Here is the roll call on the amendment offered by Senator Mike Lee to grant parents the right to opt put without penalty to their school, district or state.
S.Amdt. 2162 to S.Amdt. 2089 to S. 1177 (Every Child Achieves Act of 2015)
Statement of Purpose: To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 relating to parental notification and opt-out of assessments.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —32
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Perdue (R-GA)
Risch (R-ID)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-SC)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
NAYs —64
Alexander (R-TN)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gardner (R-CO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting – 4
Graham (R-SC)
Nelson (D-FL)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Goodness. Look at all the Democrats who suddenly discovered States Rights and Local Control.
What happened? Did the testing companies and Common Core people donate $$$ to their PAC’s or something?
We now know who has sold their souls to the Bill Gates cabal and the hedge fund oligarchs.
And everyone keeps voting Democrat why? What was the reason again for voting for people who have been purchased by people who want to destroy the teaching profession, and test kids endlessly until they cry? What was the reason again?
The reason was to vote for the lesser of two evils but they are now equal.
Are you advocating voting Republican or third party?
Diene, are you asking me? Third party.
Both NY senators voted Nay! Wow!!
Both California senators voted no also. I’m disgusted.
Both Illinois senators too. Disgusted, but not surprised. The one that does surprise me is Sanders. I hope “Feel the Bern” doesn’t end up with getting burned.
“Selfbern”
Bern burned the Bern
With parent spurn
Why can’t he learn
Of their concern?
Also, both the Ohio Republican and Democratic senators.
It was very clever marketing to marry testing with civil rights. Even the most seasoned lobbyist, must have been surprised by the easy sell that the politicians had, with their electorates.
When those voters, both Black and White, are forced to buy Silicon Valley’s schools in a box, feudalism will be the bigger concern, not racial discrimination.
Why does the federal government reserve the right to penalize local governments for non-compliance while saying the reason they are retaining the mandate is to preserve local governance? How can a state exempt itself from a federal requirement?
#confused
oh and all the Yays are from Southern states not known for their progressive stances on things including Wisconsin, Louisiana, Nevada, and Missouri. How did supporting testing become a liberal/progressive priority?
What’s really sad is that Wisconsin is now a “Southern” state. (Geographically, of course, it isn’t. But might as well be.) Used to be one of the most progressive states in the union.
Am I reading this correctly? Democrats do not support the rights of parents?
They’ve been bought. I hate sounding so negative, but there is no other explanation for it.
Politics indeed make for strange bedfellows!
I am totally flabbergasted. I have never seen anything like this in my whole life. I had to go down the list again because I thought I was reading it wrong.
And there is our Cory Booker – Dino, sell out, corporate puppet, same donors for both him and Christie. I’m ashamed of him.
The only thing I can figure is that there is a grander scheme that is in that bedfellows vein. Incredible amounts of money spent (or not) on Democrats to protect the ed-reform machine/structures (including tests and the reliance on participation)…I am concerned.
Don’t they know parents don’t need their permission.
Thank you!
I just emailed my NYS senators. I asked why they opposed the rights of parents, children, and teachers.
Sherrod Brown used to be Ohio’s lone progressive. Looks like he sold out parents.
“Feel the Bern”
I feel the Bern
And it don’t feel good
Cuz Bern just spurned
My neighborhood
There has to be more to this!
Here’s to hoping…
What we are witnessing is demise of the Democratic Party and a bipartisan group of Republican traitors, and their traditional role to protect the American people.
The epitaph on this gravestone should read as follows…
Here lies a house that lost its way,
sixty-four entrusted with the hope of defending our democracy…
But instead acted in the vices of betrayal and decay,
The great harbringer of calamity.
Here lies Ed. U. Cation
Died from Common Core
Corporadulation
Testing, VAMs and more
And we thought parental choice was supposed to be popular with the Republican Senate.
Thanks for the info! Just sent emails to Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein expressing my disappointment.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
Does this mean that Cuomo can now pass a law that prohibits state test opt out?
States rights but federal money with strings, hardee har har.
States’ rights to opt out of federally required tests? I know there’s an oxymoron in there somewhere.
It’s always been a bipartisan attack on teachers and on public schools.
Note, we may win this battle, and still lose the war. The only solution is to demand a change in the culture within the schools by eliminating all administrative positions, and replace them with support personnel culled from the senior staff on a rotating basis so they can’t form an adversarial relationship. We must end the intimidation and deprofessionalization of teachers, eliminate the so called charter schools and remove their elevated status, take the school systems out of the hands of the “butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker” on the boards of education, and stop the demeaning of all teachers by focusing on the few ‘bad apples.’ We are losing this war because Bill Gates and his cohorts from the corporate computer industry recognized that in good times and in bad there is always plenty of money earmarked for public education, and so they are diverting that money into their digital world, and using it as a cash cow to sustain their industry ad infinitum. Remember, the only people who count in the process of education are the teachers and their students. Everyone else is superfluous.
Ian Kay
This is so weird. In Pennsylvania, usually Sen. Casey makes the sane vote and Toomey makes the insane vote, but here the situation is reversed. Do Democrats really think standardized testing is vital to school accountability? Can they all be that ignorant of education matters? Have they not been reading our letters and emails?
I’ll be heading to Washington, D.C., in a week, and I’ll be giving Casey an earful and Toomey a thank you. Again, this is so weird.
I have already notified both of Connecticut’s senators to take me off of their email lists. The reason I gave is that I am now a one-issue voter and I do not agree with their stances on standardized testing.
Senator Claire McCaskill, you vote hurts children. RTTT is junk science. Senator Roy Blunt, thank you for your vote.
my guess is the vote was whipped on Dem side bc Duncan was against it.
That actually could be it. It could be Obama-Duncan was twisting arms.
Speaking strictly as a private citizen from the privacy of my home:
If the feds are going to withhold Title 1 and 3 funds, so be it, because it is OUR federal tax dollars, not the feds’s, and it will only throw bacon lard into the fire . . . . That will motivate more civil disobedience.
These federal officials are hanging themselves ultimately with their own indifference and disconnect, even if they vote this way and have won. They are, in this context, a prime example of an oppressive entity instead of one that helps the people who voted in the officials who choose to misuse the machinery of government.
Nonetheless, I still believe in Bernie Sanders. The only possible grace here is that people like Senator Sanders voted against the amendment because there were other components attached to it that were outright, tip-the-scale nefarious. Or maybe state sovereignty is seen as something still precious in the background of federal overreach.
Either way, opting out families are opting out families, and their movement will change from one of accelerated growth to one of burgeoning momentum.
One cannot stop a parent from loving their child, protecting their child, and making value judgments about what is best for their child. In the absence of a Sophie’s choice type of situation, which I would wish upon no one, parental love will always stand independently of politics and funding.
– Robert Rendo
Maybe some of our favorite politicians voted against the amendment because they feared withdrawal of Title I and III funds, which many high poverty districts depend on, even if it comprises a small part of their operating budget.
While I don’t condone or like what the Senate did, their motivations are perhaps more complex than what we see with our own naked, legitimately focused eye. The next step is ascertaining from them exactly why they voted his way.
While many if not most politicians this era and present culture are living caricatures and rather black and white (i.e., Paul Ryan and Scott Walker), my suggestion is that we look at some politicians with a measure of complexity and that we resist the temptation of pooling them in with the rest of the corrupt fools. We should look at the whole package enrobing the politician and at his/her voting record on multiple issues.
Be careful of one-issue voting behavior in a society as diseased and complicated as the United States . . . .
“Power Corrupts”
Frodo donned
The ruling Ring
Felt the bond
With Sauron’s wing
Writing to Schumer and Gillibrand right now and demanding an answer for their vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00235
Check this. The data above is incorrect. it refers to a different amendment. Democrats voted YES to opt-out
I am so confused. I thought the data was wrong. Wishful thinking?
Sorry for the confusion…
“Erreflection”
To look in mirror
Always helps
To hide the “error”
From oneself
Silvia
This amendment on opt out was rejected by 64-32. Most Dems voted against it, including Bernie Sanders.
At first I was shocked to see the party-line vote Amendment 2162 which on the face of it, was against parental choice in opting out, then I read Mercedes Schneider’s excellent analysis of the ESEA reauthorization bill. I now “think” I understand the following, using Ms Schneider’s own words in quotes where helpful:
–Amendment 2162 was the second of three separate amendments presented on the subject of opting out of ESEA-mandated state testing.
–The First amendment stated “Nothing in this part shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent or guardian’s child participate in the statewide academic assessments.”
Ms Schneider says” In other words, the federal government wants to stay out of state and local decisions regarding parental opt-out laws.” This passed.
–The second amendment Senator Lee’s Amendment 2162, [being discussed here] did not pass, rejected by most Democratic senators. “Amendment 2162 would have set the opt-out policies for federally-mandated assessments for all states.”
“Note that the failure of amendment 2162 does not mean that the federal government will penalize states for state opt-out policies. To do so would contradict Isakson’s opt-out provision already approved and stated above. It means that opt-out is to occur at the state level, via state policy/legislation.”
The third opt-out amendment 2194 incorporated the “good” part of 2162 concerning informing parents regarding opt-out procedures, and passed, with all those who voted no on 2162 voting yes.
Based on this information, it seems to me that unless one prefers that opt-out policies be federally mandated for all states, that this amendment 2162 was both unnecessary and misguided, and thus properly defeated.
I am not an expert and have neither the expertise nor time to study the original documents to get to the facts, so I am doubly grateful to those like Ms Schneider who do it for us. If I have misunderstood her writing, please feel free to elaborate, or make corrections, but please don’t use words like “imbecile” “moron” or similar words which I noted earlier in this blog, which are not conducive to either learning or discussion.
Helene,
If the federal government mandates the tests, why not also mandate parents’ right to opt out?
Diane
Thank you for your comment. You cut right to the chase with a substantive point, while I was still focused on trying to understand the content and procedural points of the three amendments.
I am of course supporting parents right to opt-out, and I think
my senators also support the right to opt out, so I have no idea why it had to go through such a convoluted process to get to the net result that opt-out is to occur at the state level, via state policy/legislation. Why did they not federally mandate parents’ right to opt-out ? I have several ideas, but they are all conjecture. Short answer: I don’t know.
Helene, they apparently don’t see the contradiction in mandating annual tests but refusing to support parental rights to refuse the test
We have lost the Democratic Party. Sanders is also becoming a disappointment. Wonder if it’s payback on the endorsement?
“Writing at Townhall, Jane Robbins and Heidi Huber observed recently that, despite Alexander’s claim that his legislation would provide more parental and local control of education, it “doesn’t ignore the ‘opt out’ movement – in fact, it adds language that effectively encourages the states to lower the boom on noncompliant students and parents.”
“The rejection of the parental opt-out amendment in the Senate establishes a major point of departure from the House’s version of the NCLB reauthorization.
“The Student Success Act barely passed the House last week by a vote of 218-213, with 27 Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition to the measure. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ)87%
introduced an amendment that was adopted by the House, 251-178, one that would allow parents to opt their children out of standardized testing.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/15/senate-votes-to-end-debate-on-nclb-rewrite-rejects-lees-amendment-allowing-parent-opt-outs-from-tests/
Maybe this will explain. The NAACP and AFT are, among others, members of “The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights” Read the letter they sent to senators, asking to vote NO on Opt-Out
However, we should change the way we assess student achievement. PARCC is NOT the tool to do it…
Ensure All Students are Counted: Oppose the Lee Opt-Out Amendment #2162 to the Every Child Achieves Act, S.1177
Advocacy Letter – 07/13/15
Source: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Recipient: U.S. Senate
View the PDF of this letter here.
Dear Senator:
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of over 200 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we urge you to oppose the Lee Opt-Out Amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act, S.1177. Lee Amendment #2162 would essentially eviscerate the requirement that schools account for the learning of all students through the law’s participation rate requirement.
Prior to the inclusion of the participation requirement in the current law, students were routinely excluded from the general assessment, their learning was not taken into account, and their needs were ignored. The Leadership Conference believes that every child’s learning should matter and the law must continue to ensure that it does. Since 1965 and over the course of multiple reauthorizations, the core purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has been to help schools, districts, and states meet the additional educational needs of low-income students, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners and Native American students. This amendment subverts that longstanding purpose and turns back the clock on educational opportunity.
We hope that you will oppose this amendment and continue to ensure that every child is counted. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Nancy Zirkin, Leadership Conference Executive Vice President, at zirkin@civilrights.org, or Liz King, Leadership Conference Director of Education Policy at king@civilrights.org.
Sincerely,
Wade Henderson
President & CEO
Nancy Zirkin
Executive Vice President
Silvia,
I understand the point. But many grassroots civil rights groups oppose high-stakes testing.
Read this: http://www.j4jalliance.com/media/openletter/
I have to move past the saddest part that happened yesterday – the failure of NEA’s amendment – the dashboard – which would have shed light on the economic inequities in public schools.
http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fapi.edweek.org%2fv1%2fblog%2f49%2f%3fuuid%3d47593&cid=25920011&intc=mob-topnav
And on to the part the makes me furious . . .
See below at the end if you cannot access this link because you are not registered.
Tell me why the Democrats gnaw off their own leg.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00241
And if you say because of money.
I will believe you because it certainly NOT voting in favor of at-risk kids.
Someone explain to me how Democrats reconcile basing all changes in public schools on racially biased testing.
RACIALLY BIASED
http://publicschoolscentral.com/2015/07/15/test-is-a-test-is-a-test-is-a-test/
And explain to me how Democrats join with astro-turfers like TFA and Students First.
The testing is RACIALLY BIASED and OPPRESSIVE.
http://www.civilrights.org/advocacy/letters/2015/every-childs-learning.html
@DianeRavitch: Evidence of How Little Congress Knows About Education http://t.co/cmm9SVlwcp
And someone from the civil rights groups who instigated more punishment for public schools without any more support for kids — better explain that to me pronto.
Why worship a test and allowed no opting out of it when it is destructive because it is RACIALLY BIASED and HORRIBLE for all sorts of kids.
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/15/senate-vote-on-parents-right-to-opt-out-of-testing/
And then tell me seriously how killing a neighborhood public school, desegregating by charter, and handing over money to for profit corporations helps kids in Nevada – or any at-risk kid in the United States
The destruction is happening because the testing is RACIALLY BIASED and DISRUPTiVE.
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/16/the-rev-william-barber-a-civil-rights-leader-for-our-time/
We had a chance to make a big difference for kids but groups that are supposed to be champions for all kids – supposed allies – voted for destruction. Not support – just destruction.
What can I do but weep.
O God hear the words of my mouth – hold the children in Your Hand and make the burdens become light. Hold those accountable who bowed to the money changers instead of speaking up for the innocents who will be crushed by a system built to destroy them. If it be Thy will let changes be made to soften the deadly blows.
Angie
_________________
Senate Votes to End Debate on ESEA Rewrite; Final Vote Expected Thursday
By Lauren Camera July 15, 2015
Washington
The U.S. Senate cleared a major hurdle Wednesday, voting to end debate on the bipartisan bill to overhaul the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and paving the way for a final vote on the measure Thursday.
Thanks to an agreement struck between co-authors Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., and their respective party leaders, the bill was able to remain on the floor into Thursday until more than 40 outstanding amendments could be considered to the measure, the Every Child Achieves Act.
Before agreeing to invoke cloture with an overwhelming 86-12 vote, the Senate adopted 21 of those amendments by unanimous consent (see list below). In the afternoon, senators voted on and rejected four additional amendments, including one of the most high-profile amendments the chamber has considered in its six days of debate—a proposal from Democrats to beef up accountability measures in the underlying bill.
In the afternoon, senators voted on and rejected one of the most high-profile amendments the chamber has considered in its six days of debate—a proposal from Democrats to beef up accountability measures in the underlying bill to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act, the current version of the law.
Among other things, the amendment would have required states to establish measurable state-designed goals for all students and separately for each of the categories of subgroups of students. It also would have required states to intervene in their lowest-performing 5 percent of schools and those that graduate less than 67 percent of their students.
“NCLB said a lot on this issue, and most of it wasn’t helpful,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the principal author of the proposal. “But the amendment we’re offering takes a very different approach. This is an education bill, but it’s not a worthwhile bill unless it’s also a civil rights bill.”
As we wrote Tuesday, Democrats weren’t expecting the amendment to pass. But they were hoping to cobble together 35 or more votes to show that strengthening accountability is a top priority going into conference with the House on its version of an ESEA overhaul.
That way the Democrats, along with the dozen or so Republicans they anticipate voting against the bill no matter what, would be able to block final passage of a conferenced bill should it not include stronger accountability language.
But the National Education Association threw a bit of a wrench in their plan when it came out in opposition to the amendment and urged senators to vote against it.
The 3 million-member union argued that the amendment would “continue the narrow and punitive focus of NCLB and overidentify schools in need of improvement, reducing the ability of states to actually target help to schools that need the most assistance to help students.”
In a letter to senators, the NEA wrote that it agreed with the intent of the amendment, in that states should be required to specifically factor subgroup performance into their system of school identification. But that overall system, they letter stated, should be decided by the states, not the federal government.
NEA’s opposition sent civil rights groups into a tizzy, as they had been pushing for months for the increased safeguards included in the amendment. Just hours before the vote, the coalition of civil rights groups warned that if members voted in against the measure, it would count against them in a scoring rubric they use to rate which members are most faithful to their priorities.
The accountability amendment ultimately failed, 43-54, but Democrats secured the numbers they were hoping for. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and John Tester, D-Mont., were the only Democrats to oppose the measure, along with Sen. Angus King, I-Maine.
The Senate also took up an amendment that the NEA had been backing: a proposal from Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would have created a so-called opportunity dashboard, a tool that would display inequities in funding, access to experienced teachers, and advanced classes, and require states and districts to help fix them.
It too, failed 46-50.
Here’s a rundown of the amendments the Senate voted on Wednesday. Each of the following proposals needed to cross a 60-vote threshold:
An amendment from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., that would have established a climate change education program. FAILED, 44-53
An amendment from Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., that would have reinstated grants to improve the mental health of children. FAILED, 58-39
An amendment from Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would have ensured states measure and report on indicators of student access to critical educational resources and identify disparities in such resources. FAILED, 46-50
An amendment from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would have increased accountability by requiring states to identify and interven in low-performing schools and subgroups that fail to meet state goals. FAILED, 43-54
The Senate will consider the last block of amendments Thursday, including an amendment from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., that would alter the Title I funding formula for low-income students, and another from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., that would expand access to early-childhood education programs.
Amid pushback from senators on both sides of the aisle, Burr altered the language in his amendment to ensure that states that would lose money due to the formula change wouldn’t begin losing money until Title I is funded to the tune of $17 billion (an uknown amount of years down the road). The grant program is currently funded at $14.5 billion.
Despite the modification, senators continued to express concern with the proposal, including many of his Republican colleagues.
“While this is a huge improvement, it’s still something I think is very problematic,” said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., whose home state would lose $170 million under the proposal, according to the Congressional Research Service. “I will vote no.”
A final vote on the bill is expected Thursday.
Here are amendments the Senate adopted under unanimous consent:
An amendment from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would express the sense of Congress that John Arthur “Jack” Johnson should receive a posthumous pardon for the racially-motivated conviction in 1913 that diminished the athletic, cultural, and historical significance of Jack Johnson and unduly tarnished his reputation.
An amendment from Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., that would provide for shared services strategies and models.
An amendment from Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., that would allow states to use state activity funds for certain evidence-based mental health awareness programs.
An amendment from Sen. Tom Udall that would allow the Bureau of Indian Education to apply for certain competitive grants.
An amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would allow eligible entities to use funds for bilingual paraprofessionals and linguistically responsive materials.
An amendment from Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., that would improve preparation programs and strengthen support for principals and other school leaders.
An amendment from Sen. King that would authorize the Institute of Education Sciences to conduct a study on student access to digital learning resources outside of the school day.
An amendment from Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., that would require a report on responses to Indian student suicides.
An amendment from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that would reserve funds for an evaluation of early learning alignment and improvement grants.
An amendment from Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., that would ensure that states support early-childhood education programs that maintain disciplinary policies that do not include expulsion or suspension of participating children.
An amendment from Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., that would encourage increasing the amount of funds available for parent and family engagement.
An amendment from Sen. McCain that would allow states to use funding to replicate and expand successful practices from high-performing public schools.
An amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that would support innovation schools.
An amendment from Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., that would allow local school districts to address the needs of children in schools served by schoolwide programs by providing school-based mental health programs.
An amendment from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would require a report on cybersecurity education.
An amendment from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would include entrepreneurship as a local educational agency allowable use of funds under Title II.
An amendment from Sen. Alexander that would provide that state assessments not evaluate or assess personal or family beliefs and attitudes, or publicly disclose personally identifiable information.
An amendment from Sen. Bennet that would include information about assessments in the categories of information that parents have a right to know about.
All this is true, Angie, but we can’t just “get past” the failure of the NEA amendment. It is the one feature we have to fight for.
“The Senate also took up an amendment that the NEA had been backing: a proposal from Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would have created a so-called opportunity dashboard, a tool that would display inequities in funding, access to experienced teachers, and advanced classes, and require states and districts to help fix them.
It too, failed 46-50.”
It’s obscene enough for anybody to pretend the civil rights of children of color aren’t being INCREASINGLY violated by outcome-based accountability. To decline to even address the massive inequity in the educational resources alocated to them demonstrates treason and corruption.
We have to make racial justice and equity
in the opportunity to learn the bedrock of a new ESEA.
If this is a test where they can track students and /or sell their information, why can’t they opt out? Isn’t this also a privacy issue?
So the ones who voted yea to make the amendment are the right folks? This is confusing to me. Can anyone explain further?
Bennet and Gardner; traitors to Colorado parents, students, teachers and schools! You should be ashamed. Bernie Sanders; you just lost my vote.