CCCSS Government Relations Committee
August 29, 2015
Meeting Notes
Members Present: Jim Hill (Chair), Cricket F.L. Kidwell (Vice-Chair), Fred Jones (Legislative
Analyst/Committee Member), Stacey Greer (CDE Liaison/Committee Member), Avi Black,
Katherine Rand;
I.
Martha’s goals: L-CAP, Increase membership, and Social Media and technology
expansion;
It was noted that the tasks determined by this committee align with Martha’s
goals.
II.
Legislative Update (Fred Jones):
a. Frameworks adoption – This is still a work in progress as the sub-committee
continues to review previous comments and the next draft version for the second
round of comments is not yet available. The target date for posting will be in
October; (See Stacey Greer’s Liaison Report);
b. AB740 (standards revision process) is now a 2 year bill and the legislature will
return to discussing this in January;
c. Ethnic studies bill is pending and there is interest in the legislative committees;
d. The LCAP process remains a critical focus for funding priorities to be established
that support and promote social studies;
III.
CDE Update (Stacey Greer)
a. October 8-9 IQC meeting to review chapters (check CDE website for
confirmation of the two day meeting);
b. CDE is also attempting to focus on Global Education and preparing students for
the 21st century with social science (econ, geography, civic education, foreign
language, etc.) in a more cohesive set of curriculum goals;
IV.
Committee Membership
Jim announced his gradual withdrawal as Chair of the committee with Cricket
assuming some of the chair tasks over the next year or so. Jim will be working with
Cricket in a shared chairmanship of the committee and he will still analyze the SBE
agendas and minutes. Cricket will assume some of the logistics and routine tasks of
the committee and meeting facilitation. Jim will take on the title of Chair Emeritus.
V.
Committee Goals
a. Become a major voice for social studies in the local LCAP processes
b. Become a major player in the H-SS Framework Roll-Outs with CDE (see Projects
below)
c. Become a major voice in the next generation of California assessments and
accountability
VI.
Projects
It was proposed that CCSS might host Framework Roll-Out, similar to the very
successful ELA-ELD roll-outs of this year, when the Framework is scheduled to be
released (May 2016 or early summer). It might be possible to partner with CDE and
some County Offices of Education to put on a one-day event in various regions that
might include Fred Jones, Stacey Greer, framework writers, CDE personnel, and
other appropriate presenters on both social studies content and promotion of the role
of CCSS in state policy on social studies. We might also partner with the CCSS
membership committee to plan this. Tasks would include starting by contacting
CDE with an official letter; working with local COEs, and developing a program. The
logistics suggest that this should be a Saturday program (to avoid substitute teacher
costs) and charge a reasonable registration fee. It was suggested that we might
appoint one person be the coordinator/project manager (some percentage of
registration fee could be used to pay this position). Breakout sessions could be
planned for each roll-out location with some standardized presentations that would
be available to all.
This project will be discussed in more depth at the March Governmental
Relations meeting.
VII.
Tasks:
A. Position Papers updated - The existing position papers date from 2007 and do not
reflect all of the critical developments in California education over the last decade;
Review committee members include Ruth Luevanos, Katherine Rand, Denisha
Connet, Cricket FL Kidwell, Jim Hill, Avi Black, and Fred Jones. A systematic plan
for at least three reviewers for each paper to has been sent to the committee
members and the target date for completion will be in December, at which time the
revised papers will sent to the Executive Committee and come to the full board in
January. The proposed plan will be sent out immediately (Cricket); See the
attached plan for the Position Paper Review Committee;
B. Submit nominee name for the Legislative/Civic Action award to the Board of
Directors meeting on August 30, 2015 (Cricket)
C. Assessment Response Paper to Supt. Torlakson’s assessment recommendation that
will be made to the SBE in January (Jim Hill, Avi Black);
D. Revise and update the Governmental Relations web page (Cricket, Jim);
E. Review the Framework Roll-Out ideas and proposed plan (to be discussed by the full
committee at the March meeting);
F. LCAP – What you can do to promote social studies (Jim will send - add to position
papers review list)
G. Encourage feedback on the draft framework in October: CCSS will send out to
members one email prior to the release of the draft and one after draft comes out; A
separate email could be sent to local council officers who can then send out to their
membership;
H. Legislative Breakfast program and send out invitation letter (from Jim Hill) – Cricket
I. It was suggested that we look at various funding groups for CCSS (e.g. Big History)
to support the work of social studies advocacy;
VIII.
Committee Purpose
The committee reviewed the webpage for the Government Relations committee and
by consensus revised the first bulleted item to be more inclusive of all social studies
domains. The revised language for the first bullet is now:
Develop and recommend strategies and procedures by which CCSS can influence public policy
that supports high quality social studies as a core discipline at all grade level;
Respectfully Submitted,
Frances L. (Cricket) Kidwell, Ed.D.
August 29, 2015
PROPOSED CCSS POSITION PAPERS REVIEW AND REVISION PLAN 2015
CCSS Position Papers Review Committee: Cricket FL Kidwell, Jim Hill, Denisha Connett,
Katherine Rand, Ruth Luevanos, Fred Jones, Avi Black;
Task: To review, revise where necessary, and bring the CCSS Position Papers up-to-date in
light of current legislation, Common Core State standards, revised ESEA (No Child Left Behind)
legislation, state legislation, the latest research, and in context with the latest developments in
curriculum, instruction, assessment, professional development, and educational priorities of
2015 and beyond. The position papers should paint a picture of what the highest quality of
social studies education would look like in an ideal educational setting with consideration to
realistic and practical implementation.
Proposed Timeframe for the Review Process:
August 17 – Review this plan (format, time frame, tasks), send revisions and/or changes to
Cricket, and specify which papers you would like to be the first or second or third reviewer.
August 19 – Revised plan to be emailed back to committee for final approval;
August 22 – Approval for Final Plan deadline;
August 23 – November 8 Review and Revision by Committee
September 13 – First Reviewer to complete assigned papers and send to Reviewer #2
October 4 – Reviewer #2 to complete assigned papers and send to Reviewer #3
October 25 – Reviewer #3 to complete assigned papers and send to full committee for final
review
Week of November 1 – Conference call
November 8 – Completed Position Papers packet to be sent to CCSS Executive Committee
Position Paper Formats:
The formats of the seven 2007 Position Papers appear to be somewhat consistent, to
varying degrees, with the inclusion of an introduction, a rationale, and
recommendations/positions. In our review work, it would be helpful to reach a consensus on
what might be a format that addresses an introduction, a rationale, and recommendations while
keeping the paper itself brief. A one-page maximum would probably be an acceptable length
so that would mean that each of the three components of the position paper would also need to
be succinct and straight-forward. I believe that at some point in the past CCSS made a decision
to eliminate the “Where as …” format and that, I think, helps with keeping the paper simple and
to the point.
A short description of each position paper section might be as follows:
 Introduction: A clear purpose and statement of the need for a position paper to address
this issue in light of the educational situation today. This paragraph would make
connections between the topic and our mission to support high-quality social studies in
the classroom, the school, and the overall state of our discipline. There should be some
reference or linkage to the role of social studies in today’s world.
 Rationale: This is a further clarification of the introduction that makes the case for highquality social studies at all grade levels. This section would clearly link the importance of
social studies instruction to the development of an effective and functional democracy
and the role of education in supporting citizenship skills, our historical heritage, and
content of the social science disciplines. Typical considerations might address student
success, student engagement, workforce preparation, informed citizenry, participatory
skills in a democracy, and/or deeper understandings of global, national, and local sociopolitical and economic issues.

Recommendations: Either a bulleted or specific list of what needs to be in place in our
educational system to effectively implement high-quality social studies through this topic.
These recommendations would aim for the most optimum system but remain logical,
realistic, and do-able. The recommendations should be developed and articulated with
the goal of a comprehensive and overall educational system operating at full effective,
efficient, and successful levels. Although the papers should focus on the K-12 system, it
may be appropriate, in some cases, to reference pre-K and post-secondary programs
and practices as well.
Position Paper
History-Social Science
Education and Standardsbased Instruction (2007)
History-Social Science and
Professional
Development (2007)
History-Social Science and
Assessment (2007)
History-Social Science and
Citizenship Education (2007)
History-Social Science and the
Workforce (2007)
History-Social Science and “No
Child Left Behind"/ESEA (2007)
LCAP – What You Can Do To
Support Social Studies
Assessment Response ( in
January)
History-Social Science and
Literacy (2007)
Reviewer #1 by Sept.
13
Cricket Kidwell
Reviewer #2 by Oct. 4
Reviewer #3 by Oct.
27
Avi Black
Cricket Kidwell
Cricket Kidwell
Fred Jones
TO BE REVIEWED
LATER
Jim Hill
TO BE REVIEWED
LATER
Fred Jones
TO BE REVIEWED
LATER
Cricket Kidwell
Jim Hill
Avi Black
Fred Jones
Cricket Kidwell
The Review
Please use the Review function of WORD to send edits/changes/additions/corrections to the next
reviewer. Feel free to contact other reviewers as a sounding board for ideas, suggestions, and feedback.
By October 4, reviewers #1 and #2 should have come to consensus and by October 25, reviewers #2 and
#3 should have come to consensus. If there is a particularly sticky issue, feel free to send the question to
the full committee for feedback. We will also meet for a short face-to-face meeting at the August Board
Meeting.
Cricket F.L. Kidwell
cfkidwell88@gmail.com