» February 14th, 2015
private, one-day bus trip leaving the Boston area on Thursday, February 26 for CPAC in Washington, D.C. It will return to Boston the following day.
You may already know local pro-liberty supporter Brad Wyatt. He has arranged this one-day, round-trip bus for students and local activists to attend CPAC — the biggest annual political conference.
For students, the bus tickets are only $20. For adults, the bus tickets are $65.
Then, purchase your CPAC ticket and one-night hotel room with YAL. Prices range from $25 if you only need a student ticket, all the way up to $230 for a non-student ticket with a two-person hotel room.
Seating is very limited, so book ASAP.
Here’s the two-step process:
Step 1: RSVP on Eventbrite for the bus
Step 2: Register for CPAC with YAL
It’s that simple
» July 20th, 2012
Conservatively Speaking is now on Twitter, Facebook as well as Blog and Radio show.. please join us and check us out
» February 14th, 2015
ObamaCare Customers Should Beware of Higher Prices
Some ObamaCare Premium Increases will be Over $1,000 Annually, New Study Says
Washington, D.C. – Consumers who in 2015 keep the same plans they purchased for 2014 on the ObamaCare exchanges could be in for a big shock, warns Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
“Because of the way the subsidy mechanism works, some consumers could see an exorbitant increase in premiums,” Hogberg said. “For example, a 27-year-old single person in Denver, Colorado making $25,000 annually who bought the cheapest bronze plan will pay $535 more this year. A 57-year-old couple in Miami, Florida earning $50,000 annually who did the same will pay $1,548 more.
The worst area is Jackson, Mississippi, where a 27-year-old earning $25,000 who keeps the cheapest bronze plan will pay $1,168 more and a 57-year-old couple earning $50,000 will pay $3,282 more.
In the study, “Three Ways Consumers Could Pay Exorbitantly Higher Premiums on the ObamaCare Exchanges in 2015,” Hogberg explains how this can happen.
To see how an area in your state fared, see Tables 5 and 6 near the end of the study.
“The subsidy is based, in part, on the second-lowest cost silver plan on the exchange and when the price of that plan drops, so will the subsidy,” Hogberg says. “Consumers in those exchanges are the most at risk, but even consumers on exchanges where the second-lowest cost silver plan increases, thereby increasing the subsidy, are not necessarily safe from substantial premium increases.”
First, consumers who qualified for a subsidy in 2014 will see their subsidy decline in 2015 if they are on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declines. If they also have a policy that has increased in price, then they will pay higher premiums. That is what happened in Jackson, Mississippi where, for a 27-year-old, the subsidy dropped by $83 per month and the cheapest bronze plan rose by $14 a per month. That resulted in a monthly premium increase of $97, or about $1,168 annually.
Second, consumers on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declined could pay higher premiums if they had a policy that decreased in price but did not decrease as much as the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan. That happened in New Hampshire. For a 57-year-old couple, the subsidy declined $163 per month while the bronze plan dropped $11 per month, resulting in a premium increase of $152 per month, or $1,824 annually.
Finally, it is even possible for consumers to pay higher premiums on an exchange in which the subsidies increased. Consumers on those exchanges who own a policy that increases more than the subsidy will pay higher premiums. In Miami, Florida, a 57-year-old couple with the cheapest bronze plan in 2014 saw a monthly premium increase of $129 ($1,548 annually) because the subsidy increased $18 per month but the cheapest bronze plan rose $147 per month.
“Consumers facing such increases will either have to find room in their budgets or deal with the hassle of changing insurance plans,” says Hogberg. “And, as the study also shows, switching plans is no guarantee that a consumer won’t still pay more than he or she did last year.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
» February 14th, 2015
Justin Danhof is the General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research
Leading Free Market Group Asks Dozens of Major American Companies to Protect Workers’ Right to Freely Engage in Political and Civic Activities
National Center for Public Policy Research’s Employee Conscience Protection Project Warns: Millions of Americans Potentially Subject to Workplace Discipline for Private Political Actions and Beliefs
In Response, Credit Card Leader Visa Takes Steps to Protect Its Workforce From Political Discrimination While Wholesale Giant Costco Resists Employee Protections
Washington, D.C. – Revealing the first results of nine months of behind-the-scenes corporate activism to protect American workers from political discrimination in the workplace, on back-to-back days last week the National Center for Public Policy Research spoke at the shareholder meetings of Visa Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation, praising the former for amending its corporate documents to protect its employees from potential workplace discrimination over political actions and beliefs while criticizing the latter for refusing to do the same.
Visa and Costco’s divergent actions came as the result of shareholder resolutions the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project submitted to each company late last year.
“Visa very quickly realized the merits in our proposal and changed its corporate policies to assure its workforce that their private political actions would have no bearing on their employment with the company. It is a tribute to superb management that realizes hiring and retaining the best workers involves protecting those workers’ First Amendment rights,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Unfortunately, Costco, which employs more than 195,000 people worldwide, does not share those same values.”
Costco went so far as to petition the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit the National Center’s shareholder proposal from its proxy statement.
At Visa’s shareholder meeting last Wednesday in Foster City, California, Danhof stated:
When we asked Visa if it would consider protecting its employees’ private political and civic activities, the company did not hesitate to amend its corporate policies to do just that. Many major American corporations have resisted such a protection, but Visa employees should feel proud to work at a company whose leadership realizes the importance of employee freedoms.
Conversely, at the annual meeting of Costco shareholders that took place in Bellevue, Washington last Thursday, Danhof asked, in part:
America was founded on the ideal of a representative government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. In a nation with anemic civic activity participation and low voter turnout, it is disappointing that one of the country’s largest retailers would fight to maintain the ability to terminate its employees for private political activity.
My question is this: why did Costco’s leadership fight to maintain “managerial discretion” over the private political and civic activities of the company’s employees?
In his question, Danhof also quoted directly from the arguments that Costco made in front of the S.E.C. as to why it should have been permitted to exclude the National Center’s shareholder resolution. Specifically, Danhof noted:
Costco fought to exclude our proposal in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Costco’s legal team argued that “[t]he company must have the ability to exercise managerial discretion over its workforce with respect to these issues” and that the “considerations that arise under these policies… are most appropriately handled by management, not by shareholders as a group.”
To read the full legal exchanges between the National Center and Costco regarding exclusion of the shareholder proposal, click here and here.
“The company’s answer to my question at the shareholder meeting was almost as disappointing as the extreme lengths that it took in order to deprive Costco’s shareholders of the ability to vote on our proposal,” said Danhof. “Costco Chairman Jeffrey H. Brotman became indignant when I asked my question. He told me that ‘we’ (which I took to mean the company’s leaders) would protect Costco’s workers and that the company’s employees were free to do whatever they want on their own time. He said that Costco fought our proposal to protect the company employees from people like me. Then he backtracked and said, not exactly people like me but rather the company fought our proposal to protect the company from outsiders. From that I understood Brotman to mean that management should have ultimate control of Costco’s workforce and that the shareholders were the outsiders. That is backwards thinking.”
“Costco’s shareholders – who are the true owners of the company – should have been given the right to vote on whether the company will act as a partisan purity shop in which the staff must follow the dictates of management in their private political thoughts and endeavors,” said Danhof. “Brotman’s assertions that management should control these personal aspects and would protect its workers are vapid. The company employs more than 195,000 individuals. The chairman of the board and the CEO can’t possibly oversee and ‘protect’ each individual employee from this type of discrimination. But guess what could? The policy that we urged in our shareholder proposal, that’s what.”
“If I were a Costco employee, I would be very concerned that my management team, which is directed by some well-known extreme liberal partisans, refused to add policy protections for private political activities. Conservative employees should especially be concerned,” added Danhof.
For the better part of a year, the National Center has been asking corporations to implement policy protections shielding workers from adverse employment action for engaging in private political and civic pursuits. Through its Employee Conscience Projection Project, the National Center has helped protect hundreds of thousands of workers from potential workplace discipline or termination.
The genesis for the Employee Conscience Protection Project occurred in April 2014 when the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, Mr. Eich is not uniquely situated. Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.
“In researching workplace protections, one company that stood out was Coca-Cola,” said Danhof. “The soft drink giant’s Code of Business Conduct explicitly makes clear to its employees that ‘[y]our job will not be affected by your personal political views or your choice in political contributions.’ This simple measure speaks volumes in light of the fact that many American corporations refuse to offer this type of policy.”
Often using Coca-Cola’s policy as a model, last spring and into the summer, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project spoke directly with over a dozen CEOs about adding this commonsense employment protection. In addition to protecting employees from retribution for their outside-of-work legal political actions, National Center staffers suggested that corporations also protect civic and public policy engagement. Aside from Google, where CEO Eric Schmidt was steadfast in his assurance that Google employees would receive this full protection, no other company explicitly vowed to enact these measures.
To confront this void, the National Center submitted shareholder proposals to more than two dozen corporations for inclusion in their respective 2015 proxy statements. Some companies, such as Visa, realized the wisdom of these protections and agreed to adopt the proposal. Others, such as Costco, spent significant time and company resources petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit our proposal from their proxy statements.
In the coming weeks and months, the National Center will reveal which companies protect their employees from political discrimination and which companies fought to retain the right to discipline its workforce for private First Amendment activities. Stay tuned.
The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues.
The Visa and Costco meetings mark the first and second shareholder meetings for the National Center in 2015.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
» February 6th, 2015
Hey folks.. get ready for another great edition of Conservatively Speaking.. Join Mike Wade tomorrow (Sat 2/7/15) between 7 am and 9 am for common sense talk.. yes on the conservative side of the spectrum.
On this weeks show we’ll be taking a look at the GDP and comparing its numbers during the Reagan and Obama years.
We’ll also have open lines as we do every week.. we truly are the audience participation show. Mike (Wade) our host offers his mic up every week for you to join the conversation.
We’ll also look at the budget and latest heat up between ISIS and Jordan.
You can tune in at AM 830 WCRN or listen live by streaming here on www.conservativleyspeaking.net
We’ll see you on the radio
» February 6th, 2015
President Barack Obama’s $3.901 trillion budget would raise taxes on the rich, expand tax credits for the poor and middle class — though as of now, it merely serves as a White House wish list.
Although very little of it is expected to become law — or even be seriously considered via legislation on Capitol Hill — the president’s budget still serves as a benchmark for congressional Democrats.
For complete story click here: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obama-budget-2015-104229.html
» February 6th, 2015
Jordan’s king vows to crush ISIS, even without U.S. help. This comes as unconfirmed reports from Iraqi media show that Jordan carried out air strikes overnight, killing 55 ISIS militants … Do you like their strong response??++
Lots of heads of states around the world have paid lip service to fighting jihadists and standing against the monsters of ISIS.
Yesterday, Jordan executed ISIS operatives and walked the talk of counterterrorism…while President Obama posed for photos.
Now comes word that Jordan’s King Abdullah is heading for the front lines. Hard. Core.
» February 6th, 2015
» February 2nd, 2015
The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks Bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The First World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay, Mumbai, India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The Nairobi, Kenya Shopping Mall Killers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
The Sydney, Australia Lindt Cafe Kidnapper was a Muslim
The Peshawar, Pakistani School Children Killers were Muslims
Think of it:
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = VERY BIG PROBLEM
**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************
They’re not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
They’re not happy in Nigeria
They’re not happy in Kenya
They’re not happy in Sudan
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
******** So, where are they happy? **********
They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in Belgium
They’re happy in France?
They’re happy in Holland
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Spain
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in Denmark
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway & India
They’re very happy in England (UK) (Loads of Welfare Benefits)
They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic!
And who do they blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves…
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!!
And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy.
Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Shabbab Somalia: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION AND A LOT MORE!!!!!!!
Think about it.
In God we trust!
» February 2nd, 2015
NOTES FROM AN ENGINEER.
I’m a 54 year old consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether or not there are work projects out there for me.
My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.
For me, making $60,000 a year, under ObamaCare, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.
For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That’s right, $1 per month. I’m not making this up.
Don’t believe me? Just go to www.coveredca.gov
So OK, clearly ObamaCare is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there’s a lot more to it. Stick with me.
And before I make my next points, I’d like you to think about something:
I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents – about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.
But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you’ve been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it’s essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.
Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population – all 2,735 births – less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Now consider this:
If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That’s right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy – the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).
I mean, it’s bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the ObamaCare scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I would never agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I’m subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.
Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer. $48 is something I could could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.
Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what ObamaCare is really about?
ObamaCare is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That’s just the cover story. The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? ObamaCare is about enabling, subsidizing, and expanding the Left’s political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I’m saving?
And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply.
ObamaCare: It’s all about political power.
» January 29th, 2015
Every two years the Legislature begins the process of considering legislation for the new session. Over 5000 bills have been filed and legislators have until Monday, February 2 to cosponsor these bills. Here is an update on new legislation that has been proposed regarding the Common Core Standards and PARCC testing. Please contact your local legislators and encourage them to consider supporting the following bills.
1.HD 3311 An Act Relative to Pausing PARCC ~ Rep Keiko Orrall (R)
Current Co-sponsors, Kim Ferguson, Susan Williams Gifford, Tim Whalen, Colleen Garry, Michael Moore, James Dwyer, Steven Howitt, Susannah Whipps Lee, Shawn Dooley
Summary: Pauses the implementation of the Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) test until the department of elementary and secondary education provides an assessment of the costs including but not limited to the department, the costs to the board of elementary and secondary education, and the costs to each individual school district in the commonwealth to develop and implement the PARCC; professional development associated with PARCC; and any equipment, hardware, software, or technology upgrades needed for compliance with PARCC; and any additional costs associated with data mapping of students in the commonwealth, as well as the administrative costs required to collect, maintain and protect the confidentiality of such data collection.
2.HD2040 An Act Relative to IT Upgrade Reimbursements for PARCC Compliance ~ Rep Keiko Orrall (R)
Current Co-sponsors: Kim Ferguson, Susan Williams Gifford, Tim Whalen, Colleen Garry, Michael Moore, James Dwyer, James Eldridge, Steven Howitt, Leonard Mirra, Shawn Dooley
Summary: Reimburses all schools for expenditures incurred during the previous fiscal year for upgrading informational technology hardware, software and training for compliance with the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) assessment.
3.HD1990 An Act relative to the Common Core Opt Out for School Districts
~ Rep Paul Frost (R) & Rep Keiko Orrall (R)
Summary: This bill prevents the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from mandating that any school district in the Commonwealth follow the curriculum standards offered by Common Core State Standards. This bill also allows school districts to exempt themselves from the standardized exam known as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC).
4.HD2404 An act relative to a PARCC Workgroup ~ Rep Brad Jones (R)
Current Co-Sponsors Keiko M. Orrall, Elizabeth A. Poirier, Sheila Harrington
Summary: This legislation would create a working group to study the rigor of the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying PARCC tests. Maryland has enacted a similar working group to look at its state standards.
5.HD1471 An Act relative to a moratorium on high stakes testing and PARCC ~ Rep Marjorie Decker (D) MTA Sponsored
Current Co-Sponsors Keiko M. Orrall, Kathleen O’Connor Ives, James J. Dwyer, Denise Provost, Elizabeth A. Poirier, Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr., Joseph McKenna, Colleen Garry, Josh Cutler, James Eldridge, Paul Mark, Aaron Vega, Mary Keefe
Summary: This bill places a 3-year moratorium on PARCC and the use of high-stakes testing for 10th grade graduation, teacher evaluation, and school labeling. While MCAS may continue to be administered, it calls for a break in using MCAS as a graduation requirement, while a broad-based commission of stakeholders study the impact.
6.HD2564 An Act relative to parental opt-out of PARCC ~ Rep Donald Berthiaume (R)
Summary: Parents or guardians of students enrolled in Massachusetts public schools shall be afforded the authority to exempt their children from the standardized exam known as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) without penalty.
7.HD 772 An Act relative to education standards ~ Rep Todd Smola (R)
Summary: Nullifies the 2010 vote of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopting national education standards; i.e. the Common Core standards in English language arts and mathematics. In addition, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education shall conduct an examination of academic standards and then update and revise the existing frameworks and MCAS assessment. As part of the examination process, the governor shall appoint a special commission to be chaired by the lieutenant governor and whose members will consist of educators, teachers, administrators, school committee members, parents of students, and concerned citizens. That commission shall provide input and assist DESE in developing new standards that shall be submitted to the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for final approval and adoption.
Thank you again for your efforts on this issue. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.