Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 9, 2006, to prescribe high school graduation requirements for public schools and charter schools. These would include four credits (or year-long courses) each in English and mathematics (including Algebra I, Algebra II and Geometry); three each in science and social science (including biology and chemistry or physics); two in a foreign language (beginning with students entering ninth grade in 2009); one in health and physical education; one in fine arts or music; and at least one in certain electives specified in the bill. Also, one course or "learning experience" that was presented online. Alternatively, an 11th grade student who has completed two-and-one-half years of this curriculum could request a custom "individualized learning plan" instead of completing the math and science credits. Students could "test out" of certain requirements (for example, a bi-lingual student). Middle school students could take some mandated classes to get a "head start" on the requirements. Schools would be required to have these standards in place beginning with students who graduate in enter ninth grade beginning in 2007, or to have a timetable in place for adopting them

The vote was 35 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 152 at Senate Journal 27)

Click here to view bill details.

SB 1124 closely reflects high school graduation requirements recommended by the state Board of Education last December. It is a vast improvement over HB 5606, which was passed by the House in early March. SB 1124 eliminates legislative involvement in course content development that the House version would require.

Thank you.

This appears to be geared only for the kids who are planning on going to college. What about the kids who don't plan on going to college? What about the kids who have lower cognitive skills but do not qualify for special education? How does this help them?

Senator Cassis' first statement is as follows: The amendment before you represents an afternoon and evening of listening to concerns and negotiating solutions. The amendment is supported by the Michigan Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, Oakland and Macomb ISDs, and the School Counselors Association. Yesterday, there was some confusion. Today, we hope to clarify that confusion. We offer a new version of the amendment--a tightened version that stresses the small, very small number of students who need a third option in order to meet the benchmarks for Algebra II based on the Michigan curriculum framework in an alternative delivery format. In order to qualify for this tightened option, the student must first have agreement of that pupil's math teacher and counselor. These two professionals must agree that this is appropriate for this student. It represents, my colleagues, a higher test in order to elect this option. Importantly, it involves the decision of a key person who currently is omitted in the current bill and the parents or guardians in the decision making. You may be asking who does this amendment really address? First, it addresses a very small percentage, maybe two or perhaps three percent of an entire population of high school students. It addresses those who are and have historically in their history, their school record, been academically vulnerable and challenged in mathematics. It addresses those who live in urban centers and rural areas and come from poorer districts throughout our state. It addresses those who have fragile self-esteem and low self-confidence. Failure for them breeds more failure and a cycle of failure. Success, as we know, breeds success. Believe me, this is not--and I emphasize not--an opt-out provision, but an opt-in provision to address what the Department of Education, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and all interest groups have advocated for, and that is exposure to and mastery of Algebra II benchmarks. This is not for the A-B-C student or the unmotivated student. They are not eligible for this option. Today, we have the opportunity to address this small, but very important, population of our entire school population. I urge today a resounding voice vote that says "yes." Senator Cassis' second statement is as follows: What we're really saying today, in perhaps opposition to this amendment, is we know some kids will fail up front. We know it right here, right now. We know this ahead of time. Why make them take two courses of Algebra II with no modification and make them live through this self-defeat? What good would it do? Would it make them more motivated students, more productive students? Or would it make them, as has already been suggested, want to drop out? As a school psychologist, I assure you my amendment meets the needs in the standards and benchmarks of Algebra II. It is not, as some might dare say--who have never been an educator, who have never worked in a classroom, who have never worked with students at all--who dare to say step out of their expertise and their comfort zone and say that this is an attempt to dumb down students and their coursework in the state of Michigan. I spent my entire professional life working for the success of students, and it is on behalf of all students that I speak today to, quite frankly, once again advocate loudly and proudly--as the good Senator from Livonia recognized and the good Senator from Oakland County, chair of Appropriations, so eloquently spoke to leave no child behind. I urge, once again, a resounding voice "yes" vote that can be heard from the bottom of this chamber to the top of the chamber, out to the halls on behalf of all the students in Michigan. Senator Cassis' third statement is as follows: First, let me thank you for passage of the amendment reflecting the Algebra II alternative approach for those students. There are very small numbers who need it. This amendment follows in that line. It calls for basically tracking the number of students who might be able to qualify and elect an alternate approach to meeting the benchmarks of Algebra II. The amendment will ensure that what we intended actually occurs and is not utilized to open the doors to nonqualified students rushing to take an alternative program. So, basically, the intermediate school district will be provided with the numbers from a school district or public school academy and report those numbers who have received a modification of the Algebra II credit requirement. I think this is good public policy, and it will ensure just what we have been so engaged in today. It will help policymakers in the future as well to ensure that the intent of what we're doing is actually followed. If it is not, it certainly, and I would say must be re-looked at.

How come these people never include the fact that it awill take more than 1/2 semester for high school students to understand civics? High school students should have 2 years of government and 2 years of economics? One year of government should be the basics. The second year should be public policy. Foreign Language should be taught 4 years easily. In a global market we need to make sure our children are prepared to compete for jobs in the ever changing economy.

Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: No Vote Explanation for Senate Bill 1124. I voted no on Senate Bill 1124 because the House substituted the language from House 5606 (H-7) into Senate Bill 1124 thus this bill puts the State Board of Education's recommended curriculum requirements in jeopardy. I support the State Board of Education's recommendation for high quality graduation requirements for our high schools. Their proposal requires ALL of our public high schools to provide a high quality curriculum that addresses the needs of our children as they move forward into careers, college, or vocational preparation programs. Unfortunately, this bill allows schools to get waivers from the requirements of the bill, effectively allowing some schools to choose NOT to implement these new higher standards. The Democratic substitute would provide flexibility to the schools by allowing for a phase-in period to reach the requirements, but NO school could try to waive the requirements completely. This bill did not include the provision to require a foreign language in the curriculum. By leaving that requirement out of the curriculum we do a disservice to our students and leave them at a disadvantage to when they compete with students around the world in the new global economy. This bill also muddles the requirements for social science to be taught in our high schools. This bill needs more clarification and more work before it should be allowed to become law. This version of the bill also tie-barred to the ED FLEX legislation that is similar to the legislation that was vetoed by the Governor. For these reasons I voted NO on Senate Bill No. 1124."

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on SB 1124, which was not the subject of a House Committee hearing and indeed is an entirely different version of what passed unanimously from the Senate. Clearly, more work needs to be done on this bill, which now consists entirely of the language that was substituted into SB 1124 from HB 5606. I recognize that the process continues, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important legislation."

Senator Cassis asked and was granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Cassis' first statement is as follows: The amendment before you represents an afternoon and evening of listening to concerns and negotiating solutions. The amendment is supported by the Michigan Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, Oakland and Macomb ISDs, and the School Counselors Association. Yesterday, there was some confusion. Today, we hope to clarify that confusion. We offer a new version of the amendment--a tightened version that stresses the small, very small number of students who need a third option in order to meet the benchmarks for Algebra II based on the Michigan curriculum framework in an alternative delivery format. In order to qualify for this tightened option, the student must first have agreement of that pupil's math teacher and counselor. These two professionals must agree that this is appropriate for this student. It represents, my colleagues, a higher test in order to elect this option. Importantly, it involves the decision of a key person who currently is omitted in the current bill and the parents or guardians in the decision making. You may be asking who does this amendment really address? First, it addresses a very small percentage, maybe two or perhaps three percent of an entire population of high school students. It addresses those who are and have historically in their history, their school record, been academically vulnerable and challenged in mathematics. It addresses those who live in urban centers and rural areas and come from poorer districts throughout our state. It addresses those who have fragile self-esteem and low self-confidence. Failure for them breeds more failure and a cycle of failure. Success, as we know, breeds success. Believe me, this is not--and I emphasize not--an opt-out provision, but an opt-in provision to address what the Department of Education, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and all interest groups have advocated for, and that is exposure to and mastery of Algebra II benchmarks. This is not for the A-B-C student or the unmotivated student. They are not eligible for this option. Today, we have the opportunity to address this small, but very important, population of our entire school population. I urge today a resounding voice vote that says "yes." Senator Cassis' second statement is as follows: What we're really saying today, in perhaps opposition to this amendment, is we know some kids will fail up front. We know it right here, right now. We know this ahead of time. Why make them take two courses of Algebra II with no modification and make them live through this self-defeat? What good would it do? Would it make them more motivated students, more productive students? Or would it make them, as has already been suggested, want to drop out? As a school psychologist, I assure you my amendment meets the needs in the standards and benchmarks of Algebra II. It is not, as some might dare say--who have never been an educator, who have never worked in a classroom, who have never worked with students at all--who dare to say step out of their expertise and their comfort zone and say that this is an attempt to dumb down students and their coursework in the state of Michigan. I spent my entire professional life working for the success of students, and it is on behalf of all students that I speak today to, quite frankly, once again advocate loudly and proudly--as the good Senator from Livonia recognized and the good Senator from Oakland County, chair of Appropriations, so eloquently spoke to leave no child behind. I urge, once again, a resounding voice "yes" vote that can be heard from the bottom of this chamber to the top of the chamber, out to the halls on behalf of all the students in Michigan. Senator Cassis' third statement is as follows: First, let me thank you for passage of the amendment reflecting the Algebra II alternative approach for those students. There are very small numbers who need it. This amendment follows in that line. It calls for basically tracking the number of students who might be able to qualify and elect an alternate approach to meeting the benchmarks of Algebra II. The amendment will ensure that what we intended actually occurs and is not utilized to open the doors to nonqualified students rushing to take an alternative program. So, basically, the intermediate school district will be provided with the numbers from a school district or public school academy and report those numbers who have received a modification of the Algebra II credit requirement. I think this is good public policy, and it will ensure just what we have been so engaged in today. It will help policymakers in the future as well to ensure that the intent of what we're doing is actually followed. If it is not, it certainly, and I would say must be re-looked at.

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Education Committee for taking this issue to the people. In addition to the hearings that he held, I held two hearings in my district. The common theme that I heard was that we've got to improve the curriculum. If that means strengthening, we need to do that. I think that what has been worked out here has been a good compromise. There are a couple issues there that I would like have addressed differently; that being the foreign language requirement. I would have like to have seen it enacted a little earlier. But all in all, I think it's a good compromise, and I think it's time for us to move forward and make sure that when our students leave high school that they are college-ready. I urge a "yes" vote on this conference report.

Senator Kuiper's statement is as follows: I probably should explain what is contained in these two bills before I ask members to vote. This is it. This is sort of the end of a very long journey that is covered over 11 public hearings across the state from Marquette to Milan and Port Huron to Muskegon. I think we, as a Senate committee and as a Senate chamber, have really done a lot of digging and research and spent a lot of time listening to concerns over the last three months. I want to applaud the work of the members of the Senate Education Committee for their diligence in attending the meetings and sitting through some very long debates, and I think that at the end of the day it was worth it. For those of us who have been intimately involved in this process, this sort of seems like the end of a journey. In reality, I think this is just the beginning because today after we approve this and send it on to the Governor, we really do set in motion a course that will change the history in Michigan for a long, long time. I think we'll help propel Michigan once again to the forefront in the country of educational rigor. Let me just go through a couple of the issues that are contained in these two conference reports. First, the credit requirements and opt-outs. The English requirement is for four credits, with no opt-outs. The math requirement is for four credits, but as you know, we've been debating for some time what an opt-out looks like for Algebra II. I think we've created some good language in that regard. Social studies, three credits with an opt-out that is allowed after two credits. But, again, the opt-out language which is included in the bill allows students to opt-out of the core curriculum at certain periods in time, but to take more class work in math and language arts and science and foreign language. So really, to opt-out, really, in many respects, increases the rigor of the curriculum rather than decrease. Foreign language requirement is in the bill. It's a K-12 requirement. We apply it to next year's third-grade class. They would be the first class on record who will be responsible to meet the requirements of the two-year foreign language, but we hope that many school districts across the state, knowing full well that the requirement is coming, will begin the process of putting in place foreign language courses not only in high school, but in middle and elementary school. One credit of physical education and health and one credit in the arts, which includes performing arts, applied arts, and visual arts, and one online experience. The online experience can be determined by the board of a local district. They can either teach an online class, or they can pass a resolution locally that requires the online experience to be a component of each class in the curriculum. There is a test-out option. We're less concerned about seat time and more concerned about content requirements. If a child can demonstrate mastery of content, they can opt-out of a class. We allow classes to be combined as long as the content requirements of each class are being met. You could potentially take two classes at one time and receive credit for both. The thing I like best about this bill--there are a lot of things to like about this bill--but one of the things that really stands out about this legislation is the content expectations. We've heard for years that classes across the state, even though they shared the same name, they didn't necessarily cover the same content. The content expectations in these two bills really will ensure that when a child is taking an Algebra I class, the content will be the same whether that class is taken here in the city of Lansing or in the city of Zeeland or in the city of Marquette because each class will have to meet the same content expectations. Finally, let me get to the issue of the education development plans, which were an area of some difference with the House. I think we've created a good compromise. Each student will be required to take a career pathways course in seventh grade. Career pathways will help students identify areas of interest. We think that helps build some relevance into this curriculum. They'll understand why, in fact, they are being required to take certain classes. My time is about to expire. Again, thank you to the members of the committee. I would urge support.

For a student who is not planning to pursue a career in an area that requires the mathmatical, English, or Science skills that the state of Michigan is compelling them to take, they are watsing valuable time studying the subject that does not prove benificial to the student. That time could be used in practicing for their desired career. If the student has to take the time to fit in these required classes in order to graduate, they will not be able to schedule classes that pertain to his/her career choice. Therefore, the student is not prepared for his/her future. If a student is going into an area where these skills are needed, they should take the classes out of free will because that is the field they want to go into.

>For a student who is not planning to pursue a career in an area that requires the mathmatical, English, or Science skills that the state of Michigan is compelling them to take, they are watsing valuable time studying the subject that does not prove benificial to the student. That time could be used in practicing for their desired career.< For those of you who object to this legislation, I challenge you to list those jobs you have in mind as you make statements like the one above. The truth is, rigorous academic education through high school will harm nobody and will benefit everybody who works at it. That has been true for a long time, and will become even more true in the future. The idea is to make sure high school graduates really are equipped to enjoy a “life of choice” as they go on rather than experience consigment to a potentially unhappy lifetime rut. The House-Senate Conference Committee compromise on this bill -- this issue -- is a good one that will strengthen education and benefit young people across the State of Michigan. It should be applauded and enthusiastically supported.

...heating and cooling installation. My brother is quite successful at heating and cooling installation, in addition to making and running ductwork and he has never had a need for these higher math classes. He couldn't have passed them anyway as he has a very serious learning disability in the area of math. However, he's the guy everyone requests when they need heat or air. He's successful enough at his chosen career that he is paid so well he doesn't have to work every day. Not too bad for a guy in his early 40s.

Could we just get some financial literacy classes, PLEASE? Consumer math, Rich Dad, Poor Dad stuff from Oprah? He's got that Rat Race game. Develop a curriculum around that. How the world works in terms of money? Give those kids a calculator and have them go at it. They'll do great!

The kids who want to succeed in school-- and in life really-- will already take the more rigorous path through school. The rest need a reason to be there. Squeezing out classes they might enjoy and succeed in doesn't seem to be the answer! I'm a teacher-- though at an alternative high school-- and so many of the students that leave traditional high schools do so because they don't feel challeneged in their courses and because they don't see the point. There are plenty of kids who think-- either right or wrong-- that they can get by with the skills they already have. Forcing them through four years of math when they struggle with every new concept may well have the effect of them thinking they suck at learning. Students-- people!--need to feel that they can accomplish something, need to feel successful. Forcing everyone into the same sets of classes will only frustrate struggling students! And raising the dropout age won't help-- just because something is illegal doesn't mean people won't do it. Look at the number of people who speed, cheat on their taxes, or drop out of high school before sixteen. We need to focus on helping people learn their own strengths, not force everyone into the same box. Not everyone is going to understand Algerbra or Geometry no matter how many times they take it. Just like not everyone is going to understand the rules of commas or apostrophes. But these people may be the best at something else. If they get the chance to find out.

My Son is Freshman is bloomingdale MI. He strugles everyday to remember his locker number, homework assn. He has special ed for algebra, reading. All other mandated classes are general ed classes. He can put together a tractor or use his hands. He will always struggle in school. Not everyone goes to college, some people just are glad to have a passing grade and graduate with their class. Trade schools with hands on learning are going to help my child. when he is 16, I'm thinking of home schooling and paying for a trade school in Lawrence MI. Teachers are not what they use to be. No money for books, little parent involment until your child is already failing. Its there future and my child, Why can't I decide what classes my child takes. Most Parents do not like the new requirements. I Really HATE! the idea. I fight for my childrens rights. Law makers need to know that not every household agrees and each child is different. So M.E.A.P.S is pushed down a childs throat so that school is up to par and can get the money that is need for being the golden apple of schools. You will see alot of drop outs in years to come. Everyone learns in there own way. You can not compare and mandate what is learned. Its like voteting for a president! Only I can make that choice. It's a freedom, My child has rights too, or don't they Kelly Mckibben

There are choices that we made as teenagers, And no one person, school or law maker had anything to do with it. There are alot of jobs that require no math, Its called a calculator and computer, Family Farms, Business that are run by family,,,Child Care...ect... Half the things that are mandated, are not used in everyday life. You are not to judge the way there life turns out. Life is 90% how you take it and 10% how you make it.... Everyone is unhappy at some point in their life. If you can breathe, you can live. the only thing that should be mandated is sex education, health, Basic math, reading, writing, Gym class, cooking. The rest is not always remembered or used in life.

I know that dropped out of high school are now running small businesses and doing quite well. I think that the longer you stay in the state indoctrination camps the dumber you become. The biggest reason for government schools is to create the next group of folks that are dumb enough to vote for the dems/socialists. If they get their way they will rip your child away at 2 or 3 years old to get a head start on the brainwashing, seems that some parents actually are trying to teach their children some common sense and we can't have that in the coming socialist states of amerika.

 

I am a actual student that has to graduate with these requirements. I have no clue what the state was thinking when they passed this law. I HATE MATH! I do well in all my other classes except math. I fear that I won't beable to graduate with my class because of them. I passed algebra 1 with a D-. I'm in geometry now and i'm failing it. Most of my class is failing it. (No joke)I guess it would really help if we actually spent more time on the sections. We are going through 1 section a day. We arn't learning crap from it...you can't learn something in one day and be expected to remember how to do it for a long time. That is like learning a new name everyday for 2-4 weeks and be expected to remember all the names that you learn. It would really be nice if we got to choose if we wanted to take math because i'm never going to use this crap. I want to be a police officer...not a rocket scientist. It's not like if I have to shoot someone i'm going to go, "Ok now, I have to hold my gun 90 degrees to the North and and 40 degrees south." Sure, I understand there are some Algebra formulas that I have to use. All the state is doing is hurting kids. The state of Michigan had one of the worst graduation rates with the old requirements. All I can say is that my class is the ginni pig class and when the state relizes that these requirements arn't going to work that my class is going to be screwed. well, most of the people that hate math and isn't good at it. I know the govener is trying to make it easier to pass with the new 4th year classes that I can take after I pass algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2...but I have to be able to pass all the other math classes before I can take the ones that I will actually use in my life.

 Get rid of public schools altogether and start over with private ones. Look at the statistics. We have poured more and more money into them, and the results speak for themselves. Kids are as dumb or dumber then ever. All public schools are is day care center and a HUGE money pot for the MEA.