Bill would require legislative approval for major changes to state academic standards; witnesses split on process and timeline

House Bill 5364, sponsored by Representative Johnson, would amend the revised school code to require that material revisions to the State Board of Education's recommended model core academic curriculum content standards take effect only after approval by concurrent resolution of both the Michigan House and Senate.

Supporters — including former federal magistrate William Wagner and attorney David Coleman — framed the bill as a governance and accountability measure that protects separation of powers and democratic oversight. Wagner said conditioning the "statewide operative effect" of revised standards on legislative action is "consistent with separation of powers" and argued the legislature has authority to define when recommendations become binding. Coleman cited case law (Strauss v. Governor; Snyder v. Charlotte Public Schools) to argue legislative authority over curriculum standards is established and amending MCL 380.1278 is within the legislature's oversight powers.

Several committee members pressed witnesses about the absence of a statutory timeline for legislative action, asking what would happen if the legislature delayed consideration. Representative Burns noted the bill does not set a deadline; witnesses acknowledged timelines could be added and discussed mechanisms such as JCAR's session‑day windows but did not propose specific statutory language in the hearing.

Public testimony split. Elaine McNeil of Citizens for Traditional Values supported the bill as "good governance," warned that curriculum changes can cost districts hundreds of thousands of dollars and urged robust public input. Kristen Lee (Michigan education director, Citizens Defending Freedom), testifying virtually, urged passage to "prevent trends of the day from creeping into education" and stressed accountability to elected legislators. Committee staff read written positions into the record showing additional opposition: the Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators, the Michigan Department of Education, and the ACLU of Michigan were listed as opposing the bill.

Witnesses and members agreed the proposal is procedural; several cautioned it may produce litigation either way, and some members emphasized the State Board of Education's constitutional duties and nondiscrimination language in Article 8. No committee vote was recorded on HB 5364 during this hearing; the committee adjourned after hearing testimony and public comment.