General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Thurs., June 6, 2013
I knew, I just KNEW, that I was gonna like State Rep. Kim Williams. I had liked her votes, I had liked her positions during the campaign, and I loved her work on simplifying school choice for students and parents. But yesterday she demonstrated why she is an invaluable member of the Delaware General Assembly with this quote, courtesy of the News-Journal:
“Until recently, I was on the Red Clay School Board, and we were never informed of the specifics of this bill. I feel that we need to get more public input.”
Or at least SOME public input.
The Markell Administration is pushing HB 165(Jaques) to the max. In fact, I think they tried to put one over even on the legislators who are sponsoring this bill. Rep. Earl Jaques made clear that this bill is not going to be rushed through:
“We have a bill in front of us, let’s discuss this bill. The time for the public to get involved is now, while we’re discussing this legislation.”
Others on this blog have done a far better job of describing the issues raised by this bill than I ever could. What particularly galls me is that we don’t even know officially where this bill came from. There was indeed a group created to review ways to improve charter schools. Hell, the list has been provided here. But, get this, even though Gov. Markell appointed the 24-member working group, he claims that this group had no real authority and, as such, public meetings were not required. So much for ‘Governor Transparency’. That is one of the most disingenuous things I’ve heard out of this Administration, which is really saying something. Shades of the Port of Wilmington deal.
But, I digress. HB 165 barely made it out of the House Education Committee, 7-6. It is far from ready for prime time. It is June 6. People are already on vacation, including teachers, students, and parents. There is no way that this bill should be worked by June 30. Let’s just see what this Governor does…
Here is yesterday’s Session Activity Report. These reports are quite lengthy at this time of the year, as committees are rushing to move bills forward for consideration on the floor prior to the June 30 recess. So, it’s especially important to pay attention right about now.
Two huge bills lead off today’s Senate Agenda. SB 33(Ennis) would require manufactured community owners to seek approval for any rent increase larger than the annual CPI (Consumer Price Index). Similar legislation passed the Senate last session however, with some changes in membership, it is not a foregone conclusion that it will pass this time. If you support this bill, contact your senator. It’s that simple.
SB 97(Henry) “adds the term ‘gender identity’ to the already-existing list of prohibited practices of discrimination and hate crimes. As such, this Act would forbid discrimination against a person on the basis of gender identity in housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance, and it would provide for increased punishment of a person who intentionally selects the victim of a crime because of the victim’s gender identity.” I’d feel more comfortable if the bill had a few more Senate sponsors. In fact, the fates of SB 33 and SB 97 are far from certain. The phone lines are open. Call!!
Whoa, check this out. Supposed redistricting reform is also on today’s Agenda. SB 48(Blevins) would create an 11-member commission to conduct the redistricting process, and to present its proposal to the General Assembly for a vote. You may wonder why all the sponsors are Democrats. Well, the devil is in the details. Here is how the commission members would be selected:
“(d) The Commission shall be composed of eleven members, ten of whom shall be appointed. The Commission shall include at least one resident from each county and the City of Wilmington. By the third Tuesday of January of each year ending in one, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, the House Majority Whip, the House Minority Leader, the House Minority Whip, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Majority Whip, the Senate Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Whip shall each appoint one member of the Commission. By February 10th of each year ending in one, the eleventh member of the Commission shall be chosen by a vote of the ten appointed members and shall serve as the Chair of the Commission. If the ten appointed members cannot elect a Chair because the vote is tied, the Chair shall be chosen by a judicial panel consisting of the Chancellor of the State of Delaware and a Superior Court Judge, which Judge shall be appointed by the President Judge of the Delaware Superior Court, and shall be of a different political party than the Chancellor. The judicial panel shall select the Chair on or before February 25. The members of the Commission, including the Chair, shall each have a vote on Commission business.
So. Assuming that both houses are controlled by the same party, you’d have six of one party, four of another, and, invariably, the chair would share the same political proclivities as the majority. If control of the chambers is split, then good luck coming up with the chair. Now, look, I’m not saying that this is bad. As someone who worked on three redistrictings, the most frustrating aspect was the micromanaging by individual senators as to how they wanted their districts drawn, which often put them at odds with other senators in their own caucus, with us stuck in the middle. Getting that out of the process is progress enough, as far as I’m concerned. But, anyone who thinks that this bill will somehow remove politics from the redistricting process is mistaken. Since I believe that it’s impossible to remove politics from the process, I’m fine with the bill and I see it as an improvement. If only a ‘one degree of separation’ kind of improvement. Memo to Would-Be Whining Rethugs: Win some elections, or shut up. Consider yourselves fortunate that you even have this much influence on the redistricting process. It’s more than you deserve.
On the same day that the Senate considers SB 33, the House considers two bills From Rep. Baumbach also intended to strengthen the rights of manufactured housing residents. HB 106 affords manufactured homeowners’ associations a stronger bargaining position should they seek to purchase their community. HB 107 gives a buyer of an existing home the option of assuming the lease of the seller or entering into a new lease with the community owner. Good stuff. Incremental progress is progress, and that’s what we have here.
Here is the entire House Agenda for today.
Look for the agendas to get longer and longer from here until the last week of June. At which point you can look for multiple agendas and bills that are run without ever appearing on an agenda. That’s when it gets really dangerous. Unless you’ve got skin in the game.
Tags: charter schools reform, Delaware redistricting, El Somnambulo, Featured, manufactured housing communities, Rep. Kim Williams, Rep. Paul Baumbach, Steve Tanzer Delaware
More on HB165.
From the WDDE/Delaware First Media piece that listed members of that “charter school working group,” link back to the larger story (http://www.wdde.org/29111-state-review-delaware-charter-schools) written last August, and you will find this statement:
Gov. Jack Markell plans to appoint a working group to review the current law and recommend ways to improve it. The panel will be appointed soon and should complete its work before the General Assembly reconvenes in January, said Rebecca Taber, Markell’s education advisor.
In other words — the group didn’t get its work done on schedule, which would have allowed plenty of time for careful consideration, and now there’s a presumed rush to get something passed by the end of June, lest, heaven forbid, we have another Pencader messing up the works during the next school year.
I’m tired of listening to governors talking about accountability while being unable to hold their own working groups accountable for significant delays in getting their work done.
It’s even worse than that, Mediawatch. He appoints a working group, then claims that they have no real authority, hence no need for minutes or records.
Which raises the question, what were they working on? Their tans, their resumes, or NET-working?
Markell becomes smugger and more sanctimonious by the day.
The charter working group missed a meeting due to Sandy and had two meetings in January, although I don’t know which days. The group put out a summary on Feb. 28 that contains the outline of HB 165.
Under FOIA, public bodies under the executive branch are REQUIRED to keep minutes and to publish them on the web. So their only option to evade FOIA was to make a spurious claim that the group was not a public body. And that’s exactly what they did. FOIA does not have any exemption for informal groups, or groups without authority. I suspect there is an Alberto Gonzalez-style legal finding at the beginning of all this.
Couldn’t agree more, Mike. As always, the question is: Who’s minding the store? The current AG and future something or other? I. Don’t. Think. So. I’d love to see a legislator issue a FOIA challenge and take it to court if necessary.
Between this and the Port of Wilmington deal, the arrogance of this administration has grown exponentially over the past year. It’s motto: “You don’t deserve to know anything because we know best.” Too bad they don’t.
I am loath to expect anyone go to the AG since I haven’t done it myself, but according to Nancy’s story, Kim Williams, a sitting legislator (or elect?) was denied entrance to a PUBLIC MEETING by these people.
Honestly, if someone had given me the time and location, I would have crashed those meetings with a copy of FOIA in hand, just to see what would happen.
This kind of thing might be an interesting project for DelCOG — they could accompany people trying to get into meetings and at least document the issues. It doesn’t have to be an aggressive thing, but just an ongoing documentation of the extent of the problem.
Manufactured housing residents are getting some help from the AG’s office. I just received this press release from Biden’s office:
Georgetown – The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit has issued an order requiring the owner of a Sussex County Manufactured Home Community to better protect its residents by making several improvements to its community, Attorney General Beau Biden announced today.
“Thousands of Delawareans live in manufactured home communities, and we’re acting to ensure that owners maintain communities that adequately protect the health and safety of their residents,” Biden said.
The Cease and Desist Order was issued May 31 pursuant to an agreement reached with PFL Limited Partnership, the owner and operator of the manufactured home community known as Layton’s Riviera, located in Sussex County. It follows an investigation conducted by Biden’s Consumer Protection Unit in response to multiple complaints filed by tenants residing in Layton’s Riviera. The investigation discovered multiple violations of Delaware’s Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act and led the Consumer Protection Unit to allege that PFL failed to adequately protect the health and safety of residents and their guests and failed to maintain the roads in the community in a good condition. The Consumer Protection Unit also alleged that PFL entered into a lease with a tenant that, in several respects, failed to comply with the law.
Following its investigation, the Director of the Consumer Protection Unit reached an agreement with PFL, enacted through the legally-binding Cease and Desist order, that requires the company to remove the debris of an abandoned manufactured home that was destroyed in a fire, to maintain the community in a manner to protect the health and safety of its residents, to place the roads in the community in a good condition, and to continue to maintain the roads in a good condition. The agreement also ordered PFL to provide an addendum to the tenant with the noncompliant lease to fix its legal deficiencies. PFL was also ordered to pay $3,500 in investigative costs and attorneys fees and $10,000 in civil penalties to the State. The civil penalties were suspended provided PFL abides by the terms of the agreement; future violations of the agreement will subject PFL to civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation.
The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Unit is charged with enforcing the Delaware Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act, the law regulating manufactured home communities in Delaware. Consumers and residents who have questions about the Act or wish to file a complaint can contact the Consumer Protection Unit at 1-800-220-5424, consumer.protection@state.de.us, or http://www.attorneygeneral.delaware.gov.
The new FOIA deputy in the AG’s office has been very aggressive in his opinions – far more than his predecessors. But if no one appeals, he can’t bust any balls.
Mike, why no appeal? All it takes is an email.
What specific statutory exemption did the Gov’s office cite? Sure seems like it’s covered.
Direct from FOIA:
(h) “Public body” means, unless specifically excluded, any regulatory, administrative, advisory, executive, appointive or legislative body of the State, or of any political subdivision of the State, including, but not limited to, any board, bureau, commission, department, agency, committee, ad hoc committee, special committee, temporary committee, advisory board and committee, subcommittee, legislative committee, association, group, panel, council or any other entity or body established by an act of the General Assembly of the State, or established by any body established by the General Assembly of the State, or appointed by any body or public official of the State or otherwise empowered by any state governmental entity, which:
(1) Is supported in whole or in part by any public funds; or
(2) Expends or disburses any public funds, including grants, gifts or other similar disbursals and distributions; or
(3) Is impliedly or specifically charged by any other public official, body, or agency to advise or to make reports, investigations or recommendations.
SB33 just passed the Senate.
Remember my impression from what was a very poor view – sitting on the sideline of the floor near the side doors Tuesday – was that it was the House lawyer who had made a response – of a sort – when Williams called for a legal opinion (and she was not speaking into the mic – it was REALLY hard to hear what she was saying).
John Young is reporting that it wasn’t a lawyer , it was the frickin’ colleague sitting in the Chairman’s seat. Young is saying that it was Darryl Scott who flipped her the bird and said let by-gones be by-gones and refused her request.
That actually makes more sense than to imagine an attorney having the hubris to take that tone with an elected official that he or she is technically working for. Leave that crap to a Markell-water carrier like Scott.
How is THIS possible?
What??? The bill hasn’t passed and it’s plans are being financially funded? What if the bill fails? Do charters still get millions?
Sincere congratulations to Sen. Cloutier for once again being the only one in her caucus brave enough to do the right thing, this time for voting in favor of SB 97 (the Transgender Anti-Discrimination bill). Heck, I might even knock on doors for her in 2016!
She’s officially in the wrong party. I read Peter Kopf’s blasting of her in the News-Journal. After shaking off my surprise that Kopf is/was still around, I realized that Cloutier is much better off as a Democrat. Hell, even the Rethugs think so.
It must be liberating for her to be doing the right thing. For some reason, I suspect that she’s more comfortable in her own skin than ever before. I hope so. I really respect what she’s done this session. Quite the metamorphosis.
The money is earmarked in the current budget plans, but ONLY if the legislation passes.
If the budget as currently proposed by the JFC passes the General Assembly, with the $2.35M for the charter bill ($2M for the performance fund and $350K for the minor capital funds), but the charter bill does not pass by June 30th, then the money is NOT available for DOE to spend on those items. It just sits around in the state’s reserves.
That said, if HB165 is amended and the fiscal note changes (downward), then there is an opportunity to pass legislation with price tags that can be covered by the ‘freed up money’, and to get the Appropriations Committee to bless this adjustment.
On Redistricting:
Even if it was 7-4 Majority to Minority party in the same room as the final plan would be a huge step up in the amount of sunlight in the room. They may not be able to draw the lines, but they can call public attention to what’s going on and make sure that the plans are defensible.
I agree with you, Paines Me. And I prefer this to the ‘was never gonna work’ notion of having some group of ‘impartial’ academics or judges or such doing this.
Although…I’ll be interested to see just how open the process ultimately is before, say, the initial maps are completed.
I didn’t vote for her, but I am THRILLED Cloutier did the right thing for Sarah McBride and other transgender Delawareans. Now I have reasons to like her besides those birthday cards!
Before everyone gets to worked up over House Bill 165. Let me set the record straight. I’ve been working on a charter school bill for three years (rush?) and as an elected member of the General Assembly I have the constitutional right to propose legislation. So if you want to know where this bill came from – its me along with some help from Rep Kowalko!! I was also a member of the Charter School Study Group. Therefore, I used the information I gained from that group along with personal observations to author HB 165. Furthermore, according to Rep Williams’ statement at the committee meeting, she wasn’t deined attendance, she was discourage. Her main point was why wasn’t someone keeping them informed. It turns out the person who should have kept her and Red Clay School District informed didn’t do their job. Finally, HB 165 has gone through the normal legislation process that all legislation must take, including a public hearing and if you want to count the public meeting held by the Study Group then its has received more public hearings than most pieces of legislation have received this year. As I testified at the committee hearing, HB 165 is not a prefect bill but it will make some significant changes to our current charter school code to include: mandating breakfast and lunch programs to eliminate any possible discrimination toward low-income families, makes it harder for low-performing charter schools to exist, improves ever aspect of the application process, allows “impact” to be considered, and uses the Charter Performance Framework to help drive accountability and support in academic, organizational and financial domains. The alternative would be to do nothing – to me that is unacceptable!!
Rep. Jacques,
I believe you will soon be getting an earful about your comments above. But for now, let me just ask you, since it is nothing to get worked up over, could you please post your emails and notes that were the closest thing to minutes for this group?
Just as a reminder, FOIA requires public bodies under the executive branch to keep and publish their minutes. If minutes were not kept, that is a violation, which you have an opportunity to remediate by releasing your notes and emails.
Rep. Jaques,
I agree with Mike O’s statement with regard to keeping and publishing minutes of the working group’s meetings, and his request that all communications among working group members be made public.
Mike,
I believe that Rep. Jaques is not the only one responsible for this seeming failure to abide by the provisions of the the state’s Freedom of Information Act. Since Gov. Markell created the working group, it would seem that prime responsibility for this foul-up should be attributed to Rebecca Taber, his education advisor. I suggest you include her in any subsequent communications on this subject.
Rebecca Taber told me personally on Aug. 23 that the group was “not considered to be a public body.” When I disputed that, she said I could take it to the AG if I wanted.
Other responses are in writing. Rep. Jacques said:
“according to Rep Williams’ statement at the committee meeting, she wasn’t deined attendance, she was discourage. Her main point was why wasn’t someone keeping them informed. It turns out the person who should have kept her and Red Clay School District informed didn’t do their job.”
He is right, someone wasn’t doing their job, and I have the emails to prove it. I have some long email chains but to make a long story short, two different people asked specifically why the group wasn’t public, and there are multiple answers.
The first answer is from Alison Kepner speaking for the Department of Education. In this response she had said she needed to go check with somebody else (so I am not calling her out personally; she’s the messenger in this case), and then said this (this was in response to me on Aug. 21):
Another response from DOE to a completely different person on Feb. 27:
And then, completing the circle, the Governor’s legal staff responds on Feb. 28, deferring all responsibility to DOE.
So yes, Rep. Jacques, somebody wasn’t doing their job. Any guess who? And who do you think Ms. Kepner was checking with?
This:
Rep. Jaques,
I agree with Mike O’s statement with regard to keeping and publishing minutes of the working group’s meetings, and his request that all communications among working group members be made public.
Add me to this list.
If the DOE and other government members of this working group were being paid during their meetings, then it was not an “informal” group, it was part of their job responsibilities. Or does DOE and the districts now allow employees to take job time to join “informal” groups?
This thing stinks. Markell appoints a 24-person working group, and tells them what, exactly? Sit around and informally discuss charter schools, but do it in private and don’t create a public record? If it leads to something, informally come up with legislative suggestions? Oh, and Kim Williams wasn’t denied access to meetings, she was “just” discouraged from attending? Oh, and the biggest proponents for whatever informal ideas coming out of this meeting are…the Markell Administration and his Department of Education? But this informal group had no authority and they weren’t a public body?
Uh, how can I put this…THIS SMELLS REAL BAD. At some point, this governor might start leveling with us on this and other issues. But I wouldn’t count on it. The arrogance of elites, aka ‘stakeholders’, is alive and well in Delaware. Beginning at the top.
Steve, FOIA has no exemption for “informal” groups or groups without authority. It specifically includes advisory or investigative groups. The consistency of the lies was such that it could only be deliberate and organized.
HB 90 (K. Willams) creates another task force on choice admissions preferences including charters, magnets, and VoTech. Kim Williams assured me the task force will be open. With this crew it looks like a tough promise to keep, so let’s help her.
Kim sponsored the amendment to increase the number of parents on that task force from one to five. appointed by the Secretary of Education. All the other members are the usual suspects.
Increasing parents’ input is essential, since the parties that refer to ‘stakeholders’ pointedly ignore parents. Especially if the parents in question have children in public schools.
Guess they’re not viewed as elite enough to deserve stakeholder status by the self-appointed elites themselves.
Rep Jaques says:
“HB 165 is not a prefect bill but it will make some significant changes to our current charter school code to include: mandating breakfast and lunch programs to eliminate any possible discrimination toward low-income families,”
I get tied up in these laws, but is offering a free/reduced lunch program optional for public schools?
Earl Jaques says:
“As I testified at the committee hearing, HB 165 is not a prefect bill but it will make some significant changes to our current charter school code to include: mandating breakfast and lunch programs to eliminate any possible discrimination toward low-income families, makes it harder for low-performing charter schools to exist, improves ever aspect of the application process, allows “impact” to be considered, and uses the Charter Performance Framework to help drive accountability and support in academic, organizational and financial domains. The alternative would be to do nothing – to me that is unacceptable!!”
Rep Jaques thank you for commenting and engaging the public.
The Charter Performance Framework means noting when we have a Delaware Department of Education has serious capacity issues. We have a Delaware Secretary of Education with Physical Education degree who taught 3 years of “gym” and served as an administrator for another 2 years after which he moved through the Rodel Indoctrination! Also the DE DOE Charter Chief John Carwell was also a former Rodel Associate. Though there is a need to adjust the charter school laws the face remains the real structural problems is with a public school system where the DE Sec of Ed serves the governor’s agenda and where the DE state board of ed are hand picked and serve the governor’s agenda.
Providing charter schools capital funding where ownership of properties does not include taxpayers sets a dangerous precedence. H.B. 165 serves the charter school organizations not the public nor children. A de facto segregation is taking place and H.B. 165 does nothing to address that concern. Specific interest charter schools for Title 1 student / At-risk and ones for the more affluent whom often are high achieving students is the baseline for de fact segregation!
” It turns out the person who should have kept her and Red Clay School District informed didn’t do their job”
Lack of transparency fuels deficiencies in accountability! Our state legislators seem to fear H.B. # 23 that calls for recordings of public session of school board meetings. Open the windows and let the sunshine in! Government should never serves as sole watchdog of itself. If you really care about public schools and the success of charter schools you will support H.B. #23 and enhance public engagement in the process.
With all due respect, please stop supporting the Wall Street ponzi scheme called Race to The Top that is seeded with the privatization of public schools. AS far as those Title 1 students, please read “federal law” Title 1 Section 1118. Title 1 parents were not part of the planning process for RTTT, Common Core Standards and the upcoming Smarter Balance Assessment! The were in indoctrinated after the governor committed Delaware to these programs.
Many of us cannot support a slush fund for charter schools until all state cuts to our traditional “and” charter schools over the course of the Markell / Denn administration are restored.
Mike O,
There’s no doubt in my mind that all this secrecy loops back to Rebecca Taber.
And I really appreciate the irony of Alison Kepner being caught in the middle of the web. If she were still at the NJ, she would have been screaming at the top of her lungs about this lack of transparency. (Well, maybe not, since I didn’t see any of her successors saying anything about it.)
I’m not sure about that, mediawatch. There were others at the inception. I have some hunches but I can’t name names until I have more sources. And that’s the other thing – if this group had been truly balanced with critics vs. supporters, somebody would have talked by now to share their experience.
No matter who engineered the legal deception, ultimately I think it was at the insistence of the Charter Network, who were traumatized by the NCS hearings and didn’t want to face critics again. And their influence was strong enough to make it happen.
Got it: State funds were used! (although not much, but still, it’s the letter of the law).. State funds were reimbursed and it is now FOIA required.
ALISON KEPNER OTHER TRAVEL-W/IN STATE 12/20/2012 $5.25
Seaford must love the Secretary of Education:
MARK MURPHY 26 payments $1,973.62
Department Division Category Check Date Amount
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 11/16/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 1/30/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 2/7/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COMMON CARRIER/OUT-STATE 3/12/2013 $24.00
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 1/4/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEALS – OUT-OF-STATE 12/21/2012 $4.99
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 3/8/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 1/10/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 2/22/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COMMON CARRIER/OUT-STATE 2/4/2013 $65.00
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 9/25/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 3/21/2013 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION COMMON CARRIER/OUT-STATE 2/21/2013 $23.50
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 11/30/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MILEAGE/PRV CAR-W/IN STATE 12/5/2012 $234.30
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 12/13/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OTHER TRAVEL/OUT-STATE 12/21/2012 $45.00
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 10/4/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 10/29/2012 $80.77
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SEAFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT HONORARIUMS 11/5/2012 $80.77
Would like to know what’s so special about $80.77 for all those honorariums.
And how far must you go from Seaford to claim a $45 reimbursement for out-of-state travel?
Head of the Turnaround Unit:
KEITH SANDERS 4 payments $827.69
Department Division Category Check Date Amount
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MILEAGE-PRV CAR/OUT-STATE 3/6/2013 $111.84
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OTHER TRAVEL-W/IN STATE 3/6/2013 $22.85
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MILEAGE/PRV CAR-W/IN STATE 3/6/2013 $230.36
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MILEAGE/PRV CAR-W/IN STATE 1/8/2013 $462.64
The Governor’s policy advisor:
REBECCA TABER 1 payments $11,226.38
Department Division Category Check Date Amount
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 7/25/2012 $11,226.38
WTF?
Rep. Jaques, the alternative to your bill is not “doing nothing.” The alternative is crafting an amendment to the state’s charter schools law that has teeth and actually does what you claim this one does. Case in point: you state that your draft “mandates breakfast and lunch programs to eliminate any possible discrimination toward low-income families.” It does NOT. It says this (lines 24-27): “If a child is unable to attend a charter school because the charter school does not provide lunch, and the child would otherwise qualify for a free or low-cost lunch under the federal National School Lunch Program, the charter school shall provide lunch to the child at no cost to the child’s family. Charter schools may not consider whether a child would qualify for no-cost lunches pursuant to this subsection when making enrollment decisions.”
First, whose convoluted language is this?! (or can we guess?) And where do you see the work “breakfast” in your bill? My Adobe search does not find it. You have been asked to insert “breakfast” several times by members of the public, since the bill was made available. You have responded first that you had to “check with the Charter Schools Network”–did we elect them?–and then that yes, the CSNetwork intends to provide breakfast. Put that requirement IN the law.
Second, how does the lunch requirement work, legally, as currently worded? Like this, as I read it: Low-income child is granted charter school admission via lottery; family is informed that school does not participate in the nutritional assistance provided daily by all district public schools (and some charters); impoverished parent produces this section of DE charter law and heroically proves that in fact the school IS required to dig up lunch for their child (every day? sometimes?).
Please. Amend those lines to read: “All public charter schools must participate fully in the National School Lunch Program and National Breakfast Program, under the terms established for these programs by the federal government and consistent with the provision of nutritional assistance in surrounding district schools.” Or words to this effect–state lawyers can determine what language is needed to actually REQUIRE that charter schools do for hungry, low-income children what every other publicly funded school in the state does (and has for decades).
Otherwise, we continue blocking THOUSANDS of Delaware students, the vast majority of whom are African American and Latino, from attending certain charter schools. This is how we maintain the illusion that charters are excellent schools, since any public school serving only parentally supported and non-poor students is bound to get dramatically higher test results than our genuinely public schools serving the full socio-economic spectrum of Delaware students.
[Readers unclear on how charter school refusal to fully serve low-income and special needs kids impacts their demographics will be interested in this detailed analysis of one such school, in Newark: https://sites.google.com/site/aboutnewarkdelaware/home%5D
It is very unfortunate that Rep. Jaques did not see fit to consider the many important revisions to this bill politely but firmly requested by his Ed. committee colleagues this week. Kudos to Reps. Kowalko, Baumbach, Williams, Bolden, Potter, & Osinski for trying. Now it is the House’s job to accept the various amendments that several of these legislators are submitting.
I don’t think anybody except charter idealogues is impressed by the kind of phony accountability offered by the Performance Framework. Charters are getting their wish list and are giving nothing back – no accountability for diversity, no accountability for transparency, no accountability for local control.
Plus, charters are getting transportation funds for choice students. (Every other public school choice student must provide their own transportation to and from the choice school – or the nearest existing bus stop.) And if their reasoning is that the charter school is special because it offers a unique educational program in a separate school then wouldn’t that apply to choice students attending the Cambridge Program, IB program, etc.?
Also, I have to stop rereading Rep. Jaques comment. His tone is insulting. Every education blogger/commenter has more knowledge about what’s happening in Delaware’s public and charter schools than he does. Don’t believe me? Go read HB 165. If Jaques believes this is a balanced bill… he’s been played.
he’s either been played or just plain declared his allegiance to inequitable and facile solutions for complex problems.
Mike O at 5:33: DEAD ON.
Charts are up covering the Delaware Department of Education’s “missing” charter accountability page.
First glance show that performance depends on economics, not bad public schooling. Charter schools with low income compare identically to public schools with low income and Charter schools with no low income, compare identically to public schools with no income..
Bottom line, all evidence in Delaware shows there is no change in whether a student goes to a charter school or to a public school. If you want a good education for your child, send them to a high income school, either public, charter, or private.
The justification for taking money away from public schools, based on evidence, is nil… But if it is being based on who you know who runs a charter, that is a different story… lol.