1. THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL AND ITS INFLUENCE ON STATE EDUCATION POLICY Julie F. Mead Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Analysis University of Wisconsin

2. School Board Lanark Unified School District Lanark, Illinois 1976

3. What is Public about Public Education? Public Purpose Public funding Public access Public accountability to communities Public curriculum

4. What is Public about Public Education? VouchersCharters Public purpose Mix of public/private purposes Public funding Retains Public access Schools Control accessTheoretically the same, but research raises concerns about race, disability, & language Public accountability to communities No public accountability no testing completely shielded from voters Some public accountability Participates in state testing Ability for voters to influence depends on authorizer type More attenuated accountability, generally Public curriculum No public definitionCurriculum defined by state standards School can select curricular focus

5. What are we up against? Interests that are Well organized Well funded Vocal Persistent

6. What is ALEC? “The American Legislative Exchange Council works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.”

7. What is ALEC? State Legislators Nominally non-partisan Ideologically conservative Private Corporations & Organizations Ideologically conservative Model Bills

8. ALEC’s Legislative Agenda A-Plus Literacy Act Alternative Certification Act Autism Scholarship Act Charter School Growth with Quality Act Education Savings Account Act Family Education Tax Credit Program Act Foster Child Scholarship Program Act Great Schools Tax Credit Act Great Teachers and Leaders Act Indiana Comprehensive Reform Package Longitudinal Student Growth Act Next Generation Charter Schools Act Online Learning Clearinghouse Act Open Enrollment Act Parent Trigger Act Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act Public School Financial Transparency Act Resolution Adopting the 10 Elements of High-Quality Digital Learning for K-12 Special Needs Scholarship Program Act Student-Centered Funding Act Teacher Choice Compensation Act Teacher Quality and Recognition Demonstration Act Virtual Public Schools Act

9. ALEC’s Legislative Agenda Introduce market factors into schools, particularly the teaching profession. Privatize education through vouchers, tax credits, and tax incentives. Increase student testing and reporting. Reduce the influence of local school districts & school boards

10. ALEC’s Whack-a-Mole Strategy “Across the country for the past two decades, education reform efforts have popped up in legislatures at different times in different places. As a result, teachers’ unions have been playing something akin to “whack-a-mole”—you know the game— striking down as many education reform efforts as possible. Many times, the unions successfully “whack” the “mole,” i.e., the reform legislation. Sometimes, however, they miss. If all the moles pop up at once, there is no way the person with the mallet can get them all. Introduce comprehensive reform packages.” ALEC Report Card (2010) – 16 th Edition, p. 108

11. Tennessee Example K-12 & Connections Academy serve on Education Task force Task force creates model “Virtual Public Schools Act” Tennessee members introduce model bill Passes on a party line vote 6/16/2011 K-12 gets no-bid contract to create Tennessee Virtual Academy - $5,300/student

12. Virtual Education Bills 23 states introduced 44 bills that affected virtual education 15 states passed bills that expanded virtual education in some way Of those 15 states, 13 had members on ALEC Education Task Force 37 States had legislators on the Education Task Force 19 of those states passed a law relating to virtual education. 51%51%

13. Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program Except as provided under subsections (b) through (h), it is the intent of the general assembly to honor the autonomy of nonpublic schools that choose to become eligible schools under this chapter. A nonpublic eligible school is not an agent of the state or federal government, and therefore: (1) the department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a nonpublic eligible school that accepts a choice scholarship under this chapter, including the regulation of curriculum content, religious instruction or activities, classroom teaching, teacher and staff hiring requirements, and other activities carried out by the eligible school; (2) the creation of the choice scholarship program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, the state's officers, or a school corporation to impose additional regulation of nonpublic schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the choice scholarship program in place on July 1, 2011; and (3) a nonpublic eligible school shall be given the freedom to provide for the educational needs of students without governmental control. ALEC’s “Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act” A participating, private school is autonomous and not an agent of the state or federal government and therefore: (1) the Department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a participating, private school that accepts a Parental Choice Scholarship; (2) the creation of the Parental Choice Scholarship Program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, its officers, or any school district to impose any additional regulation of private schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the program; and (3) participating schools shall be given the maximum freedom to provide for the educational needs of their students without governmental control.

14. Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program Except as provided under subsections (b) through (h), it is the intent of the general assembly to honor the autonomy of nonpublic schools that choose to become eligible schools under this chapter. A nonpublic eligible school is not an agent of the state or federal government, and therefore: (1) the department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a nonpublic eligible school that accepts a choice scholarship under this chapter, including the regulation of curriculum content, religious instruction or activities, classroom teaching, teacher and staff hiring requirements, and other activities carried out by the eligible school; (2) the creation of the choice scholarship program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, the state's officers, or a school corporation to impose additional regulation of nonpublic schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the choice scholarship program in place on July 1, 2011; and (3) a nonpublic eligible school shall be given the freedom to provide for the educational needs of students without governmental control. ALEC’s “Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act” A participating, private school is autonomous and not an agent of the state or federal government and therefore: (1) the Department or any other state agency may not in any way regulate the educational program of a participating, private school that accepts a Parental Choice Scholarship; (2) the creation of the Parental Choice Scholarship Program does not expand the regulatory authority of the state, its officers, or any school district to impose any additional regulation of private schools beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the program; and (3) participating schools shall be given the maximum freedom to provide for the educational needs of their students without governmental control.

15. And in Wisconsin? Limitations on Public Employee Bargaining Voucher Expansion Special Needs Scholarship Proposed charter School changes

16. AB 682 The legislative service agency may contract with one or more qualified researchers who have previous experience evaluative school choice programs to conduct a study of the program with funds other than state funds. The study shall assess: (1) the level of participating students' satisfaction with the program; (2) the level of parental satisfaction with the program; (3) the percentage of participating students who were victimized17 because of their special needs status at their resident school district compared with the percentage so victimized at their participating school; (4) the percentage of participating students who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district compared with the percentage exhibiting behavioral problems at their participating school; (5) the class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their participating school; and (6) the fiscal impact to the state and resident school districts of the program. (C) The researchers who conduct the study shall: (1) apply appropriate analytical and behavioral science methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study; (2) protect the identity of participating schools and students by, among other things, keeping anonymous all disaggregated data other than that for the categories of grade level, gender, and race and ethnicity; and (3) provide the legislature with a final copy of the evaluation of the program. (7) STUDY. (a) The legislative audit bureau shall contract for a study of the program under this section with one or more researchers who have experience evaluating school choice programs. The study shall evaluate all of the following: 1. The level of satisfaction with the program expressed by participating pupils and their parents. 2. The percentage of participating pupils who were victimized because of their special needs at their resident school district and the percentage of such pupils at their participating school. 3. The percentage of participating pupils who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district and the percentage of such pupils at their participating school. 4. The average class size at participating pupils’ resident school districts and at their participating schools. 5. The fiscal impact of the program on the state and on resident school districts. (b) The contract under par. (a) shall require the researchers who conduct the study to do all of the following: 1. Apply appropriate analytical and behavioral science methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study. 2. Protect the identity of participating schools and pupils. (c) The contract under par. (a) shall require that the results of the study be reported to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature under s. 13.172(3) by January 9, 2017.

17. AB 682 The legislative service agency may contract with one or more qualified researchers who have previous experience evaluative school choice programs to conduct a study of the program with funds other than state funds. The study shall assess: (1) the level of participating students' satisfaction with the program; (2) the level of parental satisfaction with the program; (3) the percentage of participating students who were victimized because of their special needs status at their resident school district compared with the percentage so victimized at their participating school; (4) the percentage of participating students who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district compared with the percentage exhibiting behavioral problems at their participating school; (5) the class size experienced by participating students at their resident school district and at their participating school; and (6) the fiscal impact to the state and resident school districts of the program. (C) The researchers who conduct the study shall: (1) apply appropriate analytical and behavioral science methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study; (2) protect the identity of participating schools and students by, among other things, keeping anonymous all disaggregated data other than that for the categories of grade level, gender, and race and ethnicity; and (3) provide the legislature with a final copy of the evaluation of the program. (7) STUDY. (a) The legislative audit bureau shall contract for a study of the program under this section with one or more researchers who have experience evaluating school choice programs. The study shall evaluate all of the following: 1. The level of satisfaction with the program expressed by participating pupils and their parents. 2. The percentage of participating pupils who were victimized because of their special needs at their resident school district and the percentage of such pupils at their participating school. 3. The percentage of participating pupils who exhibited behavioral problems at their resident school district and the percentage of such pupils at their participating school. 4. The average class size at participating pupils’ resident school districts and at their participating schools. 5. The fiscal impact of the program on the state and on resident school districts. (b) The contract under par. (a) shall require the researchers who conduct the study to do all of the following: 1. Apply appropriate analytical and behavioral science methodologies to ensure public confidence in the study. 2. Protect the identity of participating schools and pupils. (c) The contract under par. (a) shall require that the results of the study be reported to the appropriate standing committees of the legislature under s. 13.172(3) by January 9, 2017.

18. ALEC Grades Wisconsin

19. A Policy Plumb Line What “problem” is being addressed? How do we know it’s a problem? How do we know it’s a problem here? What is the proposed solution? What research connects the proposal to the problem?

20. Be aware of… Orwellian titles Research that isn’t –Think Tank Reviews –http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank- review-project Solutions that bear no relationship to the problem Who benefits - $$

21. Be Proud – Be Loud Public Schools out-perform private schools Public Schools out-perform charter schools Public schools schools, where poverty rates were under 10 percent, scored the highest or among the highest in the world. Public schools where the poverty rates were 10-25 percent of the student body, scored among the top few nations of the world.