Conference committee moves SB 381 into shell, debates civics test format and accommodations

A legislative conference committee agreed to place Senate Bill 381 into shell bill 2412 on procedural grounds and spent most of the meeting debating how a proposed civics test for graduation should be structured and administered.

A Senate lawmaker opened the session by proposing that "we propose putting 381 in 2412," a procedural move both chambers said they would accept. The same lawmaker said the Senate wanted to remove references to "elementary" grades from the bill and restore language making the requirement a civics test "that it's the civics test and the national standard of pass rate."

A House lawmaker said the House had discussed the issue outside the room and was "agreeable," but stressed that, if the committee modeled the exam on the national naturalization test, statutory language and ensuing regulations should preserve accommodations such as language options for newcomers. "In the national test, if you want, the test in a different language, you can have that," the House lawmaker said, noting classroom realities for students who arrive late in their education.

A legislative reviser briefed the committee on the federal model: "That test is a test of 20 questions that are not multiple choice from a test bank of a 120 questions with 12 correct answers being required for passage," the reviser said, summarizing the naturalization civics test parameters and explaining that statutory silence on administration (oral versus written) would leave the choice to local districts unless the law requires otherwise.

The Senate originally proposed language requiring a longer exam. Reading from the earlier Senate draft, a Senate lawmaker said, "The examination required by this subsection shall consist of a 100 questions that are substantially similar to the questions administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to applicants for United States citizenship through naturalization." That draft also included provisions on accommodations and a clause saying a governing school board or district would establish the passing score for any such model examination.

Not all members supported the 100-question approach. "I would be concerned that we are having a higher standard for our own citizens and those going through the naturalization process," said Senator Sykes, noting that the current naturalization practice draws 20 questions from a larger pool and requires 12 correct answers. Another committee member said a 100-question requirement could produce inconsistency across districts and suggested adopting the 20-question model to strike a balance between uniform standards and local flexibility.

Committee members also debated who would select the items and how the exam would be administered. The reviser said the bill's language could direct the State Board of Education to provide a model exam, and absent such a model requirement, it would be up to individual districts to decide whether the exam is oral or written and which items to use. One lawmaker noted districts could choose to reuse the same 20 questions for retakes, while others said mirroring the federal randomized selection would better replicate the national approach.

The committee did not finalize those drafting choices and recessed to caucus for further discussion. The chair said members would return after reviewing four reports and that the conference committee would need to resume to complete its work.

Next steps: the committee agreed to place SB 381 in shell 2412 and will reconvene after caucus to resolve outstanding questions about question count, question selection, administration (oral vs. written), and explicit accommodations in the bill language.