Ending Common Core and Expanding School Choice Act This bill revises requirements related to federal education funding for disadvantaged children. Specifically, the bill (1) eliminates the standards, assessments, and academic accountability requirements for state and local educational agencies that receive federal funds for the education of disadvantaged children; (2) requires such funds to be allocated based on the number of children residing in each state who are living in poverty; and (3) allows educational agencies to distribute per-pupil amounts from such funds to parents for qualified elementary and secondary education expenses. The bill prohibits federal officers or employees from mandating academic standards, assessments, curricula, or accountability systems.
If passed, HB 65 would fundamentally alter the distribution of federal education funds, enabling money to 'follow' eligible low-income students to various educational institutions, including public schools, charter schools, and accredited private schools. By permitting states to allocate these funds directly to parents for educational expenses, the bill aims to empower families in choosing the education that best serves their children. This means that parents of disadvantaged children could have increased flexibility in deciding how to spend their education dollars, potentially leading to a broader array of educational options.
House Bill 65, known as the 'Ending Common Core and Expanding School Choice Act', proposes significant changes to federal education funding aimed at disadvantaged children. The primary focus of the bill is to eliminate academic standards, assessments, and accountability requirements that are currently mandated for state and local educational agencies receiving federal funds. By doing so, the bill seeks to give states more control over their education systems and allows federal education funds for disadvantaged children to be allocated based on poverty levels within states rather than following fixed federal standards.
The elimination of requirements surrounding Common Core standards in the bill has sparked considerable debate. Proponents argue that such flexibility fosters innovation in education and encourages a diverse range of educational models tailored to local needs. On the flip side, opponents fear that the lack of standardized benchmarks may result in disparities in education quality across states, particularly harming children in already under-resourced areas. There are also concerns regarding accountability in how funds are utilized when given directly to parents without federal oversight, as well as potential implications for the quality of education nationwide if a variety of standards emerge.