Jindal argued
in nationally-distributed opinion piece that he turned against it because the “federal
government became increasingly involved,” although he does not specify in what
way nor how that is connected to curriculum, which, as the state superintendent
in 2010 when CCSS was adopted by the state Paul Pastorek notes,
none of the intended curricula in Louisiana had any shaping done by federal
government standards. Nonetheless, Jindal claimed it was “Washington determining
curriculum,” even as he admitted “it still is not a curriculum” but that it
somehow would evolve into one by unspecified means because it must “teach to
the test” – even as Pastorek makes clear the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for
College and Careers, the consortium that is deciding on a common assessment
mechanism of which Louisiana is a member, that the only federal involvement
with PARCC was to pay for the 17 states to formulate a test on their own.
The PARCC argument Jindal makes
naturally extends from his recent announcement that he wanted Louisiana to
withdraw from it. By his rationale, this means no “nationally shaped” exam
would force a teaching to the test that automatically would slam the state’s
curricula into the mold set by the alleged federal curriculum. But, the problem
is, the agreement with PARCC unambiguously does not allow a governor to
withdraw from it, requiring also the assent of the superintendent, John White,
and the head of the body that appoints him the Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Chas Roemer. Neither
have wavered in support of PARCC and CCSS.
And Jindal may know this and
perhaps even count on it. By articulating opposition to CCSS through an exit of
PARCC, but being unable to achieve it legally, he can claim he was against it
to please the more conspiratorial members of the left (because they think it
empowers corporations) and the right (because they think it empowers
government) yet acquiesce to its becoming law.
Yet this more aggressive halving
of the baby may prove too clever by half. With his initial remarks of
opposition to PARCC, this got up the dander of supporters who had counted on
him, if not received assurances of support by him, to back the measure to the
end. Had Jindal left it at that, that annoyance might have been minimal, and no
further efforts of his on behalf of uprooting PARCC in Louisiana might have
settled them down largely.
However, in now going national on
this and linking PARCC exit to CCSS rejection, this only twists the knife
harder. His legislative allies forsworn on this will feel more inconvenienced,
for these repeated declarations return momentum to the movement to get rid of
CCSS. Up to the point of Jindal’s recantation, the issue had all the makings of
a roman candle, spewing brightly and hotly for moments, then dying down
completely. Now these words may have reinvigorated opposition, with opponents
now believing they have Jindal’s energetic blessing and obviously without a
veto threat looming, which may attract more opponents that makes supporters
expend more resources to defeat repeal, still the likeliest outcome.
With only finite political
capital available, these supporters, most Republicans of whom have found
themselves natural Jindal ideological allies, may resent having to pull back on
other priorities to try to put out this fire. And the most natural place in the
world to do so would be on Jindal priorities, such as the effort to rein
in unaccountable and politicized regional flood control agencies.
It could be that Jindal’s
expansion of the front came as a way to curry favor among a cadre of
legislators known as the “budget hawks,” who forced
some modification on Jindal’s budget last year but who this year seem more
enamored with cancelling CCSS. By jumping into their bed, he may think he more
easily can steer them away from chipping away at this year’s budget – and,
given the attention they seem to have given to the spending blueprint this
year, he succeeded. Still, by feeling as if he needed to tell the nation about
his switch, Jindal may have damaged prospects for his agenda at home during
this legislative session, as well as increased the level of distrust among his
natural allies for the future. If so, this may turn out an unforced error when
considering in a holistic sense the fate of his agenda for the remainder of his
term.
No comments:
Post a Comment