Archives for category: Education Reform

Ken Bernstein reflects on the anti-Semitism of Trump’s followers, after reading an article by Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times. After the journalist tweeted the article by Robert Kagan about Trump and the rise of fascism, he began receiving a steady barrage of anti-Semitic tweets. These were not from Trump but from his followers.

 

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been slow to disassociate himself from the hate groups who admire him, not only the anti-Semites, but the white nationalists. The extremists who linger in the shadows feel encouraged by Trump’s war against “political correctness.” Most of the time, what he calls political correctness is simply treating people who are different from you with courtesy and civility.

 

 

Jeannie Kaplan was twice elected to the Denver Board of Education and is well qualified to review the claims made about that city’s schools. Due to an infusion of reformer cash from across the nation starting in 2009, Denver’s elected school board is now completely dominated by supporters of choice and high-stakes testing (i.e. corporate reformers). These “reformers” have a 7-0 grip on the city’s schools and its publicity machine, thanks to national corporate reform-minded groups like Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). Their claims are repeated in the reformer media, including at Gates-funded and rightwing think tanks and publications. Jeannie is a very kind and compassionate person, and she is tired of having to refute the claims, again and again. But she comes once more to the front, to explain why Denver is a hoax, not a model.

 

In this post, she reviews the latest phony claims about “reform” in Denver.

 

She writes:

 

 

Let’s do a quick refresher course before we delve into this faux success story.

 

 

The main goals of “education reform” are:

 

Expanding charter schools, which as the state of Washington has determined are not common (public) schools;
Improving graduation rates. The most recent DPS strategic plan, Denver Plan 2020, calls for graduation rates for African American and Latino students of 89% by 2020, 90% for students who start in DPS in ninth grade;
Reducing or eliminating the achievement gap, that is, the gap between children living in poverty and those not. Another goal of Denver Plan 2020.
Eliminating the union protected workers in the public school system which can be exacerbated by closing “failing” schools and replacing them with either charter schools or innovation schools both of which are for the most part non-union;
Evaluating teachers based on test scores with all the concomitant issues around high stakes testing.

 

 

Reformers try to reach these results through something called a portfolio strategy, a business model used by Wall Street that simply put is predicated on constant churn. As Osborne writes, a portfolio strategy works “to replicate successful schools and replace failing ones.” The problem with such a strategy is students and teachers and parents and communities are neither commodities to be bought and sold nor should they be characterized as winners and losers. Denver has seen up close and personal how the chaos and churn this model brings.

 

 

Kaplan devotes the bulk of her post to debunking false claims of Denver’s success made in an article by David Osborne in the Hoover Institution-sponsored publication Education Next. EdNext cheerleads for charters, vouchers, and all forms of school choice. Osborne reliably concludes that “reform” has been a great success in Denver and that the day is in sight when most families will choose charters or other choice schools, thus obliterating neighborhood schools. Kaplan goes point by point through his article to correct him, though she notes that he provides no documentation for his statements.

 

She shows that at the present rate of change, Denver has no chance of reaching its “reform” goals by 2020. It is always dangerous for reformers to set concrete dates as predictions of their total success. This was done in Tennessee by Chris Barbic and the Achievement School District. He predicted in 2012 that the schools in the bottom 5% statewide would reach the top 25% in only five years. None of them has even managed to exceed the bottom 10% thus far and most remain in the bottom 5%.

 

Probably reformers should promise to reach their ambitious goals by 2050, a date so far removed that they won’t be held accountable in the meanwhile.

 

Kaplan concludes:

 

Denver has become a national leader for its implementation of “education reform.” This has been relatively easy to accomplish with the help of the national media who continuously bolster the “education reform” agenda of chaos and churn. “Education reformers” in Denver have all the elements in place to continue to push a failing education model. Be afraid, Denver. Be very afraid.

 

Why the hatred of neighborhood public schools? I don’t know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The next time you hear boastful claims about “reform,” think Chicago.

 

Poor Chicago! Arne Duncan launched his version of reform there in 2001, with Gates funding. School closings, test scores above all, new schools, charter schools. And what is left now: a public school system struggling to survive. The results of Arne’s reforms: zilch.

 

Then Obama named his basketball buddy as Secretary of Education and the reforms that failed in Chicago were imposed on the nation by the ill-fated Race to the Too, where everyone is a loser.

 

So, Mike Klonsky tells us, reform is business as usual. The Chicago way. Those that have, get more. Those that have not, get ignored.

 

Fifteen years of reform. Think Chicago. Where Democratic leaders pander to billionaires and strangle the public schools.

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been many articles about PARCC deleting blogs and tweets. In every case, PARCC complains that the offending blogger and Tweeter has infringed on its copyright.

 

But Mercedes asks an overlooked question: Does PARCC Inc. actually own the copyright to the PARCC tests?

 

Mercedes seeks the answer directly from Laura Glover, the executive of PARCC Inc.

 

If they own the PARCC, let the world see the evidence.

A new study based on publicly available data on the state’s website finds that the state has wasted millions of federal dollars designated for charter schools. Of the state’s federally funded charter schools, 37% either never opened or were among the state’s lowest performing schools. Only recently, the U.S. Department of Education decided to award another $71 million to expand the charter industry in Ohio, but the new funding has been delayed because of outrage over scandals in the state’s charters. The study was conducted by the Ohio Charter School Accountability Project.

 

 
New Study Shows Millions Intended for High-Performing Charter Schools
Went to Some of Ohio’s Worst – and Others That Never Even Opened

 

 

For Immediate Release: May 26, 2106

 

 

COLUMBUS – The federal government has sent more money to Ohio to expand “high-performing” charter schools than all but two other states, but Ohio spent millions on some of the lowest-performing schools. And nearly $4 million went to schools that never opened, according to a new analysis.

 

 

The Ohio Charter School Accountability Project did the analysis to determine how a state with so many of America’s worst-performing charter schools could be in line for so much federal money intended to help the best ones.

 

 

Ohio ranks third nationally in total money received during the program’s 21-year history. During that time, the U.S. Department of Education did just one assessment of the grants’ success in Ohio. Although it raised serious questions about the Ohio Department of Education’s ability to properly distribute the money, nothing appears to have changed as a result.

 

 

“As Ohio takes steps to make charter school sponsors more accountable under the reform law passed last year, it’s important that policy makers understand the past,” said OEA President Becky Higgins. “Together with our colleagues at Innovation Ohio and ProgressOhio, we examined how these Charter School Program (CSP) grants have been awarded, and tried to identify the shortfalls along the way. Ohio cannot afford to waste money on failing charter schools. It needs to invest in the good ones.’’

 

 

The new analysis, Belly Up: A Review of Federal Charter School Grants, shows how state and federal education departments ignored warning signs, systemically wasted tax dollars and made learning more difficult for many Ohio students.

 

 

Among the main findings:

 

 

· Of the 292 Ohio charter schools that have received federal CSP funding since 2006, 108 (37 percent) have closed or never opened, totaling nearly $30 million. Meanwhile, barely 2 percent of all companies nationwide that have received any federal grants or incentives since 2000 have failed.

 

 

· The Ohio tally includes 26 charter schools that received nearly $4 million in CSP funding but never opened. There are no records to indicate whether any of these public funds was returned.

 

 

· Ohio charters that received past CSP funding and State Report Card grades in the 2014-2015 school year had a median Performance Index score that was lower than all but 15 of Ohio’s 613 school districts.

 

 

· Since the federal grant program began 21 years ago, its lone assessment – conducted by WestEd – identified material weaknesses that appear to have been ignored by federal grant makers. In one instance, a potential grant reviewer even told the Ohio Department of Education that she was unqualified for the job and asked to be excluded from its reviewers’ list. Instead, the department thanked her for “agreeing to participate as a community school grant reader.”

 

 

· Paolo DeMaria, recently appointed Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction, was Associate Superintendent of Finance and School Options at the time WestEd raised concerns about Ohio’s processes for distributing the federal money to charter schools.

 

 

Of the 44 Ohio charter schools where State Auditor David Yost conducted surprise attendance audits recently, 17 had received federal CSP funding. One of them – the London Academy – only had 10 of the 270 students ODE thought it had in attendance the day Yost’s investigators showed up. All told, these audited schools received about $6.6 million in federal funding.
Last September, federal officials stunned education experts by announcing that Ohio would receive $71 million in CSP grants – more than any other state. Ohio’s large award came in spite of its reputation as one the worst charter states in the country, according to national charter advocates. The swift and severe criticism that followed prompted USDOE to put Ohio’s award on hold.

 

 

“We urge federal regulators to revamp the way in which it makes grants so that the money goes to the best performing charter schools,” said Innovation Ohio President Keary McCarthy. “The mistakes of the past should not be repeated in the awarding of future grants.”

 

 

Those mistakes include giving millions to the state’s most notorious charter school scofflaws, including:

 

 

· Horizon Science Academies and Noble Academies: Total CSP Grants: 7.6 million

 

 

Linked to a Muslim cleric exiled in Pennsylvania, the chain is the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation, and WikiLeaks revealed cables showing the U.S. State Department notified the CIA about suspicious visas for teachers and administrators. In June 2014, 19 of its schools were raided by the FBI, including four in Ohio. The Ohio schools also have been dogged by allegations of test-tampering, teachers using racial slurs in the classroom, unqualified teachers, sexual misconduct in the classroom. ODE investigated allegations raised by teachers who witnessed the problems but found no wrongdoing.

 

 

· Imagine Schools: Total CSP Grants: $5.9 million

 

 

The chain has been under fire nationally for saddling schools with exorbitant leases paid to its subsidiary, SchoolHouse Finance. Imagine recently lost lawsuits in Indiana and Missouri over the same type of abusive leases seen in Ohio. A federal judge in Missouri ordered Imagine to pay $1 million and called the lease arrangement “self-dealing.’’ One of the chain’s worst-performing Ohio schools, Romig Road in Akron, is among the charters that closed – but received federal grant money. All of Imagine’s Ohio schools received a D or F on the most recent state report cards.

 

 

· White Hat Management: Total CSP Grants: $1.4 million
Owner David Brennan has been the most powerful and influential of Ohio’s charter school operators since state money started flowing to them. Brennan’s schools also are routinely among the lowest performing. While Ohio’s historically lax regulations make it difficult to close even the worst schools, several of Brennan’s schools have been shut down for academic reasons or contractual non-compliance. Staffers for GOP state Auditor David Yost made surprise visits to charters to see if they are padding attendance records and concluded that White Hat’s dropout recovery schools were among the worst.

 

 

It’s been well documented that ODE’s grant application for the $71 million was inaccurate and misleading, prompting state officials to revise the number of poor-performing charter schools in Ohio from six on its initial application to 57 – a tenfold increase. The author of the application, David Hansen, was forced to resign as head of ODE’s office of school choice and community schools after getting caught illegally cooking the state’s accountability system to benefit Ohio’s politically connected eSchool operators.

 

 

It is unclear when or if federal regulators will release the $71 million.

 

 

The Ohio Charter School Accountability Project is a joint venture of the Ohio Education Association, Innovation Ohio and ProgressOhio. OEA and IO host the website, knowyourcharter.com, which provides data from the Ohio Department of Education on how the state’s charter schools are faring compared to local public schools.

 

 

For More Information, contact:

 

 

Stephen Dyer, Innovation Ohio Education Fellow, 330-338-1486
Keary McCarthy, Innovation Ohio President, 614-425-9163

Mary Lou Bruner was defeated in her race for state school board in Texas.

 

She gained about five minutes of fame after saying that President Obama may have been a “gay prostitute” in his youth.

 

She lost badly.

 

Given its current governor and legislature, Texas doesn’t need any more embarrassments.

 

 

Rachel Rich is a retired English teacher who has taken a deep interest in standardized testing. She wrote the following review of one of the two federally subsidized tests. Normally, I would tell you which test she has analyzed, but I have recently become acutely aware that the testing corporations hire security agencies to scan the Internet, looking for blogs and tweets that dare to mention their name. If you mention their name, the testing corporation goes to the Internet Service Provider and complains that you violated their copyright. The ISP then deletes your post or tweet. So I won’t tell you which national test she is writing about. I will just give you a hint: it is not the one that is CCRAP spelled backwards. It is the other one. (Let’s see if they miss this one.)

 

Rachel Rich writes:

 

S——r B—–ed Exposed

 

The online Third Grade SB Practice Test is the tip of the testing iceberg, but presumably made of the same basic material as the larger, submerged test. The “real” test is so hidden from view that you, other parents, teachers and even the students themselves are not even allowed to whisper about it, let alone criticize. Given that other standardized tests publish their questions once the test is over, the SB never-ending code of silence is unprecedented, probably to hide flaws. If the public mini-version is any indication, the final is a sloppily written, tricky, grossly unfair mess.

The current level of censorship surrounding SB would make Nixon proud. The test originators, Pearson, CTB/McGraw-Hill, and AIR, unleash internet spies like TRAXX and Caveon who set webcrawlers after key words like test names. Next, human spies dig into the Facebook, Twitter and other accounts of any griping parents, teachers, bloggers and especially children!

 

 

SB even sends out annual flyers to school administrators detailing how to spy on kids’ Facebook and Twitter accounts. Principals are supposed to suspend kids as young as eight simply for telling their parents there was a question about the Wizard of Oz on a Common Core test. Teachers are forced to sign gag orders or face firing for discussing the uber-test even in the most general terms. And right this very minute testing companies are forcing the removal of internet discussions under threat of lawsuits. Censorship is now as common as head lice in kindergarten.

 
Now let’s find out what they’re hiding:

 

The Language Arts Third Grade SB Practice Test is twenty pages long! Since it’s supposed to take an hour, we can easily calculate the length of the final. Officially third graders need at least seven hours to finish the math and English portions combined, meaning the real deal is a grueling 140 pages long!!! Tenth graders are assigned at least 8 1/2 hours, which would mean their tests are about 170 pages long! Endurance is now as key as knowledge. One kid told me afterwards his fingers hurt.

The test opens with a colossal three page reading passage totaling 580 words. That is triple the length of passages in other tests, a length only suitable for in-class discussion, not a cold read. Still the test repeats this flaw with similar, lengthy, redundant passages. Such a quantum leap in expectations renders all comparisons with other tests useless, meaning it can’t be proven to be a legitimate measure.

Previous tests were only 60-120 minutes long, while today’s third graders must sit still for 90 minute intervals totaling a minimum of seven hours for English and math combined. This minimum doesn’t include time needed for individual log-in, bathroom breaks, computer crashes, or SB transmission snafus. Already heaped with challenges, special education students need up to fifteen hours to finish, though knowing in advance they’ll probably fail. Even recent immigrants who can’t read English are required to simply sit and stare at the screen until the clock runs out. Test makers call that rigor, but it’s really just plain mean and stupid.

Sophisticated computer skills are required of kids, even though the makers don’t have their own act together. I had to click back and forth between passage and questions, which sent my answers into a black hole, as does pressing the tab button during typing. Eight-year-olds are also expected to highlight, drag and type fluently, which most cannot. I wanted to throw myself off the front porch as a martyr for the millions biting their nails and pulling out their eyebrows in sheer frustration.

Question 1: “Click the two details that best support this conclusion.” Kids are faced with choices twenty words long, although adult tests typically warm up with soft pitches, like choosing from short phrases.

 

SB, way to destroy kids’ confidence right out of the gate!

Questions 2, 11, 13, 27 have a Part A/Part B format. Question 2: “This question has two parts. First, answer part A. Then, answer part B.” This format is unfamiliar to adults, let alone eight-year-olds. Since these quirks don’t exist on the ACT, ASVAB, or Meyers-Briggs, etc., they negate the Smarter Balanced claim that they prepare K-12 students for future tests. Equally befuddling, the fifth choice for Question 2 Part B is on the next page and since you can only open one page at a time, even I, an adult, overlooked it.

 
So why such trickiness? Teacher, teacher, I know! The more students SB fails, the more test prep they sell! As soon as last year’s testing month was over, SB solicited teachers through our district email to purchase out of their own pockets tutorials for improving student scores. In some districts they even use school contact lists to advertise directly to parents! These profits from the private sector are on top of their profits from federal and state funds. In 2012 alone, a year of limited pilot testing, the industry pocketed a cool $8.1 billion. No one is saying what today’s total is, probably for fear of alerting the public to this gigantic waste of tax dollars.

 
Question 3: “Arrange the events from the passage in the order in which they happen. Click on the sentences to drag them into the correct locations.” Many eight-year-olds don’t have the experience, let alone the dexterity to do this. Consequently they fail not from lack of knowledge, but from a lack of intelligent tests.

 
Question 5: “What inference can be made about the author’s message about animals? Include information from the passage to support your answer.” Also, Question 12: “What inference can be made about why the author includes the backpack in the passage?” Where do I begin? Little children’s brains can’t “infer” anything, because they still think only literally. It’s developmentally impossible for them to read between the lines or think figuratively. To say, “The girl has a chip on her shoulder” merely signals them to look for something on her shoulder, not that she’s angry. Teaching inference at this age is as unrealistic as trying to potty train every single one-year-old. Sure, a few precocious babies might succeed, but the rest will be driven batty.

 
These little kids are even required to type their answers! You have to be living in la-la land to expect fluent keyboarding at the age of eight. According to the US Census, a whopping 16% of students lack the home computers or hand-held devices necessary for practice, and most schools don’t have enough computers for all. Ironically, exploding testing expenditures have also forced most districts to drop keyboarding courses.

 
This boondoggle isn’t age appropriate precisely because zero elementary specialists were allowed to help with its design. Instead, reps from the College Board, ACT and Aspire idiotically “backward mapped” expectations for each age starting with college entrance exams and assuming every child should attend college. No Child Left Behind agreed, but who do you think set that agenda for US Department of Education?

 
No joke, SB requires a B to pass!!! That’s to align with a B requirement for college entrance. But as kids didn’t we all need only a C to pass? Even reading levels are now one full year higher by graduation. No wonder only about a third pass. Meanwhile, doesn’t requiring all students be college eligible mean they all must be above average? Hard to believe intelligent adults fall for this. It’s oxymoronic!

 
Question 10: “The author uses a word that means placed one on top of another.”

 

Punctuation rules require quotation marks around “placed one on top of another”. Rushing to publication in just nine months, test makers clearly ignored the thousands of pleas for corrections, proving once again that they’re not about quality, but about profits. Investment sites squealed with delight over the chance to stuff $2.2 trillion dollars in public education funds into their private pockets.

 
Question 16 has a typographical error: “Move the groups of sentences so that the group that makes the bestbeginning (sic) comes first.” Even English majors don’t agree on the correct sequence for this story, but they do agree SB should have hired a copy editor. I actually heard one test designer complain that since corrections impact multiple contractors, from software to print, they’re just too expensive to make. That’s because they’re beholden to shareholders, not students.

 
Question 21’s phrasing is light years above grade level: “Which of the following sentences has an error in grammar usage?” Seriously? Why not, “Which sentence uses incorrect grammar?” Strangely, teachers aren’t even allowed to help kids understand these obtuse questions, but instead must parrot “Do your best.” Kids get so stressed out not knowing what they’re supposed to do that SB manuals actually detail how to handle crying, vomiting and peeing pants. You wouldn’t believe how many parents and teachers tell me this is actually happening to their own students! It’s epidemic.

 
Question 23: Who in their right mind gives a listening test about The International Space Station to third graders? On what planet do little ones have either the background or the interest? It’s also grossly unfair because they don’t study this until the fourth grade. Besides, not everyone is a white, suburban, middle-class kid whose school and parents can afford trips to the planetarium.

 
No surprise, SB has never passed any validity studies that compare it with other measures such as the NAEP, PISA, SAT, ACT, high school or college graduation rates. In fact, they’ve quietly issued disclaimers. If the test did have validity, they’d be crowing it from the rooftops. But why should they bother when they’ve already pocketed the cash?

 
Now would someone please blow the lid off the real test, preferably before quitting or retiring?!

 
Rachel Rich

Peter Greene read the annual report from the CEO of the Gates Foundation, Sue Desmond-Hellman, and asked himself what the foundation had learned from its multi-zillion dollar investment in changing the nation’s education system. Nothing. They learned nothing. They blame “the system” for the failure of their bad ideas. It never occurs to them to examine whether they were wrong.

 

Bill Gates is never wrong. Unless he says so. And he hasn’t said so, so he can’t be wrong.

 

Desmond-Hellman cites a fake statistic to alarm readers. “Only 40 percent of students met three of the four college-readiness standards across English, reading, math, and science.”

 

Greene writes:

 

 

“This is a problem both because the basis for saying that in the first place (a study by test manufacturer ACT– so it’s kind of like a study by Ford Motor Company on whether or not Americans have enough cars) and the implication that you’re not really ready for college unless you have the knowledge base of both a science major and an English major (“Sorry, Chris. We were going to give you a full music scholarship, but your biology scores were too low”).

 

She writes: “However, I’m optimistic that all students can thrive when they are held to high standards. And when educators have clear and consistent expectations of what students should be able to do at the end of each year, the bridge to opportunity opens. The Common Core State Standards help set those expectations.”

 

Greene responds:

 

“So, apparently, nobody ever held students to high standards before (and apparently few people even thought of it). But we’ve discussed the magical power of expectations, and my advice to folks in the private sector remains the same– if expectations of high standards are the key to making every student succeed, then I suggest Microsoft just start hiring people at random and then expecting them to meet high standards. What’s that you say? Only some people can meet those standards, and so “hold to high standards” in industry means “sorting the wheat from the chaff, and only employing the wheat”? If that’s so, then where do we send the students who are chaff in public education?”

 

The Oklahoma legislature passed a law eliminating student test scores as part of teacher evaluation. Hawaii did the same last week. Bit by bit, the most ill-advised, costly, and demoralizing part of Race to the Top is being rejected by the states. It has no research base. Researchers find that measuring teachers by their student scores is unreliable, unstable, and varies by the composition of the class. Its biggest contribution to American education has been to drive out good teachers and create s teacher shortage.

 

House leaders unanimously passed a bill Wednesday that eliminates the requirement to use student academic growth in Oklahoma’s teacher evaluation system.

 

House Bill 2957, which is estimated to save Oklahoma school districts millions of dollars and the Oklahoma State Department of Education more than $500,000, has been sent to the governor’s desk for signature.

 

“Amid this difficult budget year when public education has faced a variety of challenges, House Bill 2957 is a true bright spot of this year’s legislative session,” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Joy Hofmeister said. “By giving districts the option of removing the quantitative portion of teacher evaluations, we not only increase local control but lift outcomes by supporting our teachers while strengthening their professional development and growth in the classroom.”

 

Also praising the bill for its return to local decision-making was Rep. Michael Rogers,R-Broken Arrow, HB 2957’s House author.

 

“This legislation will return flexibility back to the districts on their evaluations while developing an individualized professional development program that will help all of our teachers and administrators,” he said.

 

HB 2957 removes the controversial and mandated Value-Added Measures – which tie a teacher’s performance rating to student test scores — from OSDE’s Teacher and Leader Effectiveness evaluation system and effectively eliminates the requirement that evaluation scores be used to terminate teachers. These quantitative evaluation tools will become optional for districts upon the governor’s signature.

 

Sen. John Ford, R-Bartlesville, who co-authored the bill, said the legislation has been long overdue.

 

“After gathering input from a variety of stakeholders through a lengthy and thoughtful review process, we feel that HB 2957 promotes increased reflection and professional growth for teachers and leaders,” Ford said. “Now is the time to support the teachers in Oklahoma’s public education system by focusing on an evaluation system that places professional development first.”

 

Farewell and good riddance!

 

 

– See more at: http://m.examiner-enterprise.com/news/local-news/lawmakers-pass-teacher-evaluation-changes#sthash.xJo33ldE.dpuf

 

 

The parent-led Public Schools First NC calls on the public to speak out against legislation to create an “achievement school district,” modeled on Tennessee’s failed ASD. The goal of the law is to invite charter takeovers of low-scoring schools.

 

 

“An Achievement School District is a bad idea for North Carolina. Taking over failing schools and giving them to out-of-town charter operators does not help students or communities. Yet the House is ready to take up a bill (HB1080) that would create an ASD with five of our most vulnerable elementary schools. Tell your representatives you DO NOT SUPPORT this unproven and unaccountable strategy when state transformation teams working closely with local schools and districts are beginning to succeed. They deserve more staff and funding, not an expensive state takeover!
Tell your legislators to REJECT HB1080! (click here and sign the petition

 

 

http://www.publicschoolsfirstnc.org/engage/petitions/achievement-school-district-petition/?platform=hootsuite

 
HERE IS the calendar in the house tomorrow.

 

Click to access CurrentHouseCalendar.pdf

 

HERE is the calendar in the senate tomorrow.

Click to access CurrentsenateCalendar.pdf

 

HERE is the House Education Budget
http://www.publicschoolsfirstnc.org/resources/education-budget/”