Gov. Bobby Jindal sought Wednesday to derail Louisiana’s use of standardized tests tied to the Common Core education standards, but state education leaders say the governor’s executive order is meaningless.
The Republican governor opposes the English and math standards adopted by most states as an attempted federal takeover of education, and he said he’s committed to stopping Louisiana’s participation in the Common Core.
“Common Core’s become a one-size-fits-all model that simply doesn’t make sense for our state,” Jindal said at a news conference.
Both state lawmakers and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education have voted in support of the standards. Jindal’s executive authority is limited, so he sought to strike at testing from the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career that is linked to the standards as a backdoor way to get Louisiana out of Common Core. He also says he’ll ask lawmakers next year to revisit the standards.
Among a series of anti-Common Core actions announced Wednesday, the governor put out an executive order requiring a competitive bid process for public school standardized tests.
The Department of Education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education planned to use Common Core-related testing for students in third- through eighth-grades, but the tests haven’t yet been purchased for the upcoming school year. Jindal said the tests in question appear to be most expensive available, so he’s confident they couldn’t be chosen in competitive bidding for standardized tests.
But Superintendent of Education John White and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Chairman Chas Roemer say the governor’s executive order won’t change the roll-out of Common Core in classrooms or the use of the PARCC test.
White said his department can buy test questions under an existing contract with an outside vendor. The Jindal administration disagrees.
“We’re planning on going ahead and implementing the plan that’s in accordance with state law and with what we’ve been doing for four years,” White said.
Where the dispute heads next is unclear.
Jindal’s office didn’t immediately say whether the governor would consider taking state educations officials to court over the testing, to try to stop the use of PARCC.
Gov. Bobby Jindal signed two bills into law Friday (May 23) that will expand gun rights for Louisiana residents after they received overwhelming support from the state Legislature. The new statutes will go into effect Aug. 1.
The more sweeping of the two gun rights measures will allow people with concealed handgun permits to carry their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol, but make most of their money from food sales.
Present law does not allow citizens to carry guns into establishments that serve alcohol. And while people with concealed handgun permits will be able to go into a restaurant serving alcohol soon, they still wouldn’t be able to drink alcohol while packing heat.
The soon-to-be law also gives current and retired law enforcement officers as well as district attorneys and judges even more flexibility than the general public when it comes to concealed weapons. Those in law enforcement would be allowed to carry guns into bars, though they also couldn’t drink while carrying a weapon.
In present law, law enforcement officers are only allowed to have their guns in a bar if they are acting in an official capacity. Even under the new law, local sheriffs will still be able to prohibit their own officers from carrying guns into bars if they didn’t think it was a good idea.
The second bill signed by Jindal will expand the “stand your ground” law in Louisiana. Under current law, a person who kills an intruder coming into his car or house is given the benefit of the doubt and can use self-defense as a lawful reason for the killing. But the same self-defense argument could not be legally applied to situations where a person hurt, but didn’t kill, the intruder.
Metairie Rep. Joe Lopinto, the sponsor of the legislation, said he wanted to close that loophole. People who end up harming – but not killing – an intruder or a carjacker should not be charged with murder if those who kill those people don’t face those consequences, he said.
“Stand your ground” laws are controversial, particularly after it was thought Florida resident George Zimmerman would use such a statute to defend his high-profile shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin.
There has also been a controversial “stand your ground” case in New Orleans, where a 33-year-old Marigny homeowner shot an unarmed 14-year-old. Lopinto said his legislation would not apply to this particular case because the shooting took place outdoors.
In an unusual move for Louisiana, the Legislature and Jindal have agreed to enact one new gun restriction. Domestic abusers under a legal protective order will be prevented from owning a gun for 10 years under a new law that will go into effect Aug. 1.
The National Rifle Association – which usually fights gun restrictions – remained neutral on the domestic abuser provision, which is probably one of the reasons the pro-gun Legislature and Jindal agreed to pass it.
When presenting the restriction, state Sen. J.P. Morrell said Louisiana has a particularly high rate of fatalities related to domestic abuse. ”We lead the nation in spouses murdering spouses with firearms,” he said.
MARY KATHARINE HAM
……………………….Click on image above to watch video.
CPAC is hosted by the American Conservative Union.
Obama first delivered a pitch for the creation of jobs by fixing roads, dredging ports and modernizing the U.S. air traffic control system.
Then he took a veiled jab at Jindal for failing to support a key plank of the healthcare law.
Louisiana is one of 24 states that has refused federal funds to expand Medicaid to more low-income people, money that Obama said would help 265,000 people in the state gain access to health insurance.
“Even if you don’t support the overall plan, let’s at least go ahead and make sure that the folks who don’t have health insurance right now and can get it through an expanded Medicaid, let’s make sure we do that,” Obama said.
That opened the door for Jindal to accuse Obama of trying to “bully” the state.
“We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare,” Jindal said in a statement, saying the expansion would cost the state too much.
“The dysfunction of the website and the president’s broken promises on being able to keep your health plan are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the problems with this law,” Jindal said.
Good for Jindal
…GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL
…SENATOR MARCO RUBIO
…GOVERNOR RICK SCOTT
…GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
…SENATOR TED CRUZ
…COMMENTATOR BILL WHITTLE
…SENATOR RON JOHNSON
…COMMENTATOR GREG GUTFELD
…CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN
…NRA EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT WAYNE LAPIERRE
…FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM
…CONGRESSMAN STEVE SCALISE
…LOUISIANNA GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL
…CITIZENS UNITED PRESIDENT DAVID BOSSIE
…………Note: more videos to be posted as they become available.
…………………..Click HERE to watch highlights from Day 1.
…………………..Click HERE to watch highlights from Day 3.
Gov. Bobby Jindal’s voucher program that uses tax dollars to send students to private schools was ruled unconstitutional Friday by a state judge who said it’s improperly funded through the public school financing formula.
Judge Tim Kelley sided with arguments presented by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.
More than 4,900 students are enrolled in 117 private schools with taxpayer dollars, in one of the largest voucher programs in the nation.
The judge said the method the Jindal administration, state education leaders and lawmakers used to pay for the voucher program violates state constitutional provisions governing the annual education funding formula, called the Minimum Foundation Program or MFP.
“The MFP was set up for students attending public elementary and secondary schools and was never meant to be diverted to private educational providers,” Kelley wrote in a 39-page ruling.
Superintendent of Education John White and Jindal said the state will appeal.
Jindal called the judge’s ruling “a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education.”
“On behalf of the citizens that cast their votes for reform, the parents who want more choices, and the kids who deserve a chance, we will appeal today’s decision, and I’m confident we will prevail,” the governor said in a statement.
Bill Maurer, a lawyer representing two parents with children in the voucher program and two pro-voucher groups, said he believes the decision is “not consistent with the interpretation of the Louisiana Constitution.”
Maurer said he didn’t expect Kelley’s ruling to immediately force voucher students from their private schools, because Kelley didn’t issue an injunction against the program.
It was the second legal setback this week for the voucher program that Jindal pushed through the Legislature this year as part of a sweeping education system overhaul. On Monday, a federal judge halted the voucher program in one Louisiana parish, saying it conflicts with a decades-old desegregation case.
“The political rhetoric of ‘pro-reform’ vs. ‘anti-reform’ hopefully is over,” said Scott Richard, head of the Louisiana School Boards Association. “We’re not anti-reform. We just want the political shell game to stop with public funding for public education.”
To which I can only say MAYBE? No, definitely! I think Ryan IS the best choice, nosing out Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. I really only have one issue with Ryan as VP, and that is I would prefer a Ryan/Romney ticket, but, that is neither here nor there. Yes, I know, the GOP “insiders” and establishment types would say Ryan is too radical as the Wall Street Journal points out
Too risky, goes the Beltway chorus. His selection would make Medicare and the House budget the issue, not the economy. The 42-year-old is too young, too wonky, too, you know, serious. Beneath it all you can hear the murmurs of the ultimate Washington insult—that Mr. Ryan is too dangerous because he thinks politics is about things that matter. That dude really believes in something, and we certainly can’t have that.
All of which highly recommend him for the job.
Very solid points, and, I must be totally honest, I think the old establishment line that goes “you have to win elections first…” is true. The problem is that the establishment too seldom follows through AFTER winning elections. Ryan is exactly the type of politician we need. A politician that actually walks the walk while he is talking the talk. That is also why I really like some other Republicans Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint to name a few they are GENUINE! They are less political than principled!
One more point here. I keep hearing that Mitt needs to pick Kelly Ayotte, or Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio, or maybe Condi Rice because it would send the “message”. The “message”, of course is that the GOP is diverse, big tent, open to change, and blah, blah, blah. The sad truth is if the GOP nominated two minorities for the next ten elections, and if half the GOP members of Congress were something other than White guys, the Democrats would still say the GOP was a party of bigoted old White men. Maybe the Beltway folks have not noticed that the Left lies, a lot! Maybe they have missed the rantings of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and others? Maybe they have missed the vilest of attack ads on Romney?
And, yes, I must admit to another reason for wanting Mitt to pick Ryan, watching Ryan debate Joe Biden? GOLD!
So, Mitt, take my advice, PICK RYAN!
I have been silent on Mitt’s choice for VP. I have also been very hopeful the pick will prove to be Paul Ryan. I think he would be far and away the best possible choice. And can you imagine him debating Biden? A certain other blogger, named McCain, is in agreement with me, which, of course makes him right! Stacy lays out his reasons, and makes some fine points, and yes, like me, he does not really think Pawlenty would be a great pick
There is no time now to fully explain the emergency nature of this post, but let me quickly make three points:
- My hatred of media “veepstakes” speculation is well-known. When I turn on the TV and see a bunch of pundits talking about who might get the vice-presidential nomination, I turn the channel. It’s a bunch of useless noise, and I can’t stand to watch it. Nevertheless, a sudden crisis makes it imperative that I speak out.
- My first choice — and what I think was the most obvious choice — was Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. However, the word among Republican sources is that there were problems with Rubio in terms of vetting. Loath as I am to repeat this, I’ve heard talk that because Rubio is the son of immigrants, there is concern that this might cost Republicans the “Birther” vote. Crazy? Yeah. But whatever the basis for the objections, the general belief is that there is indeed some sort of vetting issue. And so the smart money says that, although Rubio is still officially on the “short list,” he’s unlikely to be the final choice.
- The emergency? Two words: Tim Pawlenty.
Friday night, I was talking to some top activists at the AFP summit and one of them assured me that the word among Minnesota Republicans is that T-Paw is at the top of Romney’s VP list, all but guaranteed to be the running mate. Do I have to explain why this shocked me?
So shocked was I, in fact, that I refused to believe it. Certainly, the smart guys at Team Mitt could see the obvious arguments against T-Paw. But then Saturday, I talked to some well-informed D.C.-based operatives and they, too, said they’d heard that Pawlenty was top of the list.
Now I was truly concerned. Dear God, not T-Paw!
Driving home, this worry weighed heavily on my thoughts, and so I called a well-connected and experienced conservative journalist to talk about it — and he’d heard the same basic thing: Pawlenty might already have the VP spot locked up, said my friend, who happens to be a supporter of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. According to my friend, the word is that T-Paw is at the top of the list, with Ohio Sen. Rob Portman the nearest rival. And this is even worse news. While I like Portman OK, he’s a Bush guy, and we don’t need any ghosts of the Bush administration haunting the GOP in 2012.
So if Rubio has been more or less eliminated from consideration, as my sources suggest, we’ve got to do something to stop this crazy talk about a Romney-Pawlenty ticket. You can’t beat somebody with nobody, and of the remaining guys on the short list, Paul Ryan is the obvious pick.
He’s an Irish Catholic from the Midwest, a hero of deficit hawks, young and handsome, and pre-approved by Bill Kristol, who deems Ryan “the Republican party’s intellectual leader.”
So, there you are Mitt, take it from me, and that Other McCain guy. Say now to Pawlenty, and Portman and yes to Ryan
I must admit that I am concerned that the GOP is going to find a way to lose in November. It is not that I doubt that Santorum, Romney or Gingrich are FAR better choices than Obama. All three clearly are, it is not that at all. It is that I can see any of those three losing to Obama.
Santorum? Boring, and yes, he appeals to the Social Conservatives, but, I do fear that his Achilles heel will be some of his past statements would be used effectively to turn off the middle of the road voters.
Newt? Sure, is debates performances have been good, and he has had lots of applause lines, but man his baggage will hurt. He is very polarizing, and comes across as an arrogant ass at times. Lots of positives but lots of negatives too.
Mitt? He will be class warfared to death, and face it he does NOTHING to excite the base, and YES, that does matter, no matter what the establishment types tell us.
Sm, I can see an election where Obama will have a good chance to win re-election, and that is a depressing thought. As she often has during this primary madness, Jill expresses the same anger at the shallowness of voters, and the idiotic manner in which we choose a nominee!
But it’s impossible to compare the process of electing a president now to what it was two centuries ago, or even to fifty years ago when television changed everything. Huge piles of money are now crucial to success, and media scrutiny is so intense that not many persons, even great ones, are willing to subject themselves or their families to its pitiless glare.
Now for a bit of dead-horse-beating. As for the might-have-runs who chose not to offer themselves as candidates this time around, none of them had the complete Rick Perry package: genuine conservative principles, a long record of successful leadership, and a temperament suited to the office. And none of them was without his own negatives. To name a few: Mitch Daniels: “truce,” bald, family problems; Bobby Jindal: dull; Chris Christie: too fat, RINO-esque, arrogant; even Paul Ryan: inexperienced. And who knows how the fickle at-home viewers would have rated their debate performances? Perry’s notorious oops (and the resultant disproportionate, magnifying spin) was the biggest factor in his failure to attract support. Amid all the attention, little serious discussion was given to what kind of president he was likely to have been, based on his extensive record. His flop was an enormous win for Obama.
Now we’re looking at a couple of guys with towering negatives, some of which may constitute deal-breakers for some conservative voters. Come November and beyond, when this American Idol-esque nomination process has borne its strange fruit, Perry’s “oops” may look very tiny in comparison to the one uttered by the rest of us.
And for anyone who is going to throw down the “that is how politics works” line, let me say this. That may be true, and if we just continue to accept it two thing swill happen. Substance will cease to matter at all. Accomplishments? We will overlook them, because “gaffes” are so much more important somehow. And, God help us, once substance and records no longer matter, America will simply fade away.
So, if you wish to defend this madness as worthwhile, spare me. If you wish to defend this intellectual bankruptcy, then you are a big part of what is wrong with this nation frankly. So do not come bitching to me or anyone else if Newt or Mitt are beaten in November. Go look in the mirror. And please, no one tell me, that we need a “solid Conservative” with principles. That is pure, grade A BULLSHIT frankly! We had that, and we rejected him.
Why is it that Conservatives so often want what they want, until we get it, then, we forget what we were wanting! I tell you, I seriously wonder if Reagan could get nominated today. I am sure that we would find enough superficial, stupid reasons to dismiss him too.
Lots of great things I like about a possible Perry run no doubt. While I fully am endorsing Herman Cain, I think Perry would also be a fine president, and maybe the guy to please both the establishment AND the Conservative base too?
Consider what Perry would bring to the race:
Jobs. Perry has already transformed Texas into the largest job incubator in the nation at a time when President Obama and the Democrats are being blamed for failing to reduce near-record level joblessness. Perry has offered special tax breaks to companies willing to relocate and open production facilities in his state — and they’ve responded in droves. Other GOP candidates — like the recently departed Daniels — can boast a track record tackling the deficit. But none has Perry’s standing on jobs.
Obamacare. Perry has been a steadfast critic of Obamacare and has refused to entertain compromises of the kind that may well doom the candidacies of Gingrich and Mitt Romney. And unlike two other Southern governors, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Nathan Deal in Georgia, who’ve tried to hedge their bets politically, Perry has discouraged Texas legislators from even introducing legislation to support a state-based Obamacare health benefits exchange. Perry’s tough position will place him squarely in the conservative Tea Party camp, alongside of Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty.
Social issues. Unlike Mitch Daniels, who alienated the GOP base months ago by insisting on a “truce” on social issues, Perry is also a tried and true social conservative who remains an outspoken opponent of abortion. He just signed into law a measure that requires women seeking abortions to agree to a sonogram, as well as a vehicle license plate bill giving Texas motorists the option of promoting a “pro-life” message. These highly symbolic moves will resonate with evangelical voters and could allow Perry to run strongly in the South and in the Iowa caucuses, where the race, post-Huckabee, is wide open.
The border. Perry is a border hawk, but he’s managed to craft a nuanced position that allows him to draw in a wide range of political constituencies. Unlike much of the GOP, he opposes an Arizona-style crackdown law, saying it’s not needed in Texas. He’s also criticized the U.S.-Mexico border fence, which many conservative landowners with affected properties along the border also oppose. Instead, Perry advocates stepped-up use of the National Guard and border patrol agents, as well as the introduction of Predator drones to maintain better surveillance of illegal immigrants and drug gangs. He opposes Obama’s “amnesty” plan, including the more limited DREAM Act.
Lots more at the link, like Perry’s charisma and his popularity among Hispanic voters, and the Palin Factor. Perry would certainly receive Palin’s support, and he is popular with The Tea Party folks, and might just be a guy to unite the party, and I think would dismantle Obama in debates.
Jindal 2012? Folks watch this video from Gateway Pundit and tell me he doesn’t get it! Governor Jindal GETS IT!
I have to say, I like Jindal, a lot, and here are some videos from him, and a GREAT QUOTE! Via The BlogProf!
“We used to pay farmers not to grow crops, let’s pay congressmen to stay out of Washington, D.C.,” Jindal said in an interview with Human Events. “Mark Twain said that our liberty, our wallets were safest when the legislature’s not in session.”
Jindal, himself a former congressman, said once elected, many lawmakers become entrenched in Washington and become the very people they once campaigned against.
“Make them part-time, give them term limits,” Jindal said. “Don’t let them become lobbyists. When they have to live under the same rules and laws they pass for the rest of us, maybe you’d see some more common sense coming out of Washington, D.C.”
Amen to that! This is a good, solid message that we need to hear from our next president, whoever that is! I believe we are seeing the development of a very good Republican slate of candidates. Not all will run in 2012, but any of these are FAR better than President Obama! And NO, I do not include Huckaphoney, who is, as I have said before, a used car salesman in a better suit!
Mitt Romney, Sarah Plain, Jim DeMint, Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, to name a few.
And be sure to scope the videos at the link!
Because, apparently, our president needs a lesson in how to stand up to a crisis, Michelle offers up Governor Jindal
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said the state will not waiting for federal approval to begin building sand barriers to protect the coastline from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
Oil has pushed at least 12 miles into Louisiana’s marshes, with two major pelican rookeries awash in crude.
Gov. Jindal was critical of the amount of boom his state received to ward off the oil seeping toward the coastline. But his major gripe comes at the expense of the Army Corps of Engineers, who have yet to give the go-ahead for the building of sand booms to protect the Louisiana wetlands. He used photographic evidence of oil breaking through hard booms, soft booms and another layer of protection, before being finally being corralled by a sand boom built by the National Guard.
“It is so much better for us. We don’t want oil on one inch of Louisiana’s coastline, but we’d much rather fight this oil off of a hard coast, off of an island, off of an island, off of a sandy beach on our coastal islands, rather than having to fight it inside in these wetlands,” Gov. Jindal said, making the case for sand booms.
The governor said he has been forced to protect Louisiana without the approval of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is weighing the ecological impact of the construction of more sand booms.
“We are not waiting for them. We are going to build it,” Jindal said.
There, you see Mr. President, it can be done, you can do it to, maybe a catchy slogan would help you out? Hmmm, how about this, just keep teling yourself “yes we can”. Yeah! I like that!