More MMC Bills Introduced

Submitted by Bob Kefgen on Sun, 03/11/2012 - 7:05pm Making career and technical education more accessible to more students may be heating up. Two more bills, HB 5456 and SB 1013, were introduced this week to allow students to substitute career and technical education for a portion of the Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC). These bills come on the heels of a similar pair introduced in the House and Senate last week. HB 5456, introduced by Representative Joel Johnson (R-Clare), would allow a student who successfully completes a yearlong planned program to:

Opt out of the MMC requirements for:

Algebra II A senior year mathematics course A third credit of science A credit in visual arts, performing arts, or applied arts An online course or learning experience
Only have to complete one of the following:

A fourth year of English language arts A second credit in world language

SB 1013, introduced by Senator Bruce Caswell (R-Hillsdale), would allow a student to make substitutions for the Algebra II and world language requirements as follows:

For Algebra II, students may substitute: one additional science credit for a total of at

least four science credits, or one career and technical education credits that meets MDE Standards for career and technical education.

For the two world language credits, students may substitute: two additional science

credit for a total of at least five science credits, or two career and technical education credits that meet MDE Standards for career and technical education.

Along with HB 5451 and SB 997 last week, these bills represent three different visions for alternatives to the existing MMC requirements. To date, no action has been taken on the bills. Given the renewed legislative interest in this topic and concern that recent changes to federal financial aid regulations may prevent students who receive a certificate of completion from qualifying for PELL grants, MASSP is seeking input from members on the topic of MMC reform. In the past, we have opposed any changes to the MMC and argued strongly to keep the existing standards. Should we continue this advocacy or consider revisions? A Q&A on this exact topic has been posted on the website. I encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity and join your colleagues in weighing in on this topic.