House committee hears testimony on bill requiring legislative approval for major academic-standard changes

The House Education and Workforce Committee took testimony on House Bill 53 64 (HB 5364), a measure that would require both the Michigan House and Senate to approve material revisions to the state's model core academic standards by concurrent resolution before those revisions could be implemented statewide. Representative Johnson, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure is a modest check that preserves the State Board of Education's role in recommending standards while ensuring "democratic legitimacy" when standards have de facto binding effect on schools.

William Wagner, a former federal magistrate judge and president emeritus of Salt and Light Global, framed the bill as a separation-of-powers and governance reform, arguing the legislature has authority under Articles 4 and 8 of the Michigan Constitution to determine when recommended standards should carry statewide legal force. Wagner told the committee that "legislative oversight by the people's representatives would be the best way" to ensure accountability.

Attorney David Coleman (Coleman Legal Group, Great Lakes Justice Center) agreed, citing case law including Strauss v. Governor and Snyder v. Charlotte Public Schools and saying amending MCL 380.1278 to require legislative approval would be consistent with established legislative practices for administrative actions. Coleman said the legislation "is within your legislative oversight authority."

Committee members pressed witnesses on how the process would operate in practice. Representative Burns asked whether the bill sets a deadline for legislative action; witnesses acknowledged the bill contains no timeline and suggested using JCAR's roughly 15 session-day review window as a potential model to avoid leaving revisions in limbo. Representative Colazar raised concerns that redefining the state board's operative role could prompt litigation; witnesses said litigation is possible under either the status quo or the proposed change but argued that clearer legislative involvement could reduce legal uncertainty.

Questions about religious instruction surfaced during the hearing. Representative Fax asked whether the bill would permit religious or discriminatory instruction; witnesses repeatedly said the measure is a governance change, not a directive about curriculum content, and pointed to constitutional protections that prohibit discrimination in public schools.

Public witnesses included Elaine McNeil (Citizens for Traditional Values), who supported the bill and noted that curriculum changes can create significant local costs — "hundreds of thousands" of dollars for some districts, she said — and Kristen Lee (Michigan education director, Citizens Defending Freedom), who urged the committee to "strongly urge" passage to keep schools focused on "core academics, not ideology or cultural trends." Several organizations filed written positions: Michigan Forward Network (support), Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators (oppose), Michigan Department of Education (oppose), and ACLU of Michigan (oppose).

No committee vote on HB 5364 occurred at this meeting. The committee completed additional housekeeping motions (adopting the Dec. 15 minutes and excusing absent members) and adjourned. If advanced, the bill would create a new legislative step for implementing major revisions to recommended model core academic standards; committee members discussed but did not adopt a specific timeline for legislative action.