Tentatively at first, Gov. Bobby
Jindal, at the urging of some Republican state representatives, switched
from undemonstrative support of PARCC, a coalition of 17 states that plan to
assess students using a common instrument built around CCSS, to outright
opposition, followed by a national,
public reversal on CCSS itself. Previously, these representatives had
counseled Jindal to opt out of the signed agreement to institute PARCC, but
that documentation reveals that this cannot be done unilaterally by him.
Apparently, even as these legislative opponents mouthed
brave words about his being able to do so, the search continued for a unilateral
gubernatorial action to stop PARCC entrance, as it appeared a majority of the
Legislature opposed action to remove the state from the consortium (reaffirming that yesterday). And it was
found, courtesy of an unforced error by the Louisiana Department of Education.
Presently by administrative law,
DOE administers a wide variety of assessments to evaluate delivery of education
in the state. To alter that, it must issue a rule superseding the previous, to
which a notice of intent appeared in the February
edition of the Louisiana Register (the document listing all proposed and
final rules, whether emergency in nature, that spans from the 21st
day of the previous month to the 20th of that month) to that affect,
allowing comment until Mar. 13. With the obligatory time period passed,
apparently on May 2 20 the final rule was issued.
Rules are issued according to the
Administrative Procedures
Act, wherein which in R.S. 49:970 the
governor is empowered to suspend or veto any kind of rule, except certain
specified ones that do not apply to DOE, within 30 days of the issuance of that
final rule. Had DOE started this process at the beginning of the year – and as
Louisiana had provided much input into the creation of PARCC tests, if not
serving as the most influential model on them, long ago it was known the state
would want to align with PARCC – probably the evolution of Jindal’s thinking
would have occurred after the final rule’s implementation. Yet for whatever
reason it waited until almost the last minute, the beginning of the next
academic year.
That deadline existed because of Act
275 of 2012, which mandates that the state follow starting AY 2015 “nationally
recognized content standards that represent the knowledge and skills needed for
students to successfully transition to postsecondary education and the workplace.”
Current assessments (which some opponents suggested
as an alternative to PARCC) simply do not adhere to this standard.
Last week, after its issuance, those
oppositional representatives plus new recruits urged Jindal to veto the rule.
If he did, technically the old regime of assessments legally must go on until
superseded. But unless it’s changed within a few months from that – and
practically speaking, waiting that long would create chaos in administration so
a new regime must get implemented with entire certainty almost immediately –
DOE is in violation of the law.
The deadline for veto or
suspension is Jun. 1 – the day before the legislative session ends 18, about which
Jindal has said repeatedly he wishes the Legislature to deal with the matter
before he considers taking some kind of action – and gives him an opportunity
to retreat and claim victory, by letting the veto/suspension deadline pass and
explaining that he did not want to set up a situation where his actions caused
violation of state law. The problem is, from a political perspective, he may be
in too deep not to provoke a crisis among his past supporters. By his recent
turnaround on this policy, he already may have alienated allies among legislators,
interest groups, and the attentive public that favors CCSS with enough rhetoric
that even if his actions did not align with it that he has lost political
capital that they can provide. Yet he may lose more from his new allegiances
through inaction than he could regain from backers already alienated.
So were he to veto, he sets up an
environment that at best would prove difficult to manufacture compromise. There
are three other testing regimes, one about the size of PARCC and two much
smaller, that the state could enter, but the opponents mean not to have the
state join them any of them, because their ideology is that these thrust national
control onto state education. Only either an entirely new test that somehow aligns
with CCSS yet does not cross the indeterminate line that makes curricular
content test too captive to a perceived, if imaginary, federal control acceptable
to opponents , or altering R.S. 17:24.4 to scrap
the national standards requirement, which would take a special session and
would be unlikely to succeed even with unprecedented heavy lobbying by Jindal, would seem to fit the bill.
Should neither occur, the issue
seems destined for the courts, and on the surface opponents would lose as
statute trumps rule, even if carrying out statute prevents changing the rule. Yet
this also would be a loss to all sides, for while the case ground its way
through the judiciary, precious implementation time would be lost. Still,
pursuing compromise would do the same. So, unless one side unilaterally
surrenders before the session’s end, damage, if it already hasn’t started, will
be done.
Which means that Jindal may have
to see himself as a statesman and defer on any action. Otherwise, as far as
educational delivery in the state goes, this is heading rapidly towards a
no-win situation.
NOTE: original post was corrected throughstrikethrough and addition
NOTE: original post was corrected through
No comments:
Post a Comment