HR 5 passed.
Many are less than pleased. We feel this will likely cement in common core, not rid us of this poison.
Education activist Maddie Sharp shares:
“HR.5 is the STUDENT SUCCESS ACT.
It hopes to;
“•Replace the current national accountability scheme based on high stakes tests with state-led accountability systems, returning responsibility for measuring student and school performance to states and school districts.
However, truth is that HR. 5 goes on to DEFER to the States accountability system which is already in place
*** http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A11171&term=2009&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y ***
HR 5 also hopes to
“•Protect state and local autonomy over decisions in the classroom by preventing the Secretary of Education from coercing states into adopting Common Core or any other common standards or assessments, as well as reining in the secretary’s regulatory authority”
Yet HR. 5 states that it will “promote access to the GENERAL CURRICULUM and ALIGNED CONTENT STANDARDS—
We have ENGAGENY curriculum and content standards that our local public schools follow like it’s the bible—-what says they plan on stopping that practice?
HR 5 •Empowers parents with more school choice options by continuing support for magnet schools and expanding charter school opportunities, as well as allowing Title I funds to follow low-income children to the traditional public or charter school of the parent’s choice.
There is that Charter School Cap LIFT bill that was passed by our Senate and Assembly back in 2010—-What’s changed? NOTHING—AT—ALL!
And these last three paragraphs speak directly to the continuation of DATA MINING OUR CHILDREN AND OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS—
HR. 5 •Strengthens existing efforts to improve student performance among targeted student populations, including English learners and homeless children.
•Ensures parents continue to have the information they need to hold local schools accountable.
•Eliminates more than 65 ineffective, duplicative, and unnecessary programs and replaces this maze of programs with a Local Academic Flexible Grant, helping schools better support students.
There were 3 bills signed into law back on June 10, of 2010 in New York State. The comprehensive longitudinal data law, the charter school cap lift law from 200 to 460, and the APPR (the accountability system).
These three bills are now the law of the land in New York State. HR.5 sounds great—local accountability to the school districts and State—however, it defers to State law already in place—it only underscores what we already have—
Congressman Lee Zeldin has an addition to the bill that was passed, but that is window dressing and nothing more—it changes nothing—the content of the bill basically defers back to the State and if the State is already practicing what’s in their laws—it’s adhering to HR 5. PERIOD, END OF STORY.”
The Zeldin amendment is this;
We appreciate the amendment Mr. Zeldin added greatly.
But some worry it is not enough, especially given NY politics.
Activist Mert Melfa states:
“This amendment has no meaning since there is no loss of federal funding anyway. It doesn’t stop common core, and doesn’t address the U.S. crisis in American education; in fact it helps the crisis along by appearing to offer something good to a continuation of business as usual.
Folks get worked up about the tests (for good reason) but the CONTENT STANDARDS must be reckoned with, and HR 5 “promotes access to the GENERAL curriculum”.
A vote for HR5 is a vote for the poison.
HR 5 defers to the States accountability system already in place which is http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A11171&term=2009&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y. ”
Activist Michelle M. contributes:
“Amendment #53 (Zeldin): passed
“allow a State to withdraw from the Common Core Standards or any other specific standards.”
But will states withdraw? NY won’t. HR5 has the provision that if a state accepts federal funding, they will relinquish all control to the USDOE so how will that work?
If final authority rests with the Sec of Ed, it’s essentially Fed Led Ed. Albeit the amendments are good, if unenforceable, they are moot. Good resume builders I suppose. But children are collateral once again.
It’s disingenuous. This does nothing for stripping Feds out. Bottom line the Bill requires “peer-team” be formed, wait for it….appointed by the SecEd. Then state plans go through them for final approval or denial by the SecEd. FedLedEd!”
Michelle M. has questions and concerns to present to our legislators;
“In the tumultuous revolt from parents here in NY and other states the Secretary has made threats. I recognize the argument that status quo remained and required continued waivers and that cements it so to speak.
My question remains that if the final authority is given via HR5 to the Sec Ed, how do any amendments override that authority?
The Statement of Purpose in Sec. 1001 of HR 5 is defined using the exact same language as Common Core’s college-and-career-ready: “[T]o graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education and the workforce without remediation.” (Sec. 1001). It is a requirement in HR 5 that state standards, assessments, and accountability systems align with the statement of purpose in Sec. 1001.
If the Secretary claims that any part of the plan submitted by the state fails to fulfill the requirements of the Act – that is, that in his opinion, it fails “to [prepare students to] graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education and the workforce without remediation” – the Secretary can deny the state plan. Sec. 1111(e)(2).
States will be pressured into keeping the Common Core rather than risk having their plans disapproved for using different standards or aligned assessments.
HR 5 continues the master-servant relationship between USED and the states, requiring state plans and giving the Secretary enormous authority to approve or disapprove them. Secs. 1111(a)(1); 1111(e)(2)(B), (D); 1111(e)(3); 1111(f)(2); 1111(g).
Under HR 5, states must submit their state plans to a “peer-review process” before they are presented to the Secretary. This peer-review team, which is appointed by the Secretary, must operate within the highly prescriptive parameters of the federal legislation. Sec. 1111(e)(1)(B).
Honestly, I am confused as to whether this loosened the vice or actually tightened it. It seems even with amendments the bottom line is if one thin dime $$$ it accepted then the Sec Ed has the final say via the peer-review team that appointed by the Sec.”
Bottom line, when this bill goes forward it is a long term commitment to yet another monster of a devil in the details document.
We do not believe the powers that be in New York will allow any of the positive provisions.
Is it better than before? Probably. But there are many concerns indeed. Activists wanted to see ESEA sunsetted entirely.
What do you know about this 800 page bill? Why does education need a bill this overwhelmingly enormous?
Get to know it. We may be stuck with it for another generation.