confidentiality Provisions Of This Act; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

HB279 – An Act To Prohibit The State Board Of Education And The State Department Of Education From Taking Any Further Action To Implement The Common Core And Mississippi College And Career Readiness Standards; To Require The State Board Of Education To Adhere To Pre-existing Procedures Under Its Apa To Review And Revise Our Curriculum Standards As Applicable Within Our Board Policies Beginning With Mathematics And English In 2017; To Prohibit The State Board And State Department Of Education From Expending Certain Federal Funds To Track Students Beyond Their K-12 Education And To Distribute Certain Student Identifiable Information; To Amend Section 37-17-6, Mississippi Code Of 1972, To Delete References To Common Core And To Delete The Requirement That The State Department Of Education Form A Single Accountability System By Combining The State System With The Federal System; To Bring Forward Section 37-177-5, Mississippi Code Of 1972, For The Purpose Of Possible Amendments; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

HB601 – An Act To Create New Section 37-16-2, Mississippi Code Of 1972, To Require The State Board Of Education To Contract With A Single Entity For The Development And Administration Of The Act Aspire Assessment Components As The Comprehensive Statewide Assessment Program For Public School Students In Grades 3-10 As Well As Algebra I And English Ii, Which Is Aligned To The Mississippi College And Career-ready Standards; To Require The State Department Of Education To Provide A Job Skills Assessment System That Allows Students To Earn A Nationally Recognized Career Readiness Certificate Credentialing Workplace Employability Skills; To Require The Act Aspire As The Statewide Assessment Program To Be Fully Implemented In All Public Schools In The 2017-2018 School Year; To Amend Sections 37-16-1, 37-16-3, 37-16-4, 37-16-5, 37-16-7, 37-16-9 And 37-16-17, Mississippi Code Of 1972, Which Relate To The Statewide Testing Program, And Sections 37-3-49, 37-15-38, 37-17-6, 37-18-1, 37-18-3, 37-20-5, 37-20-7 And 37-28-45, Mississippi Code Of 1972, In Conformity To The Preceding Provisions Of This Act; To Prohibit The State Board Of Education From Contracting With Any Entity For The Development Of A Statewide Assessment Whose Alignment Of Curriculum And Testing Standards Are In Compliance With The Partnership For Assessment Of Readiness For College And Careers (parcc) Without Express Legislative Authority; To Amend Section 37-16-11, Mississippi Code Of 1972, To Provide For The Issuance Of A Standard Diploma To Certain Exceptional Children With Intellectual Impairments Who Have Ieps Upon Meeting The Educational Requirements Of Their Iep And Those Established By The State Board Of Education; And For Related Purposes. Last action: Died in committee.

There are additional bills, some are repetitive, they have all been killed in committee.

New Hampshire

SB 44 – Prohibiting the state from requiring implementation of common core standards. Last action: Before Senate Education Committee.

HB 207 – Prohibiting the implementation of common core in public elementary and secondary schools. Last action: Hearing scheduled for 2/14/17.

New Jersey

A2650 – Requires high school students to be assessed using college placement cut scores to determine readiness for college-level course work, and Commissioner of Education to develop plan to improve college and career counseling for students. Last action: To Assembly Higher Education Committee.

A10121 – Requires school districts and charter schools to annually provide to parents or guardians of enrolled students information on certain tests to be administered during the school year. Last action: Referred to Assembly Education Committee.

New Mexico

HB211 – Requires the adoption and implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards. Last Action: Referred to House Education Committee.

New York

A03702/S03912 – Requires disclosure of testing items in Common Core tests given in New York (50% after the first year the test is given, full disclosure after the second year.) Last action: Assigned to the Assembly Education Committee.

A01098 – Establishes the common core state standards evaluation task force for the purpose of studying the implementation of the common core state standards; requires such task force report to the Governor and Legislature. Last action: Referred to the Assembly Education Committee.

A01719 – Relates to teacher evaluations and implementation of the common core learning standards. Last action: Assigned to Assembly Education Committee.

S02091 – Enacts the common core parental refusal act. Last action: Assigned to Senate Education Committee.

A03644 – Relates to creating the commission on exceptional standards for New York state. Last action: Assigned to Assembly Education Committee.

A03623 – Relates to the common core state standards initiative. Last action: Referred to Assembly Education Committee.

S01942 – Allows parents, legal guardians or school districts to opt children with an individualized education program out of the “common core standards” and certain testing. Last action: Referred to Senate Education Committee.

A02312 – Relates to establishing the standardized testing transparency act; makes an appropriation therefor. Last action: Referred to the Assembly Education Committee.

North Dakota

HB 1432 – Repeals Common Core. Last action: Reported back, do not pass, placed on calendar (My write-up on the bill is here)

Oregon

HB2368 – Prohibits Department of Education from requiring school districts to align instruction or assessments with common core state standards and from penalizing school districts for failure to align instruction or assessments with common core state standards. Declares emergency, effective July 1, 2017. Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

HB2587 – Modifies state educational goals to take into consideration students’ aspirations, to provide students with well-rounded education and to provide students with sufficient instructional time to meet students’ educational goals. Expands state’s mission of education beyond high school. Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

HB 2229 – Requires school districts to offer instruction in financial literacy. Directs school districts and public charter schools to offer sufficient instruction in financial literacy to ensure that every student who elects to receive instruction in financial literacy is able to receive instruction. Takes effect July 1, 2018. Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

South Dakota

SB 126 – This bill requires the South Dakota Department of Education to use a competitive bidding process when acquiring academic assessments.

Texas

SB 605 – Allows public review and removal of Common Core-aligned curriculum. Last action: Filed.

HB 1069 – Relating to compliance with prohibitions regarding the use of common core state standards in public schools. Last action: Filed.

Washington

HB1012 – Eliminating the use of the high school science assessment as a graduation prerequisite. Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

HB 1046 – Eliminates requirement to pass state assessments to graduate. Allows multiple options. Last action: Referred to the House Appropriations Committee.

HB 1415 – To simplify existing state assessment requirements and administer the ACT test as the statewide high school assessment for reading or language arts, mathematics, and science; and (2) For the administration of the ACT test to be for federal accountability purposes and does not intend for the ACT test to be used in determining whether a student is eligible to graduate from high school. Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

HB1793 – Increasing academic rigor and streamlining assessment requirements for high school students. (This bill entrenches Smarter Balanced in Washington.) Last action: Referred to the House Education Committee.

SB 5202/HB 1572 – Directs OSPI to seek approval of using SAT or ACT in place of the SBAC assessments. If approved by the feds, the ELA/Math and Science portions of the national tests can be used in place for graduation purposes. SBE sets the cutoff score for passing. Last action: Referred to each chamber’s education committee.

SB5673/HB1886 – Moves the responsiblity for setting standards and assessments from the Washington State Board of Education to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Last action: Referred to each chamber’s education committee.

West Virginia

HB 2144 – A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new article, designated §18-1A-1, §18-1A-2, §18-1A-3, §18-1A-4 and §18-1A-5, all relating to academic content standards in public schools; discontinuing and prohibiting the use of Common Core academic content standards; adopting alternative academic content standards; discontinuing the use of Common Core based assessments; establishing a committee and process for developing alternate statewide assessments of student progress; prohibiting the state board or any public school from sharing student data without parental consent; and prohibiting acceptance of federal funding if such funding is conditioned upon sharing student data without parental consent. Last action: Referred to the House of Delegate’s Education and Finance Committees.

SB 18 – This would change West Virginia’s assessment from Smarter Balanced to ACT (for 11th graders) and ACT Aspire (for 3rd-8th graders). Last action: Referred to the Senate Education and Finance committees.

HB 2443 – This bill repeals Common Core and replaces it with the 2001 Massachusetts ELA Standards and the 2005 California math standards. Last action: Referred to the House Education and Finance Committees

Wyoming

HB0008 – AN ACT relating to education; amending requirements of state data security plan to ensure privacy of student data collected; requiring policies for the collection, access, privacy, security and use of student data by school districts; accordingly requiring school districts to adopt and enforce policies for the collection, access, privacy, security and use of student data; and providing for an effective date. Last action: Passed House, referred to Senate Education Committee

Indiana Struggles to Replace ISTEP

Photo credit: Steve Baker (CC-By-ND 2.0)

Photo credit: Steve Baker (CC-By-ND 2.0)

Chalkbeat reports that Indiana is struggling to replace the current ISTEP assessment by the December 1st deadline imposed by state law.

…some members of a key testing advisory panel are now admitting that it’s increasingly likely the state might have to keep its unpopular ISTEP a bit longer.

Another option is to bring back parts of the controversial PARCC exam, a national test that was rejected by state lawmakers in 2013 because it’s tied to the politically unpopular Common Core State Standards.

Both options would violate current state law and create a political headache for lawmakers who vowed to swiftly replace the much-maligned ISTEP test with something better. But at a meeting Tuesday of the state’s ISTEP replacement panel, lawmakers and panel members acknowledged that starting a new test in the spring of 2018 might not be possible.

The “repeal ISTEP” bill that was signed by Gov. Mike Pence in May lays out an ambitious timeline with the ISTEP advisory panel making recommendations by Dec. 1 so that the legislature can formally enact the new test next spring.

But after months of indecision, members of the panel now say the ISTEP may be sticking around a little longer than expected.

Achieve, Inc makes the case Indiana to resurrect PARCC:

But the political situation has changed slightly since Indiana pulled out of the consortium of states that pooled their resources to create the PARCC exam, said Michael Cohen, president of the nonprofit Achieve that helps states work on academic standards and tests. Indiana originally pivoted so sharply from PARCC because of concerns that the Common Core represented a federal intrusion into state schools.

Today, however, “there’s no federal funds involved,” Cohen said. “It’s gone.”

It’s hard to say whether PARCC would be politically palatable in Indiana given the strong backlash it received in 2013. On one hand, Cohen today said it was a reliable, well-made test that was cheaper than Indiana’s current ISTEP contract with British-based Pearson. On the other hand, the politics might just be too “daunting,” said Indiana Commissioner for Education Teresa Lubbers, even if the test itself makes the most sense.

Just because there are no more federal funds attached from PARCC doesn’t make it a palatable option. For starters it would be just another slap in the face of Indiana parents and activists who worked so hard to see Common Core repealed to only then be disappointed when the standards were rebranded. Then PARCC has bled out membership and has been plagued with problems.

I have to ask why in the world has this task force gone months without a decision? What have they been doing?

Whenever they approve a new assessment they’ll then have to go to the U.S. Department of Education and ask “mother, may I?” under the guise of “state flexibility” under the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Oklahoma Loses NCLB Waiver Over Common Core, Indiana Rebrand Rewarded

arne-duncan.jpg

Arne Duncan brings out the sticks and carrots.

Politico reported yesterday that Oklahoma lost its ESEA (NCLB) flexibility waiver as a result of repealing Common Core.  Indiana, however, received a one-year extension.

Both state repealed Common Core, but Indiana replaced theirs with a rebrand.  Oklahoma will be writing new standards and their process will be slower and more deliberate than the Hoosier effort that was rushed.

Caitlin Emma writes:

The move marks the latest battle between states and the Obama administration over what has been perceived to be heavy-handed federal education policy that will continue for the next few years.

Since some Oklahoma children have already started the school year, the Education Department will phase in some of the consequences of No Child Left Behind that Oklahoma had escaped under the waiver: The state must provide tutoring services and public school choice options no later than the 2015-16 school year. But schools that will need a total overhaul must begin that process this school year.

“It is outrageous that President [Barack] Obama and Washington bureaucrats are trying to dictate how Oklahoma schools spend education dollars,” Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin said in a statement. “Because of overwhelming opposition from Oklahoma parents and voters to Common Core, Washington is now acting to punish us. This is one more example of an out-of-control presidency that places a politicized Washington agenda over the well-being of Oklahoma students.”

Perceived to be heavy-handed??? It is heavy-handed.  It is also no surprise.  Fallin should sue, even Mike Petrilli thinks she has a case

“While Bobby Jindal doesn’t have a case against Arne Duncan, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin sure as heck does,” he said. “I hope she sues. Nothing in ESEA gives the secretary of education the authority to push states around when it comes to their standards,” Petrilli said according to Politico.  I disagree with him with Jindal’s case.  Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal makes a strong case against federal involvement with Common Core and its assessments.

Secretary Duncan’s decision with Oklahoma just reinforces his argument.  Governor Fallin should join Jindal’s lawsuit.

2014 Common Core Legislation Round-Up (12th Update)

ccss-map-960x400

Here’s the latest round of Common Core legislation that has been filed.  There’s too many to do individual articles so I wanted to get caught up and mention them in one article.  As a recap I’ll also mention bills I’ve already written about.  I’m sure I’m also missing legislation, my apologies if I miss your state.  Taking in Common Core news (and my inbox) is like drinking from a fire hose.  If I missed something leave a comment and I will add it – this is a work in progress.  Also if you have an update on the status of a certain bill I’d love to hear from you as well. Disclaimer: This is not meant to endorse one particular bill over an other.  Sometimes state groups have given me feedback.  I definitely do not want to big foot over what state groups are doing.  There are bills, such as a data collection bill in Colorado, that have a negative impact and we called that out.  Most of these bills, in some form or fashion, attempt to move the ball forward even if they are not the gold standard of a full repeal.  I encourage you to do your own research.

Alabama:

  • SB 380: Introduced by State Senator Scott Beason (R-Gardendale) – Common Core Curriculum Standards, terminated, prior courses of study to be implemented. Will the State Senate dictator, Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh, allow it to come to a vote however? (3/27/14 Update – Still sitting in committee, no action on this bill since 2/20/14.  Beason still has 14 co-sponsors on this bill.)

Arizona:

  • SB 1121: Primary sponsors: State Senators Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City), Judy Burges (R-Sun City West), Sonny Borrelli (R-Lake Havasu City) This bill would place a moratorium on the requirement to pass a standardized test to graduate High School for 3 years (during the 2014‑2015 school year, the 2015‑2016 school year or the 2016‑2017) (3/27/14 Update: Senate Education Committee held this bill on 2/20/14, so it’s likely going nowhere.)
  • SB 1153: Primary sponsors: State Senators Ward and Burges.  This bill outlines the process for the State Board of Education’s implementation of Common Core:
    1) Public hearings must be held in each congressional district;
    2) A third party must be hired to conduct a fiscal analysis of implementation;
    3) Directs the State to withdraw from PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers);
    4) The State Board of Education cannot “enter into or renew an agreement that cedes to an outside entity control over curricular standards or assessments in this state.” (3/27/14 Update: Still no action on this bill.)
  • SB 1095: Primary sponsors: State Senators Chester Crandell (R-Heber), Ward, Carl Seel (R-Phoenix), and Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff). This bill would force the withdrawal from PARCC, and prevent the state from entering into an agreement, without notification to the Legislature, with any outside entity developing multi-state or potentially multi-state assessments and tests. (3/27/14 Update: Held in Senate Education Committee 2/20/14.)
  • HB 2316: Primary sponsors: State Representatives Justin Pierce (R-Mesa) and Thomas Forese (R-Gilbert).  This bill would prohibit the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction from adopting federally-mandated curricula or instructional approaches, prohibit federal funding, which requires the adoption of certain federal standards, and require any changes made to state standards to be conducted in public process. (3/27/10 Update: Passed in the Arizona House on a 33 to 22 vote on 3/10/14, passed out of Arizona Senate Education Committee on 3/20/14 amended.)
  • SB 1310: Primary sponsor: State Senator Al Melvin (R-Tucson). This bill would prevent the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, prevents revisions to standards that would effectively implement Common Core State  Standards, withdraws Arizona from PARCC, and adopts a college entrance exam to be the statewide HS assessment. (3/18/14 Update: FAILED. My update last week said that this passed that was due to a news article I read.  It didn’t reference the bill number only that State Senator Melvin was the sponsor, and this was the only Common Core bill that I had listed where he was the sponsor.  The bill summary, however, said this failed in the Senate with a 12 to 18 vote on 3/5/14.  Maybe the news article was referring to a different bill or perhaps they meant a committee vote?  Anyway, my apologies for the error.)

Arkansas:

  • HR 1007: Introduced by State Representative Randy Alexander (R-Fayettevile) – To authorize the introduction of a nonapropriation bill concerning delaying the implementation of the Common Core; and to declare an emergency. (3/27/14 Update: Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment on 3/19/14.)
  • SR 4: Introduced by State Senator Gary Stubblefield (R-Branch) – companion bill to HR 1007.  (3/27/14 Update: Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment on 3/19/14.)

Colorado:

  • SB 14-136: This bill introduced by State Senator Vicki Marble (R-Ft. Collins) intends to push back the implementation of Common Core State Standards in Colorado schools to the 2015-16 school year in order to study its effects. Under the terms of the bill, schools would continue to use the Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) for one more year instead of testing from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). (3/27/14 Update: Postponed indefinitely by Senate Committee on Education on 2/13/14.)
  • HB 14-1039: Introduced by State Representative Sue Schafer (D-Wheat Ridge) – This bill will link early childhood data with K-12 (horrible bill, it needs to be killed). (3/27/14 Update: No action in House Committee on Education since it was assigned.)

Connecticut:

  • SB 53: Introduced by State Senator Joe Markley (R-Southington)- This bill would cut funding to the advertising budget of the State Department of Education that was to be used for the promotion of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. (3/27/14 Update: No action taken yet.)

Florida:

  • PCB KTS 14-01: This bill just removes references to the Common Core State Standards, it’s a garbage bill sponsored by the Florida House K-12 subcommittee.  See Karen Effrem’s analysis here.
  • HB 25: Introduced by State Representative Debbie Mayfield (R-Vero Beach) – Prohibits State Board of Education from continuing to implement common core standards until certain requirements are met; provides requirements for adoption or revision of curricular standards; requires state to withdraw from PARCC; prohibits state from implementing certain assessments & requires state to adopt & implement new assessments; prohibits state board from entering into certain agreements. (Currently in the House Education Appropriations Subcommittee.)
  • SB 1316: The Senate companion bill for HB 25 introduced by State Senator Greg Evers (R-Pensacola) (3/27/14 Update: Referred to Senate Education Appropriations Subcommitttee on 3/4/14.)
  • CS/HB 195: Introduced by State Representative Jake Raburn (R-Valrico) – Revises provisions relating to remedy in circuit court with respect to education records & reports of K-12 students & parents; provides for annual notice of student & parent rights; provides limitations on collection of information & disclosure of confidential & exempt student records; revises provisions relating to submission of student social security numbers & assignment of student identification numbers. (3/27/14 Update: Passed the Florida House on 3/6/14.)
  • CS/SB 188: Introduced by State Senator Dorothy Hukill (R-Port Orange) – Providing for annual notice to K-12 students and parents of rights relating to education records; providing limitations on the collection of information and the disclosure of confidential and exempt student records; revising provisions relating to the submission of student social security numbers and the assignment of student identification numbers; requiring the Department of Education to establish a process for assigning student identification numbers, etc. (3/27/14 Update: Passed in the Florida Senate on 3/26/14 on a 38 to 1 vote.)
  • SB 232: Introduced by State Senator Hukill – Prohibiting a school district or school from collecting a student’s biometric information, etc. (There are some FERPA loopholes here). (3/27/14 Update: No action in Judiciary, Education committees.)
  • SB 864:  Introduced by State Senator Alan Hays (R-Umatilla) – Providing that the district school board has the constitutional duty and responsibility to select and provide adequate instructional materials for all students; requiring a district school board or consortium of school districts to implement an instructional materials program; repealing provisions relating to bids, proposals, and advertisement regarding the adoption of instructional materials; requiring the district school board, rather than the commissioner, to conduct an independent investigation to determine the accuracy of district-adopted instructional materials, etc.  (This bill does require curriculum to be aligned with Florida standards so it’s not really effective).  This bill still needs a House companion bill.  Stop Common Core advocates are working with State Senator Hays to make this a better bill. (3/27/14 Update: Passed out of the Education and Government Oversight & Accountability Committees on 3/26/14.)
  • CS/HB 91: (Similar to SB 864, not sure if it is technically the companion bill.) Introduced by State Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fort Walton Beach).  Referred to Education Appropriations Subcommittee.

Georgia:

  • SB 167: (Combined with SB 203) Introduced by State Senator William Ligon, Jr. (R-Brunswick) – This bill establishes the process for reviewing the standards, allows local districts to go back to the previous, superior GA standards in the interim, and establishes strong protections for student data privacy. Passed Senate Education committee & full Senate.  (3/27/14 Upate: Died in House Education Committee. 3/11/14 Update: House Leadership & Governor gutted SB 167, State Sen. Ligon is withdrawing support, as is CWA of Georgia and American Principles in Action.)

Idaho:

  • SB 1296: Introduced by State Senator John Goedde (R-Coeur d’Alene) – Adds to existing law to provide definitions, to provide for a responsible entity, to establish provisions relating to a data inventory and dictionary or index, to establish provisions relating to certain policies and procedures, to establish provisions relating to the State Board of Education and the State Department of Education ensuring that certain vendors shall comply with the law, to provide for a civil enforcement action, to provide for a court action, to provide for a penalty, to establish provisions relating to data deemed confidential, to provide for exceptions and to provide for a data security plan. (Idahoans for Local Education has concerns about this bill they say it defers to FERPA.) (3/27/14 Update: No action taken.)
  • HB 499: Introduced by State Representative Janet Trujillo (R-Idaho Falls) – Adds to existing law to establish provisions relating to public education and parental rights; and to establish provisions relating to a parental bill of rights. (3/27/14 Update: No action taken.)
  • SB 1343: Introduced by State Senator Russell Fulcher (R-Meridian) –  Adds to existing law to provide that the Legislature must ratify by statute any agreement among the State Board of Education or the State Department of Education and any multistate consortium or the federal government concerning testing of Idaho students in grades K-12, curriculum or standards and sharing of individual student data generated by any part of the Idaho K-12 educational system and to provide an exception for certain tests. (3/27/14 Update: No action taken.)
  • 3/27/14 Update: SB 1377: State Senator Goedde filed.  This bill amends existing law to remove language in the catchline relating to online courses and to establish provisions relating to the board of trustees of each school district adopting curricular materials.  Stephanie Zimmerman of Idahoans for Local Education pointed out that school districts did not have the right to choose curriculum not approved by the State Board of Educationn.  Their complaint was heard.  This bill restored that right and it was signed into law on 3/19/14 by Governor Butch Otter.

Illinois:

  • HR0543: Introduced by State Representative Dwight Kay (R-Glen Carbon) – Urges the State Board of Education to delay the implementation of the new Common Core Standards and requests that the State Board of Education and General Assembly work together to create a viable plan to provide funding to school districts that need improvements and modernizations to comply with the new Common Core Standards and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career’s. (3/27/14 Update: In Special Issues Subcommittee and had a hearing yesterday.  Illinois Review says this is way to politely deep six the bill.)
  • SR0638: Introduced by State Senator Kyle McCarter (R-Vandalia) – Senate companion to HR0543. (3/27/14 Update: Introduced in the Senate Education Committee on 3/5/14.)
  • SB3092: Introduced by State Senator William Delgado (D-Chicago) – Amends the P-20 Longitudinal Education Data System Act. Provides that if an audit or evaluation or a compliance or enforcement activity in connection with legal requirements that relate to State-supported or school district-supported educational programs requires or is used as the basis for granting access to personally identifiable information, the State Board of Education or a public school shall designate parties only under its direct control to act as authorized representatives to conduct the audit, evaluation, or activity. Limits the disclosure of personally identifiable information by the State Board or a public school with respect to (i) a contractor, consultant, or other party to whom the State Board or school has outsourced services or functions; (ii) a party conducting certain studies for or on behalf of the State Board or school; (iii) any party for a commercial use; or (iv) the provision of services other than contracting, studies, and audits or evaluations. Limits the maintenance of personally identifiable information and provides for disclosure and notification. Limits appending education records with personally identifiable information obtained from other federal or State agencies through data matches. Provides for civil penalties. Effective immediately. (3/27/14 Update: Passed out of the Senate Education Committee on 3/26/14.)

Indiana:

  • SB 91: Introduced by State Senator Scott Schneider (R-Indianapolis) – Adds a definition of “college and career readiness”. Provides that before July 1, 2014, the state board of education (state board) shall adopt Indiana college and career readiness educational standards. Provides that academic standards adopted prior to July 1, 2014, are void on the earlier of: July 1, 2014; or, the date academic standards are adopted. Provides that during the 2015-2016 school year, the state board shall authorize the department to administer either the ISTEP assessment or a comparable assessment program that is aligned with the educational standards. Provides that before the state board may authorize a new assessment program, the state board shall submit the proposed assessment program to the budget committee for review. Makes technical and conforming amendments.  (There is concern that the Indiana State Board of Education will just rebrand the Common Core instead of writing entirely new standards.)  This bill has passed the Senate 36-12 and passed the House 67-26. (3/27/14 Update: Governor Pence signed the bill on 3/24/14.)

Iowa:

  • HF 2140: Introduced by State Representative Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville) – It would make the Iowa Core (along with the Common Core) voluntary and strikes language in the Iowa Code giving the State Board of Education the authority to change the standards. (This bill was killed in subcommittee, State Representative Sandy Salmon votes yes, State Representatives Greg Forristall and Sharon Steckman vote no.)
  • HF 2141: Introduced by State Representative Gassmann – This bill directs the Iowa Department of Education to pull out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (This bill has been killed in subcommittee, see this Caffeinated Thoughts article.)
  • SF 2123: Introduced by State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) – Rolls Iowa Standards back to existing standards set in 2006 (pre-Common Core, removes Iowa’s standards for social studies and 21st Century Skills). (Bill died in subcommittee did not make the funnel deadline.)
  • HF 2204: Introduced by State Representative Sandy Salmon – this is identical to State Senator Zaun’s bill. (Bill did not meet funnel deadline, died in subcommittee.)
  • 2-16-14 Update: See update from Iowans for Local Control.
  • HF 2205: Introduced by State Representative Larry Sheets (R-Moulton).  Rolls back standards to 2006 standards.  Subcommittee meeting scheduled on Thursday, February 20th at 11:00a at the Iowa State Capitol Building, Room 19. (Bill died in subcommittee, did not make funnel deadline).
  • HSB 592 (Reassigned as HF 2439) Introduced by State Representative Ron Jorgensen (R-Sioux City) – this bill passed the House Education Committee on 2/19/14 and is the only Common Core related bill still viable this session.  I didn’t mention it before because it really doesn’t do anything to remove the Common Core from Iowa.  It doesn’t address privacy issues, but that needs to be strengthened.  What this bill does do is give Common Core opponents an opportunity to introduce floor amendments that hopefully will be considered germane to the bill.  So hopefully it can be made into a better bill. (3/11/14 Update: Passes Iowa House 96-0.  This bill sets up a review starting in 2015 of the current standards.  It stipulates any changes to the Iowa Core starting this year must be open to public input and a report sent to the Iowa Legislature while in session before the changes can be implemented.  It also provides some data privacy protect, but how strong the language is up for debate since it references FERPA.) (3/27/14 Update: The bill did not survive the 2nd funnel in the Iowa Senate.)

Kansas:

  • HB 2621: Introduced by the House Education Committee, this bill is a data privacy bill and it nullifies standards adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education in 2010. (3/27/14 Update: This bill was withdrawn from the House Committee on Education and referred to the House Committee on Taxation in February, on 3/14/14 it was withdrawn from that committee and sent back to Education.)

Kentucky:

  • HB 5: Introduced by State Representative Denver Butler (D-Louisville) – This bill calls for tightened data security for all state agencies. (3/27/14 Update: This passed the Kentucky House 100-0 in January, and passed the Kentucky Senate 38-0 amended on 3/21/14.  It’s now back in the House since there were changes made.)
  • HF 215: Introduced by State Representative Thomas Kerr (R-Taylor Mill) – This bill calls for dropping the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, reasserts state sovereignty over education, and requires better data security for education records. (3/27/14 Update: Still sitting in the House Education Committee where it has been since January.)

Louisiana:

  • SB 449: Introduced by State Senator Conrad Appel (R-Metairie). Provides relative to the privacy and protection of student data for students enrolled in public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions. (3/27/14 Update: Referred to Senate Committee on Education.  We wrote about this bill and pointed out that it is very weak.)
  • HB 555: Introduced by State Representative Cameron Henry (R-Metairie).  Provides for limitations and prohibitions on the collection and sharing of student information and provides penalties for violations.  (3/27/14 Update: Passed out of the House Education Committee on 3/26/14.)
  • HB 1076:  (Formerly HB 946, number changed when amended) Introduced by State Representative John Schroder (R-Covington).  Provides for limitations and prohibitions on the collection and sharing of student information and provides penalties for violations.  (3/27/14 Update: HB 946 passed out of House Education Committee on 3/26/14 amended.)

Maryland:

  • HB 76: Introduced by Delegate Michael Smigiel, Sr. (R-Elkton) – Prohibiting the State Board of Education and specified county boards of education from establishing specified educational policies, curriculum, and guidelines that include or are based on the Common Core State Standards; prohibiting the State Board from entering into any agreements or joining any organizations that give control over educational matters to any entity other than the State; requiring the State Board to take specified steps to rescind the State Board’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards; etc. (3/27/14 Update: Had a hearing on 2/5/14, no action taken after that.)
  • SB 0578: Introduced by State Senator Edward Reilly (R-Anne Arundel County) – Requiring each county board of education to determine the implementation timeline for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), no sooner than June 30, 2015. (3/27/14 Update: It received an unfavorable report in the Senate Education Committee on 3/4/14.)
  • SB 0579: Introduced by State Senator Reilly – It delays any evaluations of teachers and principals based on standardized testing until at least June 30, 2015.  (3/27/14 Update: It received an unfavorable report in the Senate Education Committee on 3/4/14.)
  • SB 0408: Introduced by State Senator Reilly (3/27/14 Update: It received an unfavorable report in the Senate Education Committee on 3/4/14.)/Companion Bill – HB 0925: Introduced by Delegate Ron George (R-Anne Arundel County) – Would delay the Common Core State Standards. (3/27/14 Update: Had a hearing scheduled on 2/27/14, no action taken since.)

Massachusetts: 

  • 3/27/14 Update: New bill has been filed.  It’s currently H.D. 4197 (has not been assigned a bill number yet).  Introduced by State Representative Keiko Orrall (R-Lakeville).  It’s entitled “An act to ensure quality education.”  This bill will halt expenditures on Common Core and PARCC until such time as the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education provides certain costs and standards comparisons.

Michigan:

  • HB 4276 introduced by State Representative Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills) last session apparently is still active according to the 10th Amendment Center.  I confirmed this with Rep. McMillin’s office this afternoon (2/25/14).  It is live until December 31, 2014.  Remember that Michigan has a full-time legislature as well.  McMillin’s bill prohibits the implementation of the Common Core in Michigan.  It’s a long shot (since they voted last fall to allow funding), but Michigan residents can contact members of the Michigan House Education Committee and ask for them to vote yes.  In particular contact the committee chair, State Representative Lisa Posthumus Lyons (R-Alto), and ask for her to allow a vote.  Her phone number is (517) 373-0846.  Her email is LisaLyons@house.mi.gov.

Minnesota:

  • Minnesota bills do not have bill numbers yet, but there are three bills that have been picked up by State Representative Jim Abeler (R-Anoka): Data collection sharing only with parental permission; full repeal of the Common Core State Standards; and one other. There is a local control bill in the works as well as parental bill of rights.  (3/27/14 Update: No new news.  3/11/14: I was told they are currently looking for a Democrat legislator who will sponsor the bills.)

Mississippi:

  • State Senator Angela Burks Hill (R-Picayune) filed SB 2736 would have prohibited the Mississippi State Board of Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards.  It also would have repealed the state’s SLDS system.  It unfortunately died in the Senate Education Committee on 2/4/14.  Not sure why, I don’t see any record of a vote.  No House bills were filed before the deadline.  Hearings have been requested in the House Education Committee but have been denied so far.

Missouri:

  • 3/27/14 Update: The Missouri House passed an amendment to defund the Common Core to the House budget bill on 3/25/14.
  • HB 1708: Introduced by State Representative Kurt Bahr (R-St. Charles) – Prohibits the State Board of Education, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and school districts from implementing the Common Core State Standards. (3/27/14 Update: Still sitting in committee.)
  • HJR 74: Introduced by State Representative Dean Dohrman (R-La Monte) – Proposes a constitutional amendment that would require members of the State Board of Education to be elected. Currently, members are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. (3/27/14 Update: Still sitting in Government Oversight and Accountability Committee.)
  • SB 514: Introduced by State Senator John Lamping (R-St. Louis) – Prohibits the State Board of Education, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and school districts from implementing the Common Core State Standards. (3/27/14 Update: Just had a hearing in the Senate.)
  • SB 798: Introduced by State Senator Ed Emery (R-Lamar) – Modifies provisions relating to elementary and secondary education standards and assessments.  (Would pull Missouri out of Smarter Balanced and repeal the Common Core State Standards.) (3/27/14 Update: Just had a hearing in the Senate.)
  • SB 819: Introduced by State Senator Wayne Wallingford (R-Cape Girardeau) – This act enacts multiple provisions to protect personal privacy from government intrusion. (3/27/14 Update: Passed out of the Senate committee today.)

New Hampshire:

  • HB 1239: Introduced by State Representative Glenn Cordelli (R-Tuftonboro) – This bill requires the state board of education to report on the fiscal impact of implementing the college and career readiness standards, also known as the Common Core standards, and prohibits the board from implementing any new common core standards until the board performs a fiscal analysis and conducts a public hearing in each executive council district. (3/27/14 Update: The House Education Committee voted the bill “Inexpedient to Legislate” on 2/6/14.)
  • HB 1508: Introduced by State Representative Lenette Peterson (R-Merrimack) – This bill requires the state board of education to terminate all plans, programs, activities, and expenditures relative to the implementation of the common core state educational standards which have been adopted or may be adopted by the state board, including any assessments and instruction based upon such standards. (3/27/14 Update: Voted down by the New Hampshire House on 3/26/14.)
  • HB 1262: Introduced by State Representative J.R. Hoell (R-Dunbarton) – This bill restricts the collection, storage, and sharing of student assessment data by the United States Department of Education and the New Hampshire department of education. (3/27/14 Update: Committee voted to refer to study on 2/4./14.)
  • HB 1586: Introduced by State Representative Cordelli – This bill establishes procedures for protecting the privacy of student and teacher personally-identifiable data. The bill also prohibits the use of video monitoring in a classroom for the purpose of teacher evaluations, affective computing methods, predictive modeling, radio frequency identification devices, and remote surveillance software on school laptops and tablets, without the written consent of a parent or legal guardian. (3/27/14 Update: Referred to study by Committee)
  • HB 1496: Introduced by State Representative Hoell – This bill provides that a school district shall not be required to administer any assessment which is not valid and appropriate, or which cannot be objectively scored.  This deals with the Smarter Balanced Assessment. (3/27/14 Update: Committee voted to refer to study on 2/4/14.)
  • HB 1587: Introduced by State Representative Neal Kurk (R-Weare) – This bill regulates the collection and distribution of student data. (3/27/14 Update: Passed the House on 3/12/14, will have a hearing in the Senate Education committee on 4/3/14.)
  • HB 1238: Introduced by State Representative Cordelli – This bill requires the department of education to make available assessment questions and response sheets on the department’s website as soon as possible after the assessment results are released. (3/27/14 Update: Passed out of the House on 3/12/14.)

New Jersey:

  • S. 2973: Introduced by State Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Dennis Township) – Establishes Common Core State Standards Evaluation Task Force; delays use of assessments developed by Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers until task force submits final report. (3/27/14 Update: No action.)
  • A. 4403: Introduced by Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak (D-Middle Township) – A companion bill to S. 2973. (3/27/14 Update: No action.)

New Mexico:

  • SB 296: This bill introduced by State Senator Linda Lopez (D-Albuquerque) would halt implementation of the Common Core and withdraw the state from the PARCC testing consortium. It would also require public hearings and a fiscal analysis of the new standards before they are brought into effect. (3/27/14 Update: The bill died in committee.)

New York:

  • A07994: Introduced by Assemblyman Al Graf (R-Holbrook) – This bill will halt the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top in the State of New York if passed.  It was introduced last summer and it doesn’t look like any action has been taken in the New York Assembly Education Committee.  It has a companion bill in the New York Senate – S06267 introduced by State Senator Greg Ball (R-Carmel).  It was filed last month has been referred to the Senate Education Committee. (3/27/14 Update: NO movement on these bills.)
  • S 6604 – Introduced by State Senator Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley) – The purpose of this bill is to convene a commission, which will be empowered to hold hearings, study, and make recommendations to the governor and legislature, regarding education issues related to P-12 curriculum and testing in New York State. During the review, school districts shall not be required to implement the Common Core curriculum, nor shall any state test be based off of the Common Core standards. Upon completion of their review, the Commission shall take a vote to determine whether the Common Core curriculum shall be reinstated.  Companion Bill A 8804 – Introduced by Assemblyman Edward Ra (R-Franklin Square). (3/27/14 Update: No action taken on these bills.)
  • A8929:  This bill authored by Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan (D-Ridgewood) who chairs the Education Committe.  This bill is just a delay in using assessment scores for accountability.  It would prevent schools from using Common Core-based test scores on staff evaluations for two years and prevents schools from using scores to decide whether a student will advance to the next grade.  So it doesn’t move toward the goal of getting rid of the Common Core State Standards in New York.  This bill passed the New York Assembly on a 117 to 10 vote.  There is no companion bill in the Senate. (3/27/14 Update: Referred to the Senate Education Committee, still no action.)

Ohio:

  • HB 237: Introduced by State Representative Andy Thompson (R-Marietta) – A Common Core repeal bill.  It looks like it is held up in the House Education Committee, and I was told by State Representative Brenner (R-Powell), the vice chair of the Ohio House Education Committee, that it is unfortunately dead.
  • HB 181: Introduced by State Representative Brenner – To amend sections 3314.03, 3319.321, 3326.11, and 3328.24 and to enact sections 3301.942, 3301.943, 3301.944, 3301.945, and 3301.946 of the Revised Code to prohibit submission of a student’s personal identifiable information to the federal government without direct authorization of the local school board, to modify the management and facilitation of the statewide education data repository, and to prohibit submission of student names and addresses to multi-state assessment consortia without written permission; to amend the version of section 3326.11 of the Revised Code that is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2014, to continue the provisions of this act on or after that effective date.
  • HB 193: Introduced by State Representative Brenner – To amend sections 3301.079, 3301.0710, 3301.0711, 3301.0712, 3301.16, 3302.02, 3302.03, 3302.031, 3310.14, 3310.522, 3313.532, 3313.603, 3313.61, 3313.611, 3313.612, 3313.614, 3313.615, 3313.976, 3314.017, 3314.03, 3314.36, 3325.08, 3326.11, 3328.24, 3328.25, 3329.07, 3329.08, and 3333.123 and to enact sections 3301.946, 3302.036, 3313.618, 3314.019, 3329.081, and 3329.082 of the Revised Code with respect to state academic achievement assessments and high school graduation requirements; to amend the version of section 3326.11 of the Revised Code that is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2014, to continue the provisions of this act on or after that effective date.  (Basically what this bill does, according to Brenner, is tell the State School Board that local schools can have multiple assessments.  It orders a review of PARCC by the Ohio Department of Education and then report back to the House and Senate Education Committee.)
  • HB 413: Introduced by State Representative Brenner and Peter Stautberg (R-Anderson Township) – To prohibit the administration of the assessments developed by the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers for the 2014-2015 school year, to prohibit the renewal of the state’s memorandum of understanding with the Partnership, and to declare an emergency.
  • Had a lengthy phone conversation with State Representative Brenner he explained that HB 181 can only go so far due to a constitutional provision that does not allow for changing contracts in the midst of the contract.  He said HB 237 is dead and that it wasn’t going to go anywhere with Governor Kasich being against it.  He said, “Ohio can either do nothing and complain or we can work on my bills and try to get something accomplished.”  He said his goal for this session is to clamp down on what student data is put forth except that which is required contractually and  then to delay PARCC until Ohio’s MOU expires with them so they can pull out.
  • Re. HB 413 – Heidi Huber of Ohioans Against Common Core believes the bill is an “appeasement bill” written by two “Common Core supporters” to get them through the primary.  I agree that HB 413 is not a model bill I would use and it certainly doesn’t go far enough.  The question is this: is this as far as Ohio is willing to go this legislative session?  Is it possible to amend the bill to make it better?  I personally don’t know the answers to that, and like I mentioned above I don’t want to big foot what is happening in the states.

Oklahoma:

  • HB 2786: Authored by State Representative Jadine Nollan (R-Sand Springs) – A Common Core repeal bill.  An Act relating to schools; amending 70 O.S. 2011, Section 11-103.6a, which relates to adoption of curriculum standards; deleting requirement to adopt revisions to certain subject area curriculum standard to align with Common Core standards; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
  • HB 2849: Authored by State Representative Dan Fisher (R-Yukon) – An Act relating to schools; amending 70 O.S. 2011,
    Section 11-103.6a, which relates to adoption of curriculum standards; deleting requirement to adopt revisions to certain subject area curriculum standard to align with Common Core standards; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.
  • HB 3331: Authored by Speaker of the House T.W. Shannon (R-Lawton) – This prevents the Oklahoma Department of Education from entering into any agreements with the Federal government that would align Oklahoma standards to the Common Core – directs the Department to amend any agreements with the feds so that Oklahoma may be released from using the Common Core standards.
  • HB 3166: Authored by State Representative Gus Blackwell (R-Laverne) – This bill repeals the standards and then puts in place the “Local Curriculum Standards Pilot Program” in which ANY school district could adopt their own standards (even if they do not align with state standards) for five years.  After that time, there will be a comparison made among schools using the state standards and those using their own local standards using standardized, criterion-referenced tests.
  • HB 3399: Authored by State Representative Jason Nelson (R-Oklahoma City) – This prevents federal control over state standards.  It requires any agency using federal money or programming – including those collecting data on students – to amend existing agreements to extricate themselves from any agreements that would cede control over K-12 education from outside the state. This bill would not repeal the Common Core, but instead, puts the standards on ‘pause’ for a full year during which the state assessments will reflect PASS and not CC.  It directs the state board to examine the English/LA and math standards, and then compare them with PASS in 9 different areas.  A written review of the comparison must be submitted to the House, Senate and Governor for their own review. (3/11/14 Update: see update below.) (3/27/14: Additional update below.)
  • SB 1146: Authored by State Senator Eddie Fields (R-Wynona) – This is a repeal bill that also includes direction to the State Board of Education to remove all alignment in the standards to the Common Core, stop Common Core assessments and require the state board to revise their agreement with the feds that will allow Oklahoma to get out from under the standards.
  • SB 1310: Authored by State Senator Fields – This bill would establish a task force the purpose of which would be to “review curricular standards approved by the State Board of Education and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding new curricular standards.”
  • 3/11/14 Update: Restore Oklahoma Public Education sent this update – “An amendment filed to SB1764 late yesterday by Senators Sykes and Brecheen, will stop Common Core state standards in Oklahoma and return Oklahoma education to the control of those best in charge of their children’s education – parents.  In the Oklahoma House, Speaker Jeff Hickman yesterday filed similar language in an amendment to HB3399 providing the same assurances.”
  • 3/27/14 Update: HB 3399 has passed the Oklahoma House and the Senate Education Committee.  Essentially every other bill as I understand it is now dead.

Rhode Island:

  • H 7095: Introduced by State Representatives Gregg Amore (D-East Providence) – If passed it would delay the implementation of standardized testing aligned with the Common Core State Standards until a commission, that would be created by the law, has had an opportunity to study and evaluate it.
  • H 7580: Introduced by State Representatives Cale Keable (D-Pascoag), William O’Brien (D-North Providence), Frank Ferri (D-Warwick), Gregg Amore (D-East Providence) and Brian Newberry (R-North Smithfield) – Amends the Rhode Island Educational Records Bill of Rights to provide accessibility to assessment materials for parents and students, as well as, tighten state privacy laws.

South Carolina:

  • SB 300: Introduced by State Senator Larry Grooms (R-Charleston) – This bill would prevent the Common Core State Standards from being imposed on South Carolina. (3/27/14 Update: This bill was passed out of committee on 3/19/14 and amended in such a way that it codifies a Common Core assessment.  Anyway, the bill as written will not keep the Common Core from being imposed on South Carolina.)
  • H. 3943: Introduced by State Representative Samuel Rivers, Jr. (R-Goose Creek) – This bill would prevent the State Board of Education from adopting and the State Department of Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards and would make any actions taken to adopt or implement the standards void. (3/27/14 Update: Still sitting in the House Education Committee.)

South Dakota:

  • HB 1237: Introduced by State Representative Jacqueline Sly (R-Rapid City) – This would create a council to do a comprehensive evaluation of the Common Core State Standards – a two year evaluation.  South Dakotans Against Common Core is against this bill.  You can read why here. (Tabled in the House Education Committee on 2/10/14.)
  • HB 1214: Introduced by State Representative Elizabeth May (R-Kyle) – This bill requires a study and analysis of the financial, fiscal, and economic impacts of implementation of the Common Core State Standards. (Deferred to 41st day which basically means it is dead as the session is only 40 days long.)
  • HB 1187: Introduced by State Representative Jim Bolin (R-Canton) – This allows parents to opt their students out of the Smarter Balanced Assessments. (Voted down 8-7 in House Ed Committee, but there is an effort to have State Rep. Burt Toulson change his vote.)
  • HB 1243: Introduced by State Representative May – This bill would supplant the Common Core State Standards. (This bill was voted down in committee 8-7.)
  • SB 63: Introduced by State Senator Ernie Otten (R-Tea) – This bill seeks to protect the privacy of the records of individual students.  (This has been passed by the South Dakota Senate, passed by the South Dakota House Education Committee, but not yet been debated on the House floor.)
  • SCR 2: Introdcued by State Senator Phil Jensen (R-Rapid City).  This resolution expressed concern for the Common Core State Standards.  (Tabled in the Senate Education Committee on 2/20/14.)

Tennessee:

  • SB 2405: Introduced by State Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mt. Juliet) /HB 2332  introduced by State Representative Rick Womack (R-Rockvale) – As introduced, discontinues use of common core state standards. – Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 1; Title 49, Chapter 10; Title 49, Chapter 2 and Title 49, Chapter 6. (3/27/14 Update: SB 24o5 was referred to a subcommittee on 3/26/14.  HB 2332: Was defeated in subcommittee on 3/18/14.)
  • HB 1549: Introduced by State Representative Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville)/SB 1835 Introduced by State Senator Dolores Gresham (R-Somerville) – As introduced, establishes requirements for the adoption of educational standards; prohibits use of student data for purposes other than tracking academic progress and educational needs of students. (Tennessee Against Common Core is not excited about this bill.) 3/18/14 Update: This bill passes the Tennessee House on a 81-9 vote last week.  It passed the Tennessee Senate 31-2 yesterday. (3/27/14 Update: going through House and Senate again since the bill was amended.)
  • HB 1826: introduced by State Representative Womack/SB 1986 introduced by Senator Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) – This bill requires the general assembly to approve, by the general appropriations act, all state funding for any future assessment tests used to measure the educational progress of students. (3/27/14 Update: HB 1826 is still sitting in committee.  SB 1986 failed in Senate Education Committee on 3/12/14.)
  • HB 1825: introduced by State Representative Womack/SB 1985 introduced by State Senator Campfield – As introduced, requires the state board of education and the department of education to postpone any further implementation of Common Core State Standards beyond those standards implemented as of June 30, 2013, until further implementation is approved by the general assembly. (3/27/14 Update: SB 1985 failed in the Senate Education Committee on 3/12/14.)
  • HB 1828: introduced by State Representative Womack/SB 1984 introduced by State Senator Campfield – As introduced, prohibits adoption or use of PARCC assessments; requires the general assembly to make the decision as to adoption of assessments to replace TCAPs; requires the state to withdraw from PARCC; prohibits state membership in any group that relinquished control over assessments to an outside entity. (3/27/14 Update: HB 1828 failed in subcommittee on 3/18/14.)
  • HB 2253: introduced State Representative Glen Casada (R-Franklin)/SB 1682 introduced by State Senator Gresham – As introduced, prohibits the state from joining consortia or initiatives that require the adoption of common standards in science and social studies; requires the state board of education to adopt standards in science and social studies that reflect the values of the state. – Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 1; Title 49, Chapter 2 and Title 49, Chapter 6. (3/27/14 Update: No action on these bills.)
  • HB 1697: introduced by State Representative Sheila Butt (R-Columbia)/SB 1881: introduced by State Senator Frank Nicely (R-Strawberry Plains) – As introduced, requires cursive writing to be taught in the third grade. (3/27/14 Update: HB 1697 passes the House on 3/17/14 85 to 6.  SB 1881 passes out of Senate Education Committee on 3/19/14.)
  • HB 1696: Introduced by State Representative Butt/SB 1882: introduced by State Senator Nicely – As introduced, mandates that the state board of education and department of education shall immediately withdraw from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and common core state standards. – Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 1; Title 49, Chapter 10; Title 49, Chapter 2; Title 49, Chapter 3; Title 49, Chapter 5; Title 49, Chapter 6 and Title 49, Chapter 60. (3/27/14 Update: Placed in subcommittee no votes taken.)
  • HB 1841: introduced by State Representative Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville)/SB 2221 introduced by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-Memphis) – As introduced, allows parents to opt their children out of high stakes testing. – Amends TCA Title 49. (3/27/14 Update: SB 2221 failed in Senate Education Committee on 3/24/14.
  • HB 2453: introduced by State Representative Judd Matheny (R-Tullahoma)/SB 2559 introduced by State Senator Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma) – As introduced, requires every LEA to allow parents to review all instructional materials used in the classroom of the parent’s child; mandates the LEA to allow parents access to review all surveys and evaluations administered to the parent’s child. – Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 2 and Title 49, Chapter 6, Part 70. (3/27/14 Update: HB 2453 passed out of subcommittee on 3/25/14.  SB 2559 passed out of subcommittee on 3/26/14.)
  • HB 2290: introduced by State Representative Billy Spivey (R-Lewisburg)/SB 2057 introduced by State Senator Nicely – As introduced, requires the department of education to reimburse LEAs for the costs of implementing and the ongoing costs to use common core state standards and PARCC assessments. – Amends TCA Title 49. (3/27/14 Update: HB 2290 passed out subcommittee on 3/25/14.  SB 2057 assigned to subcommittee.)
  • HB 1882: Introduced by State Representative Vance Dennis (R-Savannah)/SB 1470: introduced by State Senator Gresham – As introduced, enacts the “Data Accessibility, Transparency and Accountability Act”, which regulates the collection and release of data by the department and state board of education. – Amends TCA Title 10, Chapter 7, Part 5 and Title 49. (3/27/14 Update: No votes on either bill have been taken.)
  • HB 1705: Introduced by State Representative Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby)/SB 1469: introduced by State Senator Gresham – As introduced, prohibits collection or reporting of certain student individual data without parental consent or consent of the student, if the student is 18 years of age or older. – Amends TCA Title 49. (3/27/14 Update: No votes taken on either bill yet.)
  • HB 1703: Introduced by State Representative Ron Lollar (R-Bartlett)/SB 1961: introduced by State Senator Mike Bell (R-Riceville) – As introduced, prohibits transfer of student data when such action will transfer the data out of state, unless required by federal law. – Amends TCA Section 10-7-504 and Title 49. (TNACC states this bill upholds FERPA which basically undo the purpose of the bill so they do not support it as written) (3/27/14 Update: No votes taken on either bill yet.)
  • HB 2237: Introduced by State Representative David Alexander (R-Winchester)/SB 2153: Introduced by State Senator Niceley – As introduced, requires members of the board to be elected by congressional district for four-year term as current terms expire and vacancies arise. – Amends TCA Title 49. (3/27/14 Update: No votes taken on either bill.)

Utah:

  • HB 0342: Introduced by State Representative Dana Layton (R-Orem) – This bill outlines how the Common Core will be replaced in Utah.  This bill modifies the powers and duties of the State Board of Education regarding the development and adoption of core curriculum standards. (3/27/14 Update: House passed 3/7/14 on a 41 to 30 vote.  The Senate passed on 3/11/14 on a 22 to 4 vote.  It was sent to the Governor’s desk on 3/21/14.)

West Virginia:

  • SB 429: Introduced by State Senator Donna Boley (R-St. Marys) – This bill’s intent is to protect student data, require a complete cost analysis of the Common Core State Standards, and implement a two-year moratorium on assessments to allow for public hearings. HB 4383 is the House companion bill. (3/27/14 Update: No votes taken on bill.)
  • HB 4390: Introduced by State Delegate Jim Butler (R-Henderson) – This bill would end Common Core in West Virginia and eliminate the state’s Statewide Longitudinal Database System. (3/27/14 Update: No votes taken on bill.)

Wisconsin:

  • SB619: Introduced by State Sen. Leah Vukmir  (R-Wauwatosa).  If I’m reading it correctly it looks like it will halt implementation of the Common Core, and require all state standards to be developed by a model academics standards board.  It outlines the make-up of the board and the process of how standards will be decided.  (Apparently this bill was written by Governor Scott Walker’s staff.) (3/27/14 Update: No votes, public hearing on bill held on 3/6/14.)
  • AB616: Introduced by State Representative Thomas Larson (R-Colfax) – this prohibits the collection of a pupil’s biometric data and the use of any device to assess a pupil’s physiological or emotional state. (3/27/14 Update: Public hearing held on 1/15/14.  No votes taken.)
  • AB617: Introduced by State Representative Dean Knudson (R-Hudson) – this directs the Department of Public Instruction to establish model academic standards and granting rule-making authority.  Sources tell me this bill may be killed in favor of SB619. (3/27/14 Update: Public hearing held on 1/15/14. No votes taken.)
  • AB618: Introduced by State Representative Don Pridemore (R-Hartford) – This bill addresses the student information system, the disclosure of personally identifiable student data, and the disclosure of pupil records.  (3/27/14 Update: Passes Assembly on a 57 to 37 vote on 2/20/14, no action taken in the Senate.)

Wyoming:

  • HB 0097: Introduced by State Representative Tom Reeder (R-Casper) – AN ACT relating to education; modifying the process for adoption of content and performance standards by the state board; establishing an advisory council to the state board for adoption of the content and performance standards; prohibiting participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium; prohibiting expenditure of federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds; establishing state education data security policies and protocols; imposing penalty; and providing for effective dates. (Update: The Wyoming House voted to introduce the bill.)  2nd Update: The House Education Committee passed the bill, but also amended it:

The House Education Committee voted to amend the bill slightly Monday.

Lawmakers agreed to increase from 15 to 18 the number of people who would serve on the advisory committee to reassess the common standards. A provision tightening the state’s student data security measures was also deleted, and the number of required public hearings reduced, Reeder said.

Another revision slowed the re-evaluation process for the standards. Under the original bill, an advisory panel would have decided whether to scrap the common standards before Dec. 31. Now, the committee would have until 2016 to do so.

3rd Update: Not heard in Committee on the Whole, dead for the session.

  • HB 167: This bill was introduced by State Representative Allen Jaggi (R-Lyman) – relating to public schools; imposing criteria on the adoption of state education program and student content and performance standards; requiring adherence to process and guidelines; prohibiting the enforcement of specified rules and regulations of the Wyoming department of education; prohibiting participation in standards and assessment activities originating out-of-state by state board members, official and other agencies representing public schools; prohibiting sharing of educational data; requiring the legislative service office to make conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date. (This bill failed to pass in order to be introduced in the Wyoming House during the appropriations session.)
  • HB 114: Introduced by State Representative Matt Teeters (R-Lingle).  This bill requires that at least part of the Wyoming State Board of Education are elected rather than appointed.  (This bill is being heard in the House Education Committee on 2/20/14.)
  • HB 197: Introduced by State Representative Lynn Hutchings (R-Laramie) – AN ACT relating to public education; providing for consent prior to collection, storage, access or sharing of student’s educational or personal information; providing for retention of consents; providing for penalties; and providing for effective dates. (Update: Failed to be heard in Committee on the Whole, dead for session).

Indiana to Continue Using Fuzzy Math in New Standards?

indiana-flag (1)Hoosiers can now comment publicly on Indiana’s draft academic standards until March 12, 2014.  Instructions and the link to the form can be found here.

You can read the standards below:

There is a lot of skepticism around the review committee that has been appointed to review and rewrite the standards.  The timeline for the adoption of the new standards is extremely short as the final adaption by the State Board of Education will be on April 9, 2014.  Hoosiers Against Common Core called the review panel a stacked deck.  Heather Crossin makes the following points:

  • 15 of the 29 members of the Evaluation Panel can be readily “red-flagged” as having a pro-Common Core bias. 
  • 13 out of 32 members of the College and Career Ready Panel can be readily “red-flagged” as having a pro-Common Core bias.
  • Only 1 individual, out of a combined total of 53, can be readily “flagged” as having an anti-Common Core  bias.
  • 8 Individuals sit on both the Evaluation Panel and the College and Career Readiness Panel.
  • 7 of the 8 individuals who sit on both panels, and thus wield a greater level of influence, can be readily “red-flagged” as having a pro-Common Core bias.
  • Only 1 Professor of Mathematics is a confirmed member of either panel, and he testified in favor of Common Core Standards at the Interim Legislative Study Committee, August 5, 2013.
  • Several members of both committees belong to, and/or have presented together at conferences for, the Indiana Council of Teachers of Mathematics (ICTM), an affiliate of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the NCTM, and the Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (HATME).
  • The Evaluation Team is divided into bands (such as Grade 6-12 Math).  In most of these “bands” or subcommittees, the majority of seats are held by individuals who can be readily “red-flagged” as having a pro-Common Core bias.
  • None of the Hoosiers whose names were submitted by Common Core opponents as candidates for the panels, such as IU Mathematics Professors Jim Davis and Chris Connell, were contacted or selected to serve.
  • In addition to the pro-Common Core bias of the panel members, a similar bias exists regarding which sets of standards were selected to be officially evaluated.

Be sure to read her entire argument.

Public Law 286 was passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2013, which created Indiana Code 20-19-2-14.5 concerning the State Board of Education’s responsibility to review Indiana’s Academic Standards. The law specifically mandates the State Board to develop college and career readiness standards for Mathematics and English/Language Arts compliant with state and federal requirements before July 1, 2014 and to hold public hearings on the proposed standards prior to adoption.  So why adopt in April?  Why not extend this a couple more months?

Why are teachers being told little will change?

Then there is this email that has been circulating among teachers in Lafayette, IN:

For all of you that are curious about the article in the INDY STAR today regarding scrapping the Common Core standards, I spoke to Dr. Schauna Findlay today.  Schauna is one of the closest individuals to this situation, so I trust her information.

Here is what I have learned from her:

The INDY STAR published an article today about Indiana scrapping the Common Core standards.  This is not completely accurate.   In the article, it says we will revert back to the old Indiana standards by July 1st.  We will NEVER transition back to these standards – on July 1st, we will adopt the NEW Indiana Academic standards.   Now, here is the kicker….those standards will most likely look ALMOST IDENTICAL to the CCSS.  We will take the CCSS standards, add a few that outline more details (mostly math related) and adopt them as Indiana standards.   What the article did not say was that we HAVE to adopt College and Career Readiness standards to stay in compliance with our NCLB waiver.   And, when all is said and done….the standards will completely reflect the CCSS standards.   It is VERY much a political issue at this point – the issue is not with the standards or content of the standards, but rather WHO controls the content. 

So, if teachers ask….don‘t stop your work on CCSS – they are just getting a new name.   I understand from Dr. Schauna Findlay (I spoke in length with her today.) that the draft standards are coming out late February.  Once they do, if you compare the new drafted standards to the CCSS, they will see that they are practically (or even exactly) the same.   I will do my best to keep you posted. 

Thanks!! Tami

Tami Hi
cks

Professional Development Coordinator

Wabash Valley Education Center

3061 Benton Street

West Lafayette, IN 47906

Phone: 765-588-1146

Cell: 765-491-3086

www.esc5.k12.in.us

Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.  ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

Dr. Schauna Findlay is the Chief Academic Officer for Goodwill Education Initiatives in Indianapolis, IN.  Prior to joining Goodwill, Dr. Findlay was the director of Curriculum and Instruction at the Indiana Department of Education.  She gave the closing testimony for the first legislative study committee on the Common Core State Standards that was required by HB 14327, last year’s pause bill.

Some problems a couple of our members who are well versed in reading and evaluating math standards have noticed thus far when reading the Indiana draft standards:

  • The new IN process standards are identical to the problematic 8 CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice.  IN adds one more—Use technology strategically.
  • Dividing is included in the 6th grade but the standard algorithm is not required—not even mentioned for division.
  • 5th grade multiplication with standard algorithm is identical to CCSS.
  • Grade 2 standard is identical “Fluently add and subtract within 100 using strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.”  He gave an explanation why he focused on that standard, “I picked that standard because many of the CCSS standards call for “strategies based on place value’ while they delay the requirement for the standards algorithms.  The new IN do not seem to require the use of the standard algorithms except for multiplication.  In my initial look, I would say that these new IN standards are basically the CCSS put in a pot, barely stirred and same key ingredients removed or watered down.”

  • He considers this to be a shell game and believes at least the K-5 standards may be even worse than the Common Core.

  • Another member wrote, “Nowhere did I see the requirement to teach standard algorithms and to what extent the students should know their multiplication facts. That is, we require automatic recall through the 10’s by the end of 3rd grade. I also didn’t read enough to know if they are limiting the use of calculators.”

It seems, on the surface, that his may be an attempt to drive Indiana back to the Common Core.

The first public hearing is Monday next week which doesn’t give parents much time to review the standards.  Here is the schedule:

  • Mon, 2/24, 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. EST at Ivy Tech in Sellersburg, IN
  • Tues, 2/25, 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. EST at the Indiana State Library, History Reference Room in Indianapolis, IN
  • Wed, 2/26, 3:00 – 7:00 p.m. EST at Plymouth High School, Plymouth, IN

These meetings will be live streamed if you are unable to join in person.  You can also give feedback about the review process by sending an email to INCCRevaluation@doe.in.gov.