Delaware General Assembly Pre-Game Show: Tues., April 21, 2015
Something quite remarkable has happened over the past six months. So much so that I doubt that those most responsible for it even recognize what they’ve accomplished.
There is an emerging recognition that the state’s education policy is an unmitigated disaster that will, I believe, almost inevitably have to be reversed or, at least, deep-sixed.
An education policy that began with Jack Markell deciding to go all-in and do whatever it took to get that Race To the Top money.
Students, teachers, and parents have become victims of the Common Corporate Curriculum, and the only beneficiaries have been corporations peddling snake oil in the form of tests and texts, and the oversized education bureaucracy that Race To the Top funded. If the bureaucracy was a burger joint, it’d be called ‘240 Fat Guys’. The governor’s legacy on this issue is already sunk, but he can’t/won’t admit the inevitable. It is, after all, his legacy. Which is why legislators and emerging policy leaders are taking up the slack. First step is to make sure that the governor does no more harm before he exits. Now, if only Mike Matthews and Pandora would run for the General Assembly…
Before we refocus our attention from the Governor to the General Assembly, can someone explain to me why…four years after Markell signed the legislation, we still don’t have a single medical marijuana dispensary up and running in Delaware? This quote from Jonathan Starkey’s News-Journal article says it best:
“Why did he (Markell) sign the bill if he had no intentions of enacting it?”
Why, indeed. Incompetence or ideology? You decide.
BTW, today’s Al Show will be a Very Special Primal Scream Therapy Edition. So much bad stuff, so little time (10-12 noon). Now on 101.7 FM, as well as the traditional 1150 AM. Or, you can just tune in here.
Ho-kay…time for the subject at hand. The General Assembly is back in session for something like four consecutive weeks. Here’s what we pretty much know. State employees will not get a raise this year. State employees/retirees will almost certainly have to pay more for health insurance. The state will continue to spend millions bribing and/or paying extortion to companies for new jobs and/or to keep existing jobs here. Here’s an example. I love that term ‘taxpayer grants’. Regardless of what they mean by it, it means that money will not flow into the state coffers. A $1.36 mill gift to Wells Fargo. ‘Cause they reallyreally need it. And the jobs are supposedly ‘guaranteed’ to stay here for a whole five years. At which point, you guessed it, the state will dust off the ol’ checkbook once again. It’s time for the General Assembly to do something about this. No more giveaways w/o transparency, and empirical evidence that these giveaways are worth it.
Today’s House Agenda features Version 3.0 (at least) of Rep. Baumbach’s Midwifery Licensure bill. While I take no position on the bill, I will point out that bills licensing and regulating certain professions are supposed to protect the public. The traditional Sunset Committee standard has been: “The least amount of regulation necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.” All too often, however, the bills serve the professionals and provide dubious value to the public. Sometimes, legislation is designed to simply keep people out of the profession. Or to provide an imprimatur of legitimacy to the profession. (The U of D College of Dietetics and Nutrition Science was behind the push to license dietitians and ‘nutrition scientists’, for example.) This bill is clearly a compromise in that it sets up two tiers of licensure. I will leave it to proponents and opponents of this bill to argue as to how this bill helps to protect the public.
A good ‘open records’ bill highlights today’s Senate Agenda. SB 26(Peterson), ‘provides for recording and maintaining a record of all deliberations made by public bodies during public hearings, including any discussion made “off the record.” ‘Off the record’ has been used to, um, keep facts from the public. Over and over. Time to put an end to it.
Highlights from Wednesday’s scheduled House committee meetings:
The House Education Committee considers HB 50(Kowalko), which permits parents or guardians of a child to ‘opt out’ of the annual assessment test, aka the “Smarter Balanced Assessment System”. Sure hope it makes it out of committee. Why shouldn’t parents be allowed to remove their kids from the ‘lab rats’ educational testing that Markell and his corporate enablers would subject them to? HB 100 (Schwartzkopf), which addresses the Sussex County Vo-Tech District, seeks to have it both ways. One one hand, the bill would enable the district to raise its tax ceiling w/o going to referendum. The bill, however, also returns the rate to its previous level in year three, and also places lower limits on vo-tech enrollment for the next three years: From 1445 students in school year 2015-16 to 1250 by school year 2017-18. Looks like classic Sussex County politics at work here. I invite those who speak Sussex County to explain what’s going on here. Finally, one of those ‘feel-good’ bills that may not actually accomplish anything. HB 90(Longhurst) “requires all public school employees to receive 90 minutes of training each year on suicide prevention. The bill also requires all public schools to establish a suicide prevention committee. Furthermore, the bill requires local education agencies to create a suicide prevention policy.” Would it be cynical of me to wonder who might get the contract to provide that 90 minutes of training?
Hmmm, this bill, while possibly well-intended, appears to lack any meat to it. You mean that Child Protective Services doesn’t have the means to address this already? Is there really a gap in our laws that permits rampant cases of child neglect like this? Somehow, I doubt it. In the House Health & Human Development Committee.
I sure hope that SB 47(Townsend) makes it out of the House Judiciary Committee. Seeing as only Colin “Governor” Bonini voted against improving services to indigent defendants while streamlining the process, I think the bill will make it to the Governor’s desk soon. In the House Judiciary Committee meeting.
Highlights from this week’s Senate committee meetings:
As with the House, a lot of this week’s action takes place in the Senate Education Committee. HB 56 (Potter) places a moratorium on the granting of new charters for schools. Yes, it’s like locking the barn door after the horses have escaped, but it’s essential to pass this. OTOH, I hope that the Senate views HB 58(Jaques) more skeptically than did the House. The bill raises the tax ceiling for the NCC Vo-Tech District and permits the district to incrementally increase its rates w/o requiring any sort of referendum. Uh, why?
Paging Mitch Crane. I don’t understand this bill. Is it ‘good’ or ‘bad’? From whence did it come? BTW, how about this for a committee: the Senate Insurance & Telecommunications Committee. Because…insurance is just like telecommunications, or something. Hey, both industries have deep-pocketed lobbyists, so this is a plum committee post as long as you have no scruples.
I like to think I have scruples, but I’m out of time. Catch my increasingly wild-eyed rantings on WDEL today starting at 10 am.
Tags: Delaware education policy, Delaware midwifery, El Somnambulo, Featured, Steve Tanzer Delaware
Breaking News from the News-Journal:
“Delaware’s budget problems worsened on Monday, with a new revenue forecast showing that lawmakers will have $21.7 million less to work with when they return to Legislative Hall this week.”
Well, they could have MORE revenue to work with if they increased certain revenue streams. Will they?
To answer El Som’s inquiry on SB48, this bill apprears to be a product of the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners), though I have been out of that loop for 4 years now. The proposed legislation enhances the reach of the Department of Insurance and the Court of Chancery in matters concerning the financial solvency of insurance companies. Two main aspects of the bill are that receivership actions would now include insurance-related services (agents, third party administrators, for example) not just the insurance companies. The bill also extends the tolling of the statute of limitations. The bill would add protections to policy holders and give additional tools in the rehabiliation and liquidation of insurance companies in financial trouble.
Would that child protection bill make it illegal for an 11-year-old child to walk home from school without adult supervision?
While the bill is not specific, I think the answer is yes. Which is one of the questions I have.
The fear of child abduction is overblown, and in reality the world today is actually safer than it’s ever been. But the fear of having a busy body neighbor ruin your life seems all too real.
With regard to HB78, I don’t agree with all the provisions of the bill.
However, I have seen, over the years, in my practice, the issue of when it is appropriate to leave a child home alone without supervision.
Oftentimes leaving a child home alone prompts intervention by the Division of Family Services or becomes an issue in a private Custody Case (or, in some circumstances, a Dependency/neglect petition for custody filed by DFS).
Because of those issues, I think the bill warrants some discussion, and that the establishment of a bright line test may be helpful.
Clearly, the bill as presented needs some tweaks but I find the topic professionally interesting.
Sean: Since DFS has procedures in place to address issues of neglect, how does the bill move the ball forward? The synopsis reads that the bill codifies existing procedures, but what if professionals determine that changes to those procedures are required? Since, should the bill pass, the procedures will have been codified, any subsequent changes would have to be done legislatively, not administratively. I, uh, think.
I agree that it’s both an interesting and important topic. There just isn’t much to HB 78 as written, which kinda surprised me. And I am concerned that some(busy)body could see kids walking home from school and call in a neglect complaint.
Should be an interesting discussion. It’s good to know that quite a bit of thought is going into the legislative consideration of the bill.
As it turns out, HB 78, the bill discussed above, has been stricken by prime sponsor Rep. Miro.
The House Education Committee opted the opt-out bill out of committee and to the House floor. Make no mistake: Passage of this bill would be a legislative repudiation of Markell’s education reform over the past seven years.
Trouble is, he knows it. He does not want the bill to make it to his desk, and he will try to do everything necessary to prevent it from getting there. My guess? He’ll try to water it down with amendments that significantly weaken it, much like he did with minimum wage. The question is, does he still have enough support from legislators in a position to do so to do his bidding? He sure won’t sign the bill, and he sure doesn’t want to have to veto it and lose any credibility he had left with parents and teachers, not to mention students.
Real good article in the News-Journal:
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/education/2015/04/22/parent-opt-bill-debate-afternoon/26181525/
This is getting very interesting. How does a Governor, the state and school districts – who worship at the altar of Choice! – suddenly come out against choice?
I’m not sure what Markell will do if this bill lands on his desk. He’s already implemented a back up plan – tie the SBA to remedial college courses. That’s enough to make parents think twice about opting out. Opt out and the kid gets it!
I have no problem with testing. I do have a huge problem with the way these standardized tests have been used – as a punishment. Don’t kid yourself. These tests have nothing to do with improving a child’s education.
My daughter graduates this year and due to the new standards her summer reading included books she had already read for school (all incoming 12th graders – as well as all other grades – were assigned the same books, no matter if they were regular students, honors, or AP and no matter if they’d already studied them in previous years). How did that help her education? Answer: It didn’t. Not one little bit. In fact, I’d argue that it hurt her education by limiting it.
DDOE says: “The Department of Education has said state law requires all students, barring a few rare exceptions, to be tested. They say test scores provide invaluable information to help improve schools.”
Mark Murphy, Sec. of Ed, says: “Measuring the progress our children make in school is essential.”
Keep in mind that these are the same people who designated six schools “Priority Schools” based on a test they now claim isn’t good enough, insufficient. That takes a lot of nerve. The word “brazen” comes to mind.
And can anyone make sense of this gem from Rep. Earl Jaques: “I clearly understand the need for parent involvement,” Jaques said. “But to me, the question is, where do you draw the line? Do we want parents determining which textbooks students are going to use or the content of the tests?”
Utter nonsense. There’s a specific topic on the table. Employing that slippery slope argument comes across as desperate. And may I counter using his own words? “But to me, the question is, where do you draw the line? Do we want parents determining which public schools their child attends? See how that works? Like I said, utter nonsense.
But what’s really stunning is all this adamant defense of an untried, untested test. Don’t believe what they say about this test – they have no idea how this will work out. And anyone who tells you differently is lying. Which begs the question: What exactly are they fighting for?
For Markell, it’s his legacy.
Which raises another interesting question (OT, but who cares?):
Education is now positioned as a central issue for the 2016 election for governor. To my knowledge, neither Carney nor Gordon have articulated any kind of educational philosophy. The election could well, in part, turn into a referendum on ‘Common Corporate’.
If so, could the race be opened to someone who has been more deeply involved on the issue. Like, say, Bryan Townsend? I think it could.
Agreed. Someone informed on education (unlike the majority of our elected officials. Hello? Former Rep. Dennis E. Williams) could very well win. Education is not only the biggest game in town, it is also a subject voters are concerned about and interested in.
Here’s a quick example that most people are unaware of, but when they learn about it they see red: Charters are ALL CHOICE schools that receive transportation for their students. However, choice your child into a public school (in or out of district) and it’s your responsibility to get your choice child to and from school (or to and from the nearest established choice school bus stop,which will result in driving your child as well). In Delaware, not all choice students are created equal.
How about Vo-Techs not needing to go to referendum to raise money? Or the way they no longer serve their intended purpose or the children they were designed to serve?
How about minor capital funding for charter schools (which they want to fund the same way as Vo-Techs – from the General Fund) and a slush fund (to the tune of $5MM) for charter schools? Seriously, tax dollars being spent (without a referendum) on buildings not owned by the tax payer? Along with a special charter school performance fund. Funny how the legislature can find that sort of money for charters and not public schools.
I could go on all day.
Dennis E. Williams = education?? That is a joke isn’t it? Please tell me it is.
John Kowalko
It’s a joke. Pandora and I had an, um, interesting conversation with then-Rep. Williams at a Drinking Liberally event. Williams admitted he hadn’t even read one of the most important (and disastrous) education bills before voting for it. (“Lots of bills come across my desk.”) Pretty sure that Pandora and I are thrilled that Sean Matthews has taken his place in Dover.
Sorry, Dover seems to have jammed my sense of humor activator. I’m starting my recovery mode now after the Ed. Committee.
John Kowalko