HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE:

AS PASSED SENATE:

This bill would amend Part 2 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Title 20 of the O.C.G.A. to void the SBOE’s commitment regarding Common Core State Standards and to prohibit any commitments to the Race to the Top program. It would require withdrawal from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) agreement. address student data, student competencies and student testing, to provide Content Standards Advisory Councils, public input, processes for changes to standards, prohibition from relinquishing control over standards or tests, and to protect individual student data.

It would require the SBOE to review content standards in ELA, math, science and social studies at least once every 5 years and propose changes to the standards in the best interest of students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. The SBOE would propose changes to content standards that it deems in the best interest of students, parents, teachers and taxpayers. To accomplish that purpose they would have to establish and implement a process that includes:

1. A review of relevant research in the core subject area and identify areas needing revision;

2. The SBOE would have to compare examine content standards previously or currently adopted by Georgia standards to or by other states and countries with preference given to states and high ratings prior to 2010 and with countries with highly rated national or international test scores;

3. The SBOE would have to recruit members of an advisory council and submit names to the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House, who would name 17 members to serve from the list:

   1. Nine Six parent or grandparent representatives—3 2 appointments each by the Governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker—one elementary, one middle and one high school;

   2. Two private sector representatives chosen by the Governor with one or more children in a public school in Georgia—one appointed by the Lt. Governor and one appointed by the Speaker;

   3. Three postsecondary content specialists, appointed by the Governor (no education degrees allowed) currently employed or retired who have taught the subject content for at least 5 years in a postsecondary institution and who hold an advanced degree;

   4. Three Six current or retired teachers—2 elementary, 2 middle and 2high; with

   5. Two year terms, one reappointment allowed.

4. Council members would have to hold at least a bachelor’s degree in one of the subject areas under review or a related subject area;

5. The members would have to be representative of all areas of the state and residents for at least six months prior ; and, as possible, represent urban, suburban and rural areas, as well as each congressional district;

6. The council would elect a chair and vice chair from among the membership.

The council would have subcommittees with varied representatives from the education community to include council members and others such as educators, content specialists, early childhood specialists knowledgeable in the area under review. They would be reimbursed for expenses and may receive an honorarium. LEA’s could be reimbursed for substitutes­­­­­. All meetings would be subject to open meetings and open records, and all council and subcommittee names and qualifications and contact information would have to be posted on the DOE web site.

The state board would have to submit changes in standards to the advisory council for review, and the council would immediately begin its review, which could also include review of other standards in that subject area, criterion referenced tests in that area, or data collection policies. The council would meet twice yearly to review proposed changes in standards. All changes would have to be posted on the DOE web site prior to 90 days before consideration, and they would have to be submitted to the Council, the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker, Chairs of Senate and House Education committees, and each LEA. The LEA’s would then be responsible to notify parents that changes are available on the state website. The changes would also have to be sent to all college and university presidents, who would be responsible for distributing electronic copies to heads of departments of relevant core areas.

During the 90 day period for public review and comment:

1. Each SBOE member would have to conduct at least one public hearing with notice by press release to print and broadcast media and to each LEA which would have responsibility to notify parents of the meeting. At least one week’s notice would have to be provided to each state legislator who represents any portion of the congressional district. Minutes of the hearings would have to be taken and distributed to SBOE members and council members within 10 days following the meeting.

2. The SBOE would have to solicit feedback from teachers, parents and other stakeholders via all forms of available media.through a posted and advertised online survey with comments accepted by e-mail or U.S. mail.

3. The SBOE would also have to solicit feedback from appropriate content related organizations, associations, and agencies with all feedback reported to the council.

4. The Senate and House education committees would have to hold public hearings on the proposed changes and submit public comments to the council.

All comments from all areas of input would have to be part of public record and be maintained for review for at least six twelve years. The council would have 60 days after the 90 day period to recommend changes to the SBOE. They could also recommend changes to state-wide assessments and data collection practices of the DOE or OSA. Once those changes in a written report are sent to the SBOE, the entire notification process as noted above would have to be repeated they would have to send electronic copies to all members of the education committees of each chamber, each LEA, the presidents of each public college and university in Georgia, and post it on the DOE web site. Deadlines for the initial consideration review of specific standards would have to follow a timeline:

1. Math complete by May 31, 2015 and implemented by the 2016-17 school year;

2. ELA complete by May 31, 2016 and implemented by the 2017-18 school year.

Once the council sends recommendations to the SBOE, the SBOE would take them into consideration and make changes it deems in the best interest of students, parents, teachers and citizens.

The State of Georgia would have to retain control over development and revision of competencies and content standards from the past, and the SBOE all state officials would be prohibited from joining any association that would relinquish any measure of control outside the state. It would prohibit state-wide national competency or content standards, including Next Generation Science Standards, National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, National Health Education Standards, and National Sexuality Education Standards. without public hearings held in each congressional district and a open comment period of one year, open hearings before a joint committee of the House Ed Committee and the Senate Ed Committee and approval by majority vote of the General Assembly. Courses developed and submitted by LBOE’s would not have to abide by the procedures above.

The DOE would have to submit an annual report of all grants--federal, private, or other sources for which it has applied or received--as well as all outside funding received by the DOE. This would enable the General Assembly to determine if any agency or organization is having an outside influence over Georgia.

The bill would ban participation in any national test or any test established by a consortium of states [PARC]. All mandated state criterion based tests K-12 would be totally controlled by the State of Georgia and could not be relinquished as a condition to receive a grant or federal funding. No prevention of any standardized tests such as NAEP, SAT, ACT, ITBS, COMPASS, AP, etc. would be intended by the bill.

As of July 1, 2013,neither the DOE, SBOE, ECC, nor OSA would be able to collect any information not directly related to the education of the student with specific information noted. No state agency, LEA or educational institution could pursue or accept a grant that requires personal information of individual students. No one other than authorized representatives of those agencies could have access to personally identifiable information of students, and all personal information would have to be encrypted. None of that information would be made available to any federal agency until specifically required by federal law or regulations. Should it have to be released, parents would have to be notified. Parents could also give permission for disclosure of their student(s)’ information. Aggregate data would be permissible for release. All student data would have to be stored within the U.S. or Canada, or in a facility owned or controlled by a U.S. corporation and governed by U.S. privacy laws.

Any person could request and would have to receive a description of the specific fields of data of personal information. The DOE and the OSA would have to conduct a privacy impact statement every five years on the Georgia Longitudinal Data System with the first on done by December 31, 2014 and by December 31 every year thereafter.

1. Spend any funds from anywhere on a state-wide longitudinal data system designed to track students beyond what is required by the USDOE;

2. Share any personally identifiable information on students or teachers with any entity outside the state other than cloud storage of data or hard data storage located in a safe location outside the state;

3. Share any personally identifiable information on students or teachers with any entity that develops commercial products or services that intend to transfer the data to any other entity for product or services development;

4. Share any personally identifiable information on students or teachers with any entity other than one that is an education agency or institution that does not intend to:

a. Use the data to develop commercial products or services;

b. Transfer the data to any other entity for such development;

c. Use the data or transfer the data for economic or workforce development planning.

5. Share any personally identifiable information on students and teachers with the USDOE unless:

a. It is required for a federal grant;

b. The USDOE agrees in writing to use the data for evaluation of programs funded by the grant;

c. The USDOE agrees in writing that the data will notbe used for any research beyond the program evaluation;

d. The USDOE agrees to destroy the data once the evaluation is complete; and

e. The program itself is authorized by federal statute or by federal rule

If the grant or program requires the data to make a grant and the USDOE uses the data in spite of the above requirements, the grant recipient would have to provide written notification to all parents, guardians, or teacher whose data has been shared of the following:

1. That the grant recipient was required to turn over the data to the USDOE;

2. That neither the grant recipient nor any other entity in Georgia will have control over further sharing of the data; and

3. The contact information of the USDOE official who demands the data