BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has unveiled proposals for educational reform that rely heavily on the ideas and policy prescriptions that have made the Pelican State governor a hero to parents who oppose Common Core, a system of national standards in education.

Jindal’s 42-page “K-12 Education Reform Road Map” — released Feb. 9 at a Washington breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor newspaper — is an ambitious plan that helps define him if he seeks the GOP’s nomination for the presidency. The proposal also puts Jindal at odds with another Republican with presidential aspirations, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is a staunch supporter of Common Core.

Jindal initially supported Common Core but reversed himself, and he has gone so far as to sue the federal government for what the Louisiana governor argues is illegally using financial incentives to force states to join Common Core. The road map calls for the “repeal” of Common Core.

“It’s bad enough that the federal government has begun tying compliance with Common Core to federal funds, but once you see the methods and the homework that accompanies Common Core,” the plan states, “the verdict is in: Common Core must go.”

Catholics are likely to pay particular attention to Common Core since the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Education issued a document last year entitled “Common Core Standards FAQs” that addressed the “growing concerns” about the applicability of the Common Core State Standards in Catholic schools. While leaving the actual decision of whether to adapt Common Core to diocesan authorities, the bishops stressed, “[The Common Core system of standards] is of its nature incomplete as it pertains to the Catholic school.”

Anna Arthurs, a founder of Louisiana Catholics for Excellence in Education, which opposes Common Core, praised the sections of the “road map” dealing with the Common Core. “Gov. Jindal sees the true picture. He sees the complaints of grassroots organizations and parents,” said Arthurs, a Thibodaux, La., doctor and mother of four.

Although opposition to Common Core is an important feature of the Jindal plan, it is not the only element. The Jindal proposal rests on the principles of parental choice, limited role of government and more freedom for onsite educators to make decisions. Jindal would reduce the role of the federal Department of Education, but the plan does not call for abolishing it.

Parental choice — “principle one” of the Jindal plan — includes a call for ending “zip-code assignments” of schools, which often cheat low-income children by placing them in underperforming schools. The mechanism for accomplishing this goal is allowing the “dollars to follow the child.” Under the Jindal plan, a child’s education money is divisible and could even be spent on online courses or home-schooling needs if that is what the parents want. The plan also calls for abolishing the caps on the number of charter schools allowed in a district. 

Sure to bring forth controversy is the part of the plan dealing with tenure reform. It would be easier for schools to “put on notice” and ultimately fire underperforming teachers. Even more drastic, the Jindal plan would abolish state and federal teacher-certification regulations.

The Jindal proposal describes current teacher-certification requirements as setting up a “monopoly” that gives unions too much say in determining who gets to become a teacher. While ending teacher certification, the “road map” would also require more rigorous academic standards for those seeking to become teachers. 

As expected, it is the portion of the “road map” devoted to Common Core that has occasioned the most comment. 

Michael Brickman, national policy director at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit that has supported Common Core, sees the Jindal “road map” as mixed.

“On the one hand, there is some good discussion of issues such as school choice,” Brickman said, “but ... his comments on Common Core are inconsistent.” Brickman said that the call for repeal of Common Core “doesn’t make sense,” because, though states have adopted it, there is no national law to repeal. He also said that saying states have more authority and then saying that they don’t have the authority to adopt Common Core is inconsistent.

A spokesman for the State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), a Tennessee organization whose chairman is former Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist, also questioned the proposal’s critique of Common Core. 

“The report that Gov. Jindal issued calls for states to have greater flexibility, and SCORE would agree with that,” said spokeswoman Teresa Wasson. But, she added, “We find that, with Common Core in Tennessee, teachers talk about having more flexibility, and the state has great flexibility to do what is best for our students.”

“States can choose to adopt Common Core, as Tennessee and Louisiana did, or not adopt Common Core, as Virginia did,” Wasson said. “Ultimately, what most states and educators want to do is be able to make decisions about what is best for their students. In Tennessee, raising academic standards has helped this state rise from the bottom for student achievement to become the state that is improving the fastest.”

While Wasson believes that the sates have latitude to decide about Common Core, Michael McShane, an education research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, likes the Jindal plan because he believes it would provide stronger protections against federal incursions.

“It makes very clear that the federal government has zero role in advocating for or encouraging states to adopt Common Core,” McShane said. “Comparing this plan to what’s on the books, it’s a step in the right direction. It seems to have a more realistic attitude towards what the federal government can do.”

Sandra Stotsky is credited with having been key in creating much-admired K-12 standards for the state of Massachusetts. Stotsky was invited to become a member of the national Common Core Validation Committee. But upon examining Common Core, Stotsky became one of its leading critics. She finds much to like in the Jindal plan but said that it is not fully worked out in parts.

“He wants more choice for parents, and that is a good idea,” said Stotsky. “It’s good to say that you want parents to have more choice, with the money following the child.” But Stotsky said that, currently, mandates often follow the child and the voucher into a school, forcing a private school to adopt government standards to take voucher money. Stotsky said that language specifically prohibiting mandates on schools that take voucher money is necessary.

The Jindal plan in its current form doesn’t address this. “I don’t think he has played chess this far,” said Stotsky. “But if you don’t do that, what is the use of moving your child to a new school if the whole school becomes subject to government mandates because of this? You have to have a prohibition.” Stotsky likes the idea of abolishing teacher certification — as long as teachers are required to take a test measuring mastery of their subjects. Stotsky said that Jindal is “onto the right idea” but that he neglected to include a test on subject matter.

While there are details yet to be worked out, Jindal already seems to have in mind a constituency for his road map: parents opposed to Common Core. When in Washington last week promoting his plan, the governor referred admiringly to “pesky” parents who don’t like Common Core and told the Heritage Foundation’s The Daily Signal, “I wouldn’t bet against them.”

No doubt, Jindal hopes that they will bet on his educational plans — and perhaps on him for higher office.

Register correspondent Charlotte Hays writes from Washington.