Workforce Development Pushed in Kansas Regardless of Governor’s Party

Kansas Governor-Elect Laura Kelly

Kansas will have a Democrat Governor when Governor-Elect Laura Kelly is sworn in, and it seems like a workforce development project started under outgoing Governor Jeff Colyer (R-Kansas) will continue under the new administration:

The Hays Daily News reports

When he lost his bid to secure the Republican nomination for governor, those invested in the council’s work — including some who were part of a similar, unrewarded effort 10 years ago — realized they would need to complete their assessment by the end of this year. Now, as Gov.-elect Laura Kelly prepares to take office, council members are bolstered by the thought of delivering their recommendations to a longtime education ally.

“We’re happy,” said Diane DeBacker, a former Kansas education commissioner who oversees the council, “and I guess I have confidence that Laura Kelly will continue something like this.”
DeBacker, director of business and education innovation in the state commerce department, outlined suggestions she anticipates the council will offer.

They include giving thought to training in soft skills, like communication and collaboration, and navigating liability concerns to allow students to experience what the work world is like before they graduate.

One idea is to create a road map for private businesses that want to work with technical schools to develop skills the employers need. DeBacker said the gold standard is at Topeka’s Washburn Institute of Technology, where students learn to handle heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment.

When it comes to taking action over K-12 education at the state level, there, unfortunately, isn’t much difference between Republicans and Democrats even when there are significant differences in terms of rhetoric.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 

Common Core Soon to Be No More in Kansas?

I read a slightly obnoxious article in Lawrence Journal-World about how Common Core will suddenly become a thing of the past in Kansas. I call it obnoxious because it just spouted off Common Core advocate talking points, and did not cite a single opponent. It also said Common Core would be “no more” without demonstrating how the new standards will be different.

The Kansas State Board of Education adopted new math standards in August. I looked on the Kansas Department of Education website, and it said they were not available yet.

Not available yet when the Board just approved the final draft? That was in August; it is now October.

I was able to find them by digging through the Board’s packet of materials for their August Board meeting and scrolling down to page 185.

Since the final draft of the 2017 math standards has been approved, I wanted to compare their “new” math standards with their 2010 standards.

Kansas’ new standards still include the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice verbatim.

Kindergarten

They tweak some of the standards. An example: K.CC.1 (2010) says, “Count to 100 by ones and by tens.” The 2017 standard says, “Count to 100 by ones and by tens and identify as a growth pattern.”

They moved around some of the standards. For example, they split up K.CC.3. The 2010 standard reads, “Write numbers from 0 to 20. Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0–20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects).” K.CC.3 now reads, “Read and write numerals from 0 to 20.” The rest of the 2010 standard, “Represent a number of objects with a written numeral 0-20 (with 0 representing a count of no objects)” now becomes K.CC.4d.

First Grade

They rewrote 1.NBT.4 which did not change the standard, but made it easier to read.

Here’s the old standard: “Add within 100, including adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number, and adding a two-digit number and a multiple of 10, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used. Understand that in adding two-digit numbers, one adds tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten.”

The new standard:

1.NBT.4. Add within 100 using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used including: (1.NBT.4)

1.NBT.4a Adding a two-digit number and a one-digit number (1.NBT.4)
1.NBT.4b Adding a two-digit number and a multiple of 10 (1.NBT.4)
1.NBT.4c Understanding that when adding two-digit numbers, combine like base-ten units such as tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose a ten. (1.NBT.4)

Second Grade

They added a new 2.NBT.1c to 2.NBT.1., “Show flexibility in composing and decomposing hundreds, tens, and ones.” It then gave examples.

2.MD.9 is new, “Identify coins and bills and their values.”

Third Grade

They split the 2010 3.MD.2 standard into two standards, beyond that the language is the same.

Fourth Grade

Several Measurement and Data standards have been moved to the 8th-Grade Geometry standards (see below). Beyond that nothing has changed.

Fifth Grade

I did not notice any significant changes.

Sixth Grade

6.RP.3 has been reorganized. They combined part of 6.RP.3a and 6.RP.3b. 6.RP.3c (2010) is now 6.RP.3b. 6.RP.3d (2010) is now 6.RP.3c. It did not change the standard at all.

6.NS.5 has been similarly reorganized to include 6.NS.5a and 6.NS.5b. All of the original language from the 2010 standard is still present.

The 2010 6.EE.3 and 6.EE.4 2010 standards have been combined. It now reads (without the examples), “Apply the properties of operations and combine like terms, with the conventions of algebraic notation, to identify and generate equivalent expressions.” The phrase “with the conventions of algebraic notation” is the new language in that standard.

Seventh Grade

The 2010 7.NS.1c standard was changed. It originally reads, “Understand subtraction of rational numbers as adding the additive inverse, p – q = p + (–q). Show that the distance between two rational numbers on the number line is the absolute value of their difference, and apply this principle in real-world contexts.”

It’s now 7.NS.1c and 7.NS.1d:

7.NS.1c Model subtraction of rational numbers as adding in the additive inverse, p – q = p + (-q).

7.NS.1d Model subtraction as the distance between two rational numbers on the number line where the distance is the absolute value of their difference.

They replaced 7.G.2 with G.GMD.4 which reads, “Identify three-dimensional objects generated by rotating a two-dimensional (rectangular or triangular) object around one edge.”

7.G.5 has been replaced. The 2010 standard, “Use facts about supplementary, complementary, vertical, and adjacent angles in a multi-step problem to write and use them to solve simple equations for an unknown angle in a figure.”

Now reads:

 

Eighth Grade

They eliminated the 2010 8.EE.1 standard that reads, “Know and apply the properties of integer exponents to generate equivalent numerical expressions. For example, 32 × 3–5 = 3–3 = 1/33 = 1/27.”

A new standard has been added. It’s 8.EE.6, and it reads:

Describe the relationship between the proportional relationship expressed in = and the non-proportional linear relationship = + as a result of a vertical translation. Note: be clear with students that all linear relationships have a constant rate of change (slope), but only the special case of proportional relationships (line that goes through the origin) continue to have a constant of proportionality.

The 8th-Grade Geometry standards have been changed quite a bit. They moved 4th-Grade Measurement and Data standards 4.MD.5a and 4.MD.6 to become 8.G.1a and 8.G.1b, as well as, 8.G.2.  Also, 4.MD.7 becomes 8.G.3. The 7th Grade Geometry standard 7.G.5 and 7.G.2 become 8.6.4 and 8.G.6.

8.G.5, 8.G.7, and 8.G.8 are original standards from 2010. 8.G.10 and 8.G.12 are new. 8.G.11 is the 2010 G.GMD.3 standard.

High School

They added grade classifications to the standards.

N.RN.1 for 9/10-Grades was the Eight Grade Geometry standard 8.EE.1.

They divided up N.CN.3 into two standards. (N.CN.3 and N.CN. 4).

They added two new standards to the Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Expressions (A.ARP) section.

A.APR.2 is new, it reads, “Factor polynomials; identifying that some polynomials are prime.”

A.APR.7 is also new, and it reads, “(+) Add, subtract, multiply, and divide rational expressions.”

The Reasoning with Equations and Inequalities (A.REI) section has been reorganized.

A.REI.3b is new, it reads, “(+) Solve exponential and logarithmic equations.”

A.REI.5d is new, it reads, “(+) Solve quadratic inequalities and identify the domain.”

Some 8th-Grade Expressions and Equations standards have been moved to the high school A.REI section. 8.EE.8a, 8.EE.8b, and 8.EE.8c have become A.REI.6a, A.REI.6b, and A.REI.6C.

A.REI.7 combines the 2010 A.REI.8 and A.REI.9 standards.

In the Interpreting Functions (F.IF) section there have been some changes. F.IF.7 sub-standards have been reorganized, but it does not contain new language (beyond grade classifications).

F.IF.8a is new it reads, “(9/10) Use different forms of linear functions, such as slope-intercept, standard, and point-slope form to show rate of change and intercepts.”

Under the Building Functions section (F.BF) there have been some changes. F.BF.1a is a new standard. It replaces the 2010 F.BF.1b standard. F.BF.4b and F.BF.4c have switched places compared to the 2010 standards.

Under the Geometry Congruence Standards (G.CO) there have been some changes.

G.CO.1 was replaced with the 2010 8.G.1 standard. G.C0.3 was replaced with the 2010 8.G.3 standard.

G.CO.9 is a new standard.

Under the High School Geometry Similarity, Right Triangles, and Trigonometry section (G.SRT) there have been a few changes.

G.SRT.2 and G.SRT.3 standards reflect new 2017 language.

I already mentioned that some Geometry Geometric Measurement and Dimension standards (G.GMD) had been moved to 8th-Grade Geometry (G.GMD.3).

Conclusion:

I see few changes to their early elementary math standards. They have delayed some fourth grade standards to eighth grade. Their most significant differences can be observed in the 8th Grade and High School Geometry standards, and then they were primarily swapping standards around.

There have been few new standards added. The Standards for Mathematical Practice from Common Core is still in use. The most significant change for high school is the addition of grade classifications which, I’m sure, is helpful.

The Lawrence Journal-World may think Common Core is gone, what I see is merely a rebrand.

The Common Core Hoax

Students in Computer Lab --- Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis

Below is a guest op/ed submitted by Robert R. Logan, PhD. He is a homeschool parent, a retired economics professor from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, and an economics researcher who resides in Fairbanks, AK.

The Common Core Hoax

By Robert R. Logan, PhD

When I was a professor I used to put a proposed law up on an overhead projector entitled the “Care for Infants Act”.    In the body of the Act, I described grinding up children and turning them into food and fertilizer in deceptive language but clear enough to anyone who was actually thinking.  Then I would have the students discuss whether the government had any business interceding in the sovereignty of the family in cases of abuse or neglect.    

It was rare that a student would raise their hand and object that the debate had nothing to do with the act they were voting on.  I could usually see some confused faces, but it was terribly easy to misdirect peoples’ attention and get them squabbling about something they wanted to argue about anyway.   That is how I got them to pass the Care for Infants Act.   The only thing Bill Gates has done differently is bribe people for their vote.   I could have gotten 100% passing rates had I incorporated bribes.     

If Common Core is all about increasing academic achievement, why is it necessary to convert all tests nationwide into computerized online testing?   Logically, that does not follow.   How is it that taking a test on a computer is any different from taking it with paper and pencil?   If computer-based tests are better than paper and pencil, then why does it have to be online?   If there is a technical failure to an online test then potentially millions of students are affected.   

We homeschool, but enrolled in online tests for a number of reasons.   The tests were timed.   But it took longer to download the questions than it did to answer them.   Whenever we call our provider about this, they lie to us.   For example, we see the clear pattern of slowest speeds, far less than promised, during the internet rush hour.  We have learned to disable our phones when we call technical support because they have been trained to tell customers in an accusatory tone that “I see you have TWO I-phones” and tell us it is our phones updating even when we have the update feature turned off. 

I can see my download speed in real time.   I think the tech people can too, but they never acknowledge so.  I tell them I will go to any site of their choosing and they can watch my download speed.   But they won’t do it.  We understand throttling and our ISP insists they don’t do it.   But that doesn’t mean someone else in the chain isn’t doing it or that a host site is capable of handling the traffic directed to it.   There are innumerable potentials for catastrophic failure with an online test that are nonexistent for other delivery methods and this was obvious to us the first time we tried to take an online test

Alaska’s tests were cancelled after allocating $25 million for computers, bandwidth, and development.    A worker in Kansas severed a fiber optic cable.  Even after attempts to fix the problem students’ answers were being lost.   So the state cancelled the tests.   How could something so easily foreseen have been overlooked by the smartest people in the room telling us how inferior our previous tests were?    Because Common Core is a hoax:  the real purpose behind Bill Gates’ billions spent bribing the Governor’s Association, Unions, and think tanks was to line the pockets of the Tech industry by converting the test delivery method: to online computerized testing, using Bill Gates’ products.

On the propaganda site for Common Core, there isn’t one word explaining why computerized online testing is superior to other test delivery methods.   Instead, there is a lot of puerile talk about being ready for work and college, about the “grass roots” origins of the movement, and completely contradictory assertions about states being free to choose their own standards when the entire purpose was developing a common standard.   How can people be this stupid?   How has it gone virtually unnoticed that the most significant change has been to the test delivery method and not the content of the tests?   

If higher performance is the objective, the easiest thing to do is require higher scores on existing tests.  Changing the tests themselves makes no sense.   It introduces a statistical incompatibility between the years leading up to the change and the years afterwards.   How do you determine whether performance has increased or decreased when the tests are different?   There are ways to approximate, but it is one of the most basic concepts in statistics: using the same measure or instrument from sample to sample.

Complaints were made about some states being more lax than others.   So why does that require states with high standards to change anything at all? Why do they need to change from paper and pencil to computerized, let alone online testing?   Our stress levels went through the roof when we were trying to take online tests.   Interactive tests can be downloaded onto every computer individually and scores can be easily assembled into a national database if this is an objective.   It does not require that they be taken online. 

One of the most telling “reveals” in this hoax is trade groups and even state educational bureaucracies adopting the standards before they were written.   You cannot legitimately do this even conceptually, let alone before field testing.   But it happened.   Bill Gates gave money and Obama used Race to the Top funding along with exemption from the No Child Left Behind debacle in order to hook states into the Common Core.

Since the hoax required misdirecting our attention away from the real change – computerized online testing – it required another radical contradiction:  the claim that curriculum would be unaffected while forcing changes in curriculum.  There was no national debate over the way math should be taught for example.   But you have to do something.  When the math standards came out there was no tying of research in math instruction and problem-solving to the Common Core methodology. 

Bill Gates couldn’t simply come out and announce a program of converting the exact same tests into an online computerized format.   People would have pointed out the obvious problems of catastrophic failure like Alaska just went through.   They would have asked the obvious question:  why waste tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars on more expensive means of delivery?   

So to perpetrate a hoax like this you have to pretend it is about something else and produce changes in test content.  No public debate took place on the process by which content would be changed.   Gates created a committee headed by David Coleman and a process that took place completely outside public scrutiny while Gates was busy bribing various organizations to back something that hadn’t even been written yet.   It worked brilliantly.

Gates couldn’t care less what the committee did with math or English.  He couldn’t care less whether teacher evaluations and student promotion were tied to the tests.   That’s why the Gates Foundation in 2014 announced urgent support for a moratorium on those very things.   The one thing Gates is clear about is that Common Core standards should not be used as standards.   That contradiction only makes sense if the goal is computerized online testing instead of standards.

We are now engaged in an after-the-fact debate over whether this new method of doing math is any better than the New Math debacle of the 1960’s.   It is beyond belief that this debate is taking place after, and not before it was imposed.  This is a consequence of Gates and the Obama administration bribing key organizations and bureaucracies to accept something before it had been researched and debated in public.   It is a consequence of a hoax designed to enrich tech companies and other education industry parasites like text publishers while we argue ignorantly about something else. 

I know how easy this is to do because I have done it myself.   I began doing so after seeing our government attach extremely deceptive titles to Acts it was passing.   You can assume the purpose of an Act is very different, even opposite, from its title and be right most of the time.   That’s what Bill Gates has gotten away with because he could not have gotten a “Computerized Online Testing Act” passed.

The Kansas House Education Committee Did NOT Give Common Core the Boot

Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, KS. Photo credit: Doug Kerr (CC-By-SA 2.0)

Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka, KS.
Photo credit: Doug Kerr (CC-By-SA 2.0)

If you were to read the Topeka Capital-Journal you would think the Kansas House Education Committee booted the Common Core. “It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water,” the education establishment says.

They report:

The House Education Committee passed Friday a bill voiding statewide academic standards for public schools known as Common Core and requiring the Kansas State Board of Education to present a new set to the Legislature before implementation in 2017.

The vote followed four years of debate in the Capitol about standards for English and math implemented in 2010 by the state school board. The guidelines, renewed on a seven-year cycle, identify what the state board expects children to learn in each grade.

Rep. Amanda Grosserode, R-Lenexa, said the intention of pushing ahead with a revised version of House Bill 2292 was to offer a simplified approach for bringing to a close Kansas’ use of Common Core standards to influence instruction in fundamental subjects. In February, the same committee adopted a far more complex bill intended to derail Common Core.

“We want the current Common Core standards to end in 2017,” said Grosserode, a leading critic of the standards.

Rep. Nancy Lusk, R-Overland Park, expressed frustration with colleagues intent on producing the “ultimate throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water legislation.”

The “far more complex bill” actually repealed the standards. This bill was already passed out of the Kansas House Education Committee. It was sent back to committee by the Speaker of the House, State Representative Ray Merrick (R-Stilwell).

Kansans Against Common Core who were present at the committee meeting when the vote took place outlined what happened, and it’s depressing.

On Friday, March 18th, 2016, the House Education Committee gutted a five-page bill and action that you have supported and elected people to vote for for multiple years, and substituted it with a PARAGRAPH that was not seen prior to Friday’s committee meeting, was written within an hour, and passed favorably based on an oral reading. It is clear that legislators are not serious about removing Washington D.C. education from Kansas. It was clear that the members were going to vote favorably for whatever motion Amanda Grosserode brought.

The Education Establishment (lobbyists, teacher union members and administrators being paid by YOUR tax dollars) has been putting in overtime, flooding your legislators with calls, cards, and emails. Even the PTA is promoting Common Core! We know you have been calling, as well. But, as you will see below, your legislators—especially the Republicans you elected to bring conservative principles—are only responding to the Establishment. Take note of the legislators’ actions from Friday, and unless they act to reverse their mis-informed actions, remember it this coming November. Make sure your dissatisfaction is heard at the voting booth.

Briefly, the new bill language does not address Kansas College and Career Ready Standards and all its alignments and entanglements, including assessments and data. THE NEW BILL LANGUAGE IN NO WAY AFFIRMS PARENTAL RIGHTS TO DIRECT THEIR CHILD’S EDUCATION.

I’ve been unable to find the current language to the bill which reinforces Kansans Against Common Core’s objection to what was done in committee last Friday.  Be sure to check out their action alert and act accordingly.

Kansas House Education Committee Votes to Repeal Common Core

Kansas_state_flag_legislature_government_121713

Kansans Against Common Core sent out the following press release last Friday after their Common Core repeal bill passed out of the Kansas House Education Committee:

TOPEKA, Kan. (Feb. 19, 2016) – A step in the direction of upholding the U.S. Constitution and the Kansas Constitution was taken Wednesday. A step to uphold the state’s purview over Education and uphold parent rights and responsibilities to educate their children was taken Wednesday.

A Kansas bill to cut off education related ties with the federal government including the withdrawal of the state from the Common Core standards passed out of the House Education Committee on Wednesday. This bill would nullify nationalized education in the state.

A combination of thirty representatives introduced House Bill 2676 (HB2676), the Local Control of Kansas Education Act, on Feb. 10th.

HB2676 is nearly identical to last year’s bill, House Bill 2292 (HB2292), with only minor updates. HB2292 received a hearing and a vote in committee last year, but did not make it out of committee.

On Wednesday, a motion to reconsider HB2292 in committee was successful. This was followed up by a successful motion to substitute HB2676 into the bill, and finally a motion to pass Substitute for House Bill 2292 (Sub for HB2292). It was successfully passed out of committee, under Chair, Ron Highland. House members voting it out of committee were: Tony Barton, John Bradford, Rob Bruchman, Amanda Grosserode, Dennis Hedke, Becky Hutchins, Kevin Jones, Kasha Kelley, Charles Macheers, Peggy Mast, Marc Rhoades, and Jene Vickrey. Now it will move on to the full House for consideration.

The legislation declares “the state shall retain sole control over the development, establishment and revision of K-12 curriculum standards.”

Additionally, the bill forbids any Kansas entity or official from ceding any authority over Kansas education to any entity not explicitly named in the Kansas Constitution. It then voids any past or future action taken to implement Common Core or other national education standards.

“Any actions taken by any education entity or any state official to adopt, implement or align programs, assessments, testing, surveys or any educational materials or activities to the common core state standards, the social, emotional and character development standards, the national curriculum standards for social studies, the national health education standards, the national sexuality education standards, core content and skills, K-12 or any other academic standards not in the public domain, free of any copyright, are void beginning July 1, 2017.”

Local control of education is upheld. Parents’ rights to direct the education of their child through locally controlled schools is upheld. Local schools and teachers will be responsive to parents rather than implementers of state and federal education dictates. The bill mandates that new academic standards shall be developed through a state process but also makes clear that any standards developed will be “model” standards with local school districts having the authority to maintain their own curriculum.

A first of its kind step was taken to explicitly ensure parents’ and students’ rights to protect their intellectual property. The bill upholds parents’ control over their child’s data in regard to its creation, collection, use, and privacy. A significant step was taken to protect students from intrusive data mining and collection, programs that are inherent with initiatives like Common Core.

As the House Education committee learned on Wednesday, the all-encompassing federal intrusion in education is being rejected across the country including in states like Washington and New York.

However, you can be sure that the Education Establishment, including the KNEA, KASB, State School Board, and State Department of Education, will do everything they can to maintain the status quo, resulting in “rebranded” versions of the same program.

You can be sure that people you elected, who said they were against the federal intrusion into education and would work to remove it, will staunchly claim their commitment to protect the state, but will act to water down or prevent passing this bill.

Some claim that a bill recently passed by Congress, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), places a great deal more control in the hands of states, local communities, parents, and educators including cutting the federal strings of Common Core. That could not be further from the truth. The ESSA actually requires states to comply with College and Career Ready Standards, which are Common Core. The bill does not remove the federal government from the business of education, as it requires the federal education secretary to approve each state’s plans for education. In addition, state chief school officers continue to be held accountable for not reporting a 95% participation rate on student assessments. The ESSA also extends federal funding to states to review and improve their existing pre-K programs. We can fully expect, and have found, this extension of “assistance” to be laden with all the usual federal encroachments that accompany federal funding.

Federal involvement in education is about control, not education. The partnership between the federal departments of Labor and Education to further the development of fully functioning statewide birth-to-adulthood databases on citizens, and commonality of standards and testing across the country is reshaping the nation. It will result, as intended, in only people whose education they can control getting jobs, getting into college, and getting into the military. It’s a tool of control, not a tool of education.

It is extremely important that this bill move forward without any amendments. Changes that affect the intent or effectiveness of the bill will be attempted. “Rebranded” do-nothing bills occur when all aspects of federal intrusion are not addressed and repealed.

HB2292 (formerly HB2676) does address and repeal all aspects of federal intrusion, including Common Core.

We believe parents are those best equipped to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

We believe teachers are best able to be responsive to parents and meet the education needs of children when they are not encumbered by federal and state mandates.

We believe individual teachers are degreed professionals who are capable of creating their own lesson plans and deciding how to teach.

Rejecting nationalized education standards is the first step toward bringing true academic choice, freedom, and protection of personal property. Passage of this legislation, without amendments, into law represents a positive step forward for the children, parental rights, and the constitution.

Kansas Legislators Vote for Common Core Bill They Helped Kill

State Representatives Amanda Grosserode & John Bradford

State Representatives Amanda Grosserode & John Bradford

The gloves are off, I named some names in West Virginia, and now I want to turn my attention to the Sunflower State.  While several state legislators can be blamed for tanking HB 2292, the Local Control of Kansas Education Act, activists in Kansas name two people who were roadblocks to debate on the actual bill even occurring: State Representatives Amanda Grosserode (R-Lenexa) and John Bradford (R-Lansing).

Grosserode represents House District 16.  On the banner of her website she says, “As your State Representative in Topeka, the principles of limited government, free markets, and individual liberty will continue to be my guiding principles.”

Did she leave those “guiding principles” at home during the discussion on HB 2292?

header

One activist told me in an email, “We just had our bill defeated in committee last Friday thanks to Rep. Amanda Grosserode who deflected all debate on our bill to promote a replacement bill that didn’t even have the words common core in it.”

Kansans Against the Common Core offered a recap of the Kansas House Education Committee Meeting where this bill was defeated.

Prior to Friday’s vote, proponents of HB 2292 were given exactly 45 minutes during one scheduled hearing day—45 minutes to discuss the many complexities and concerns about Common Core. The liquor licensing bill received 3 days of hearings. No questions were allowed at the hearing for HB 2292. No informational meetings were offered, as suggested by other committee chairs. That’s the best that could be done for Kansas kids??! Here’s a summary of the meeting on Friday the 20th, a meeting that was for the purpose of “discussion and possible action on HB 2292”:

The bill was reintroduced and a reviser delivered a brief summary of the bill. Without ANY discussion of HB 2292, Amanda Grosserode (R)-Lenexa, introduced an 11th hour “substitute” bill. Understand that Rep. Grosserode, who herself commented on her lengthy tenure on this committee, has never proactively put forth a bill to be fully vetted by the public and the legislature. This bill was only introduced in opposition to other proposed legislation. And, it was not even made known to the public until being introduced at this meeting. In fact, the words “Common Core” were not even in her substitute! This substitute did not even call for new standards until 2017, and even then, as pointed out by committee members, “This substitute just maintains the status quo. Why adopt it?” Ultimately, the vote on this distraction did not pass.

Bradford who represents House District 40, Kansans Against Common Core notes, was complicit as well.

Next, John Bradford (R)-Lansing presented two different amendments, both of which did not pass and had little to do with actually repealing Common Core or protecting our kids. After about an hour and a half, time which could have been spent discussing Common Core’s predatory nature and the merits and questions regarding HB2292, there was an abrupt call to vote on the bill (HB 2292). Someone “seconded” the motion just nanoseconds later. The obviously orchestrated plan to kill our bill– before it could be duly considered– continued. Before any real discussion, the vote was allowed to proceed. HB 2292 did not pass. The vote was 10-7 (with one abstaining).

Both Grossrode and Bradford did end up voting for the bill, but in the opinion of Kansans Against Common Core their actions helped sink it.

Regarding the “yes” votes for HB 2292 by two members of this committee, Amanda Grosserode and John Bradford, both were approached repeatedly by this board (early and often) to seek their support for HB 2292 and to iron out any language issues, so as to secure a viable Common Core repeal bill this session to protect Kansas kids. They refused to offer any honest, substantive critiques; instead they listened to detractors who spewed false claims like, “It isn’t constitutional,” and “It will result in a lawsuit by the school board,” or “It will have a $100M fiscal note” – sensational stuff. Politics. It was, from January on: “We don’t have the votes in the house to pass this,” or “We don’t have the votes to pass this out of committee.” Our efforts to meet with them, hear their concerns, and work to favorably pass HB2292 out of committee were not met by them. Instead, they worked to not support HB2292 and offered a LAST MINUTE bill and amendments, and urged fellow committee members to join in support of these changes, to kill HB2292. They did vote “yes” to pass HB2292 out of committee, but considering everything they did prior to prevent its favorable reception and success, it’s difficult to think that it was truly a vote in favor, but rather a “cover” vote.

So Kansas voters something to keep in mind when these two folks are up for re-election.

One Last Chance for Kansas to Take Back Local Control of Education

Kansas_state_flag_legislature_government_121713The Kansas House of Representatives is facing funnel week this week.  This is the final week that bills have to make it out of committee.  Kansas has a fabulous bill in HB 2292, the Local Control of Kansas Education Act, that was introduced last month.

There is a committee vote scheduled in the Kansas House Education Committee this Friday at 1:30p at the Kansas State Capitol Building in Topeka in room 115N.

Kansans Against Common Core has some specific action items and talking points:

1. Call/email the House Education Committee Chair, Ron Highland at ron.highland@house.ks.gov 785-296-7310. We are asking that you be polite, but firm (i.e. use your “mom voice”) in asking him to:

  • Make public the date for the vote.
  • Record all votes (so we all know who votes how).
  • 2292 and NO SUBSTITUTIONS!
  • 2292 is a SOLID and VETTED bill…so support it!

2. Call/email House Speaker Ray Merrick ray.merrick@house.ks.gov 785.296.2302. Please be polite, but firm. Let him know that:

  • “We the people” don’t want a substitute.
  • “We the people” do not support an 11th hour substitute.
  • “We the people” are watching our legislators closely and expect our voices to be heard and acted upon.
  • 2292 is a SOLID and VETTED bill…so support it!

3. Call/email Rep. Bradford at john.bradford@house.ks.gov 785 296-7653. Here, we are asking that you be polite, but assertive (I would say more like a firm “teacher voice”). The messages he must hear:

  • He’s been saying he’s been trying to get rid of CC for three years, and here is his perfect chance and it seems he won’t take it. Make sure to point that out.
  • HB2292 is a SOLID BILL…so support it!
  • It is not right that he’s holding back 2292.
  • Let the FULL HOUSE see the bill and let them decide what to do with it.
  • Voters who care about this are paying attention–he’s getting hundreds of calls/emails in support of HB2292 and he needs to do the will of the people. That’s his job!
  • “We the people” do not want a substitute.
  • Constituents in his own district are on board as they are signing a petition to support 2292.

4. Call/email Rep. Grosserode at amanda.grosserode@house.ks.gov 785-296-7659. Again, polite but assertive.

  • She’s been saying she’s against CC for a while and she home schools. So, now is her chance to put her money where her mouth is and SUPPORT HB2292 as it stands, no amendments.
  • Voters in her own district are overwhelmingly supporting HB2292 as it stands. Is she with her constituents or against them? Does she think her voters will remember what she does or does not doe here come election time?
  • Kansas could be a leader here. We could be marching to the beat of our own drummer. Does she want to be a leader or a follower? Let the FULL HOUSE decide this, not just her.
  • 2292 is a SOLID BILL and her constituents expect her to SUPPORT IT!

Local Control of Kansas Education Act Introduced

Kansas_state_flag_legislature_government_121713HB 2292 was filed in the Kansas House of Representatives this week.  It was introduced by the Kansas House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.

Here is some of the key text of the bill:

New Sec. 3. (a) The state shall retain sole control over the development, establishment and revision of K-12 curriculum standards. (b) Any education entity or any state official shall not join any consortium or any other organization when participation in that consortium or organization would cede any measure of control over any aspect of Kansas public education to any entity not explicitly allowed authority over education in article 6 of the constitution of the state of Kansas. No such person or entity shall condition or delay a decision on academic standards or curriculum on the decision of any consortium, organization, any other state government, the federal government or any other entity not explicitly allowed authority over education in article 6 of the constitution of the state of Kansas.

(c) Any actions taken by any education entity or any state official to adopt, implement or align programs, assessments, testing, surveys or any educational materials or activities to the common core state standards, the social, emotional and character development standards, the national curriculum standards for social studies, the national health education standards, the national sexuality education standards, core content and skills, K-12 or any other academic standards not in the public domain, free of any copyright, as of July 1, 2015, are void…..

….New Sec. 4. (a) Beginning July 1, 2015, the state board shall not implement any past academic standards or related assessments or any future academic standards or related assessments which are aligned with the academic standards described in section 3(c), and amendments thereto. (b) The Kansas curriculum standards used to teach K-12 English language arts, mathematics and science prior to October 12, 2010, shall be reinstated for kindergarten and grades one through 12 in Kansas beginning July 1, 2015. These standards will remain in effect until July 1, 2017. After July 1, 2017, revised Kansas standards in these subjects may be developed through the process provided for in K.S.A. 72-6439, and amendments thereto.

(c) If advanced placement, international baccalaureate, dual credit or other similar courses and tests are administered to public high school students, they shall be aligned with Kansas curriculum standards in effect pursuant to subsection (b).

New Sec. 5. The state board of education shall rescind any requirement, agreement or waiver, including the no child left behind waiver, with the United States department of education or any other federal agency which conditioned the receipt of federal funding upon the board revising educational curriculum standards to align with the common core state standards. The state board shall not agree to future federal educational funding, waivers, agreements or requirements which condition the receipt of federal funding upon academic curriculum being aligned to the common core state standards.

New Sec. 6. The state board of education shall not adopt or develop a criterion-referenced formative or summative assessment instrument under this act based on or aligned to common core state standards.

This is a pretty comprehensive bills, one of the better ones I’ve seen in awhile.

You can read the entire bill below:

Lawsuit Against Next Generation Science Standards in Kansas Tossed

Kansas_state_flag_legislature_government_121713Last fall, COPE (Citizens for Objective Public Education, INC) filed a complaint in Federal court against the Next Generation Science Standards.  This week a federal judge threw out the lawsuit:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that science standards for Kansas public schools promote atheism and violate the religious freedoms of students and parents.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled Tuesday that a nonprofit group and individuals challenging the standards did not claim specific enough injuries to allow the case to go forward.

The State Board of Education last year adopted standards developed by Kansas, 25 other states and the National Research Council. The guidelines treat both evolution and climate change as key scientific concepts.

Anyway, we thought we’d share the update.  Bummer for Kansas!  The Kansas Legislature and Governor Sam Brownback can still repeal the shoddy science standards.

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).