Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 24, 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 language arts and mathematics; three in science; one each in U.S. and world history and geography; one in health and physical education; one in fine arts or music; and one-half each in civics and economics. Also, one course or "learning experience" that was presented online. Alternatively, a student could request a custom alternative "personalized curriculum" that would incorporate as much of the graduation requirements as is "practicable." The bill would also require the state Department of Education to develop clear and consistent content expectations for all these classes

The vote was 70 in favor, 31 opposed and 7 not voting

(House Roll Call 130 at House Journal 22)

Click here to view bill details.

This will never fly! It makes too much sense. All except the 'personalized alternative curriculum.' For this curricum, the MEA will substitute 2 years of graffiti spray painting, 2 years of drug distribution, and 2 years of assembling/disassembling an AK47!

Section vii of the document talks about questioning scientific theories. This is another attemp at countering evolution. There is no way our public school children should be asked to prove or disprove scientific thoeries. They do not have the expertise or the facilities to throughly research the evidence and formulate conclusions of that level. Nor do most of our public school teachers have the experience or facilities to work on the underpinnings of scientific theories. Please, let the scientific professionals do this work.

This bill is horribly wrong in two areas: 1) It encourages the teaching and the "testing" of ID and Creationism, and 2) It mandates methodology. Beyond that, it, like the rest of the high school grad requirement bills, is unfunded, impractical, and unneccessary. The assumption that there are no grad requirements is absurd and politically motivated. Don't these guy anything better to do?

This is a great plan for folks who are going into certain fields but there are alot of careers that won't need this rigorous preparation. I don't see how we're going to get every student through high school with such enormous expectations.

>This is a great plan for folks who are going into certain fields but there are alot of careers that won't need this rigorous preparation.< Name a few that will exist in the next 25 - 30 years and enable people to make a living.

They made this worse. Note the March 2 modificatons that made it worse. Who determines what socially responsible attitudes our children must learn.? The liberal State Dept of Ed? yessiree MR.and Ms. Repbulicans you should beashamed of yourselves for passing this bill.

This bill does not mention anything about a foreign language requirement. If we are going to compete in a global economy - we will need to communicate not just in English.

Teach them how to invest, save. How to survive living in Michigan. High rent and high gas prices!

Rather rhan learn foriegn langages, students should learn about foriegn cultures. The world is to big to learn all of its languages. Which ones should we learn? Career training is more practical because it effects ANYONE WHO NEEDS TO WORK FOR A LIVING.

Are you capable of an intellegent comment. How about career training, or are all of the kids who have benifited from career tech training just figments of your ignorance? You sound like someone who knows a little and becomes extremely dangerous.

Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on House Bill 5606 (H-7) because we need a proposal that 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. I support high quality graduation requirements for our high schools. Unfortunately, the Republican bill allows schools to get waivers from the requirements of the bill, effectively allowing some schools to choose NOT to ever 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. Additionally, while the bill includes a process for developing the subject area content expectations, it also includes redundant and unnecessary language that could interfere with that same process. The bill provides for input from curriculum experts, business community representatives, university and college representatives, parents, teachers, and government officials on the content standards. Unfortunately, the bill then turns around and hamstrings that process by including arbitrary and unnecessary language describing those standards as well. It is for these reasons that I voted no on House Bill 5606. I support the adoption of higher standards for our high schools, but those standards have been muddled in this bill through the inclusion of other issues and unneeded language."

Rep. Tobocman, 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 House Bill 5606 because the 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. Included in the State Board's recommendations was a foreign language requirement. Removing this requirement reflects an ignorance and mediocrity, rather than a desire to lead. If Michigan is going to lead this nation in the 21st Century economy, we should have no hesitancy in adopting the rigorous requirements recommended by our democratically-elected State Board."

Rep. Brown, 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: Although the development of a new high school curriculum is very important to the State of Michigan, local school districts must receive the necessary resources to implement the curriculum. This bill will impose a significant financial burden on small school districts, but provides no additional funding."

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 House Bill 5606 (H-7) because the 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. A substitute offered but not accepted would have provided 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. While I commend the sponsor for the considerable work done on this bill, as well as the considerable efforts that have resulted in a substantially improved version (H-7), the bill still includes redundant and unnecessary language that could interfere with that same process. For example, the bill provides for input from curriculum experts, business community representatives, university and college representatives, parents, teachers and government officials on the content standards. This is all good. Unfortunately, however, the bill also contains language that would essentially hamper that process by including arbitrary and unnecessary language describing those standards as well. I would also like my colleagues to know that I strongly support the State Board of Education's recommendation for high quality graduation requirements for our high schools. The State Board's proposal requires that ALL of our public high schools provide a high quality curriculum that addresses the needs of our children as they move forward into careers, college or vocational preparation programs. And I look forward to supporting a bill that more adequately addresses these concerns. Thus, while I voted 'no' on House Bill 5606 (H-7), the process continues, and I trust that the problems with this bill can be addressed so that we can have a bill we will all support."

Rep. Hopgood, 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 House Bill 5606 (H-7): I voted no on House Bill 5606 (H-7) because the 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, the Republican 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. Additionally, while the bill includes a process for developing the subject area content expectations, it also includes redundant and unnecessary language that could interfere with that same process. The bill provides for input from curriculum experts, business community representatives, university and college representatives, parents, teachers, and government officials on the content standards. Unfortunately, the bill then turns around and hamstrings that process by including arbitrary and unnecessary language describing those standards as well. It is for these reasons that I voted no House Bill 5606. I support the adoption of higher standards for our high schools, but those standards have been muddled in this bill through the inclusion of other issues and unneeded language."

Rep. Cushingberry, 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 because this bill lacks an broad understanding of the educational needs for the future, No Vote Explanation for House Bill 5606 (H-7). I voted no on House Bill 5606 (H-7) because the 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, the Republican 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. Additionally, while the bill includes a process for developing the subject area content expectations, it also includes redundant and unnecessary language that could interfere with that same process. The bill provides for input from curriculum experts, business community representatives, university and college representatives, parents, teachers, and government officials on the content standards. Unfortunately, the bill then turns around and hamstrings that process by including arbitrary and unnecessary language describing those standards as well. It is for these reasons that I voted no House Bill 5606. I support the adoption of higher standards for our high schools, but those standards have been muddled in this bill through the inclusion of other issues and unneeded language. Additionally, one of the clear problems in America is the pervasive institutional racism and ignorance of the valuable contributions of African, Asian, Hispanic, and Native, Americans in our Country's history and the full story of this countries growth and development. Michigan continues to lag economically because of the pervasive ignorance about one another. There must be a requirement for multi ethnic inclusion in the high school curriculum. Further in order for us to better prepare our people we need to require foreign language, include African History in world history and have economics and political science as centerpieces in any reform. Therefore, this bill needs a lot of work and we should take the time to enact true reform."

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: I voted no on House Bill 5606 (H-7) because the 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. For these reasons I voted NO on House Bill 5606 (H-7)."

Too bad there was no mention of the relation between studying a second language and academic achievement. Studies have shown, across the board, students who study a second language out perform students who do not study a second language. With an emphasis on standardized tests, someone should have looked at the benefits of studying a second language. If you don't believe me, check the research. It doesn't mean you have to become a speaker of any particular language, only that we study one. understandable it would be a burden for smaller districts to support a program, but it should have been pushed a little harder.

I agree that the study of foreign language is important to a well-rounded academic experience. The House decision to ditch that requirement from the high school regimen seems more like another exercise in Michigan provincialism than anything else. Old habits and attitudes die hard.

Contrary to Palmer's contention that ID/Creationism is not a factor in the bill, it is. Under point 2Avii, teachers would be required to test various "theories" using the scientific method. The "theories" they have in mind, of course, are evolution, ID and Creationism. Needless to say, in order to test something, it must be taught. The writers of this bill yanked language from previous failed bills, tweaked it by "wisely" refusing to mention ID/Creationism my name, and wrapped it in an otherwise legitimate proposal. This feature is ideological pork at its finest. The pedigree of the bill's writers imply that they are committed true believers. Their intent is to create a wedge in the Wall of Separation. If this bill hits the light of day, I PRAY 2Avii doesn't see the sun.

QUOTE: "MR.and Ms. Repbulicans you should beashamed of yourselves for passing this bill" ____________ And they claim they're for smaller government. This is a great example of expanding government control over schools. What a disgrace.

VOT FOR DEVOS...

It looks like you reserve all rights for yourself including rights to the inellectual rights of those posting comments. Sounds typical for a Christian organization.

It looks like you reserve all rights for yourself including rights to the inellectual rights of those posting comments. Sounds typical for a Christian organization.

We can't give our kids a "global" education and ignore foreign languages, especially since we in Michigan have major trading partners that use other languages than English! As to the argument that "well, we don't know which language to study so we shouldn't require any," the study of any foreign language will give students the framework for studying other languages farther on. The language-learning study skills and mind set absolutely transfer from your first foreign language to the next. Skipping language education based on that argument is as silly as insisting that "since we don't know what kind of math a student will need, we won't teach him any. "

Fred; I want to know how we might work together to insure that the mandated curriculum does not do hard to the needs of the high tech companies in Macomb by forcing all students to curtail their education in high tech fields of engineering technology, bio-med devices, automotive technology and such. Please do not blow this off by the typical politically correct jargon. The bill that you supported by your vote is going to effect Career Technical Education to its very core. Highly motivatied students with good math and communication skills will be funneled into a very narrow college prep program of study. How are we going to engage these students in the high tech skills that a vital to our economy. I see you offered an amendment about the "scientific method". Where was your input and concern about high tech. There is not a word in the bill you supported about a mandatory technology requirement. Yet, art is addressed. Foreign language is addressed. Gym is addressed. All these might in be necessary, but where is the concern for employability and global compettition? I am not criticizing your vote. I am asking because I am vitally concerned about how you intend as a representative of Macomb to see to it that these issues are addressed. This bill can help or it can be horribly disastorous to our economy. You, as a Democrate are supposed to be for the people. I bleive you want to be. I challenge you to take up the issue of Technology Education not as an opt out for special needs and the mathematically challenged, but as an important leg in the 3 legged stool upon which our community sits. I am willing to work with you on this. I await your positive response. I am also willing to combat those that lack the vision to support our high tech industry by only catoring to the elitist elements of the higher education community. And I will speak loudly and forcefully with the dynamics it takes to make our cummunity aware of how discriminitory this bill you supported really is.

The kids aren't getting an education now, what makes you think this will help. You need to address over crowding in class rooms, teachers that can't teach, missing class room aids for students that need special help. Laying off of teachers but not upper management. Bullying of students, The public school system is a mess and it isn't going to get better by adding more requirements.

In today's society with more and more cultures adapting the United States, different language should a requirement for students. Not only is the language important but so is knowing about the culture. Each person in America is different with different backgrounds, religions, and so on. Understanding different cultures and languages could allow the children to understand the importance of getting to know other people for who are they and not because they are different than the "average white person." America has hundreds of different cultures, religions, languages that make up people that is one of the many reasons why people want to be here in America. I believe teaching more foreign language in schools will help our children become more well rounded people and go out into the community respectivly and capable of helping and communicating with others of not our "average white person" way. I would pass this bill 100% without even thinking about it. We have to help the children of today to be a better tomorrow.

How could you possibly say that. Children these days are completely out of control and mainly because parents are not capable of helping children with homework because parents themselves do not know and do not even attempt to look in the students books. For people to be better in life, we must know how do certain things. Math-must, History-must (it always repeats itself, why not learn the first time around), Art-must, Foreign Language-Must (Eventually society will overtake up us by people who speak a different language than the "average white person." If parents do not force children to stay in school and demade above average grades, someone needs to. And yes, people say they help their children and those children should consider themselves lucky because not every parent in the world is that devoted to the children in out future. Look at the drop out rates in school districts such as Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Lansing. The parents are not helping the children and unfortunately the children can not keep up so they go to what they know best, drop out and hit the streets. We must change the future for the children. Starting with higher requirements for students in school. In today's society, no high school completion gives a student a job with minimum wage or under the table never getting ahead in life and always struggling.

OK. To me that is a parents job to teach children how to survive gas prices and rent. Prices are rising with or without the government. Open eyes, that is why government is trying to demand higher requirements for school. They are trying to help students learn more at government expense than student paying in college to earn a better job in the workforce. Universities are requiring more from students entering the school and if they can't meet that requirement they can not even step foot into the University. Workforces do not want a person who has less education than at least trying to get into college. And they definitely do not want a person who dropped out of school at age 16 because they can. Wake up America!! The world is changing. People are growing. We need to keep up with society because our children fall between the cracks and end up on the streets to do nothing but harm.

How is it the Governor's fault? The legislators wrote the bill-- then PASSED the bill before the gov signed it. It could still have been passed without her signature-- and you'd probably still blame her. Try picking up a government text book. And maybe the newspaper to read up on DeVos' history of exporting jobs.

We do always need someone to work the counter at McDonalds or the cash register at Wal-Mart. We can't force people to learn the skills they need. Some never will-- some will always be content with the least amount of effort they can put into life. Too many requirements usually means too little fun and enjoyment in learning. And that will cause even less students to learn and succeed.

4bk0pd1gowhy7qdr