Mercedes Schneider is reading the 600+ pages of the Senate bill drafted by Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patti Murray. It is a tough job, and I am glad she has the patience to do it.
This is her second installment, and you will find in it a link to the first close reading of the bill, which went to page 136.
She picks up a few points she wants to add to her review of the first 136 pages, and she adds commentary on another 25 pages. Her pace has slowed down, either because she teaches high school English full-time, or because the tedium of reading legislative language is slowing her down. A few points she touches on that are important: 1) the bill allows public school choice, but does not require it; 2) the bill does not refer to “failing” schools (a favorite term of the reformers); 3) the bill reiterates the principle that federal funds must “supplement not supplant” local funding; 4) the bill again prohibits federal interference in local efforts to improve schools, another slap at Arne Duncan’s overreach.
You can be sure she will read the proposed law to the very end, and we will all be better informed. You can also be sure that most members of Congress will not read the legislation as closely as she does.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Wow. To quote Wayne’s World “I am not worthy”! Seriously, much thanks to Mercedes.
What does it mean exactly that the bill allows for public school choice but does not require it? Does this mean that for some people the only choice may be a charter school?
To Bianco who says…”What does it mean exactly that the bill allows for public school choice but does not require it? Does this mean that for some people the only choice may be a charter school…”
Sounds like an opportunity to legally embed sneakier non transparent strategies within the law which preach pseudo “choice” while making claims of some yet to be determined factor labelled “volunteer”. What will the new carrot be? How are big business interests drumming up this “non choice” a la RTTT which pose as “choice” to ensure districts are held to the “great ed reform” way by “voluntary” means.
Who is going to be bought off at the top reaches of politics in order to insure districts “chose” the privatized versions of schools?
It is too confusing for me, but with the combined help of Mercedes, and the very important responses from people who are smart enough to ask her to clarify, this add up as valuable. The must may thing strikes me as something that is likely to be examined closely by charter advocates, who will push for the maximum likelihood that they will benefit from it. In Missouri….we have 8 people on the state board of education. The St. Louis district has a three member board, which now has over 10,000 students in charters, about 40 percent of the student population. There is a 12 member Missouri charter association mentioned in the state website…it is headed by Doug Thaman, who was given full editorial space, with no reader comments allowed by the Post Dispatch a couple days ago….his emphasis was on this bill and the demand that charters get their full share of federal money. The powerless elected board of slps had a tfa member knock out a very strong person, with the help of a 30,000 dollar donation from tfa…….. I forgot to mention….the slps KIPP board…15 bankers, and the mayor’s former assistant Robbyn Wahby was named head of still another Missouri charter “commission” of nine members…….5 of the nine have quietly been named….they are all white, including still another tfa person, and a republican bible school owner who is a state senator. I would urge Mercedes to keep a wary eye on people from the charter industry as she studies this bill.
The thing is, charters weren’t supposed to get local tax money for facilities, and there’s a reason for that. They have no elected representatives. Local money for public school facilities comes with a string attached- representation. When I vote for a tax levy to fund a public school building project I also get an elected representative on a board to protect my interest.
They can’t have it both ways.
That must be some fierce case of insomnia.
Why doesn’t the Obama Administration just get on the payroll of these companies? It would be more honest.
“With more than 2,000 attendees this year, the conference is an indication of the high political stakes involved in education and of the big money businesses hope to reap in the sector. The event also now serves as an important stop for policy makers seeking to broadcast their commitment to industry growth.
On Tuesday, for instance, Arne Duncan, the United States secretary of education, made an appearance here. He heartily endorsed data-driven technologies known as “personalized learning,” websites and apps that display different math problems or reading assignments to individual students, based on an analysis of their particular abilities.”
It’s really unseemly how hard they’re pushing devices and programs into public schools.
I don’t think it is the government’s role to push product. This is the same industry Congress is supposedly writing privacy regulations for, right? Is this why we can’t get any real regulation, of anything?
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/education-technology-investors-converge-on-scottsdale/?_r=0
Dearest Dr. Schneider:
You are the best of all best English Teachers.
I hope that all other English Teachers or Professors.and Ecomomy/Financial Teachers or Professors will follow your lead in order to explore and to expose all strengths and weaknesses in this new sensational Bill.
Please keep in mind the GOLDEN advice from Laura H. Chapman, as follows:
“Unless I am mistaken there are some prospects for changes ahead and the very clever lobbyists KNOW HOW TO SLIP what they want INTO THE FINAL BILL just before the final vote.”
BUSINESS LOBBYISTS are born with malicious and vicious characters in order to get what THEY WANT without care for the welfare of country and people.
God will help all conscientious senators and House of Common Representatives to be vigilant in their initials and signatures for 601 pages on this “Alexander-Murray NCLB-ESEA Bill.”
Best wishes to you, Dr. Schneider on your mission “impossible” to many, but not to you.
Lots of love. May.
“. . . weaknesses in this new sensational Bill.”
Perhaps not realizing the irony in the last word.
Meet the new Bill, same as the old Bill.
Bill bills society for his bills.
hahaha, I really love your last sentence that cracks me up.
I also love you, Senor Swacker. May
I have written posts on the content of the Alexander-Murray draft up to page 428 (out of 601). Links to my four previous posts can be found in this one, my fifth, focused on Title V– charters:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/the-senate-esea-reauthorization-draft-part-v-charters/