The Governor is so scared….
…about Opt Out passing that he’s offering Republicans his support for Right-to-Work legislation if they vote “No” on HB 50. If that deal happens, the Governor should at the very least be expelled from the Democratic Party by Chairman John Daniello and then attempts should be made by the General Assembly to remove him from office. I am looking up the impeachment procedure under the Delaware Constitution as we speak.
One republican who was offered the deal told Mike Matthews…. “Yeah, I’m for right to work, but my constituents are also hammering my support for opt out. Which actually has a better chance of passing considering both houses are controlled by the Democrats?”
The Republicans are not going to take this deal, but they will instead stab Jack in the back with it.
Any Democrat that supports this scumbag in any future election should be ostracized
DD: What is your source for this?
You’re right. If Markell did this, he’s done. There is, however, no provision for impeaching the governor in Delaware.
You know what else the General Assembly should do if Markell actually proposed this? What they SHOULD have done all along: Raise taxes on his wealthy pals. He will have no one rushing to defend him. Oh, and increase the minimum wage while they’re at it.
I STILL don’t believe he is actually doing this. If he is, I think it may rank as the single most boneheaded move made by a governor in my time. Instant irrelevance. Which is why I want some reliable verification.
El Som–I heard this independently of MM from a legislative aide.
The funny thing is,even if HB 50 dies or is defeated, parents already have the rignt to opt out. True, defeating the bill would be a propaganda victory and probably mislead a lot of parents into thinking they did not have the right to opt out. But Delaware now has enough activist parents and bloggers (and now legislators) to quickly correct that misperception.
Trading right-to-work for a temporary propaganda victory? That would be adding injury to insult for Delaware’s middle class. I have not been a big opt-outter but that would certainly send me over the top.
HB 165 was probably the last victory for the governor’s education agenda before parents wised up to it. Legislators voted for that bill in the face of opposition from knowledgable activists and blogger, and against opposition from the boards of the largest districts. Legislators could vote for that bill confident that nobody understood it or was paying attention. But as El Som points out, there is now a growing consensus that the education agenda is an unmitigated disaster. Democratic and Republican incumbents will pay a price this time.
If the governor doesn’t want parents to opt out, then let him get behind a bill to make the test mandatory. All he needs is a legislative sponsor. Any takers?
I just can’t… tell me this is some misunderstanding.
The ESEA reauthorization, at the Federal level, currently contains an amendment recognizing parental right to opt out. Should that amendment and the ESEA package as a whole pass Congress (wide bipartisan agreement on a lot of the bill), then the Federal ESEA recognition of parental right to opt-out would supersede (or whatever the word is) what HB50 is trying to accomplish… I mean, unless HB50 sought to go beyond what that federal piece would say, then this could be a whole lot of agita for something that’s going to be decided for Delaware.
This is partly why I struggle to believe that the Governor would risk so much for a victory that could be taken away by federal law.
I don’t think people have actually read HB 50. Paragraphs 2 and 4 should have easy bipartisan opposition. They are trying to put conditions on our parental rights to opt out, which would be a step back from the inherent rights we have today. And paragraph 4 is a complete invasion of privacy and egregious act of data collection that could have no benefit, only detriment, to our children. I’m saddened to see so many falling for this bad bill just because it has the opt out title.
What are you talking about, troll? Here is the complete text:
Liberty Guy,
You are an obviously misinformed, uninformed or incapable of understanding person or you are a deliberate and dishonest plant who hopes to sow seeds of doubt via an incomprehensibly stupid interpretation. Anonymity does not excuse your self-imposed irresponsible and unreasonable logic. You know who I am, so if you have even the slightest amount of honesty and integrity or self-respect, call me and we’ll discuss your “interpretation/perspective” and/or motives.
State Representative John Kowalko (proud sponsor and author of HB 50)
John might have served the public interest by also noting that some of these questions were asked and answered during the public hearing.
Kim Williams on #2: for example, her opted out son was going to a study hall during the test period – all schools should have a plan in place for any children not testing and all a teacher has to do is ask the school leader where the children should go.
Kim Williams on #4: the state ed. dept. already tracks student testing data (as a federal mandate) so no additional tracking is necessary.
On the same thread as the post topic: Markell’s legis liaison weighed in….https://www.linkedin.com/pub/cerron-cade/8/510/b4b…
Cerron Cade Hey Mike, not sure who the multiple sources are. However, that is not true. Not even close to being true.
Mike Matthews Legislators. Multiple. From both parties. Perhaps someone made it up and it flew from there?
Cerron Cade Perhaps; it has happened in the past. Have those legislators call me if they need clarity. Thanks.
Mike Matthews I’ll say this. I heard from more than three but fewer than 10 legislators.
Nancy Willing That the Lavelle RTW bill is even getting a committee hearing is big news to the GOPers. They may be pulling some legs here to get a buzz going about it and to stoke interest. In a revenue stressed year, the DEMs are hard-pressed to come up with solutions leaving it to the GOP to appear that it has the answers.
Cerron Cade I am sure people in the hall are talking about RTW in other discussions … however, our office has not connected these two issues.
Ezra Temko Perhaps the issue is that the governor’s Republican DEDO Director Al Levin continues to publicly be allowed to speak out in favor of RTW and about his concerns with Delaware not having RTW!
—-
And remember that the bill that put the Smarter Balanced Assessment into the DelCode last spring was voted down on the Senate floor on June 30th. The Senate recessed long enough for one no voter to be persuaded otherwise – supposedly by the Governor – and a re-vote passed with Greg Lavelle switching from no to yes.
Kilroy has a few ideas about what Lavelle got for his vote. Kavips says Lavelle was told DDOE was going through with SBA with or without the bill. (perhaps as authorized in epilogue language and through the DDOE’s ESEA waiver?).
Anyhoo, Lavelle is the sponsor of the RTW bill and is happy that it is actually going to get a committee hearing next week.
This is from the DE Senate GOP Caucus newsletter:
Lavelle, Lawson Bills Set For Committee
Two Senate Republican bills are scheduled to be heard in committee next week.
Sen. Greg Lavelle’s (R-Sharpley) legislation to create right-to-work zones in Delaware is on the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee agenda for 2 p.m., Wednesday, April 29 at Legislative Hall in the Senate Chamber.
The goal of the bill is to help revitalize a manufacturing industry in Delaware that has lost 25 percent of its jobs in the last 10 years.
The hearing is open to the public.
Also scheduled for committee is a bill authorizing common interest communities to comply with any or all of the provisions of the Delaware Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act they are not already required to comply with.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Dave Lawson (R-Marydel), is scheduled for 1:30 in the Senate Community/County Affairs Committee on Wednesday, April 29 in the Senate Majority Caucus room.
“Cerron Cade I am sure people in the hall are talking about RTW in other discussions … however, our office has not connected these two issues.”
That’s a flat denial from the Gov’s office/ Is Mathews being punked by the DEGOP?
BTW – As Democrats let’s not use the GOP’s “Right to work” framing. “Right to Work for Less” or RTWFL isn’t great but it is an improvement.
rumor! Please stop putting rumors out! Its one step above a lie
And Markell has never lied? Please people.
These rumors are worse than Fox News—say you heard someone said or was going to do something and then attack them as if it were true.
On Return Day some Republicans started a rumor that the Governor was going to get an opinion from the state Supreme Court on his ability to appoint a Lt. Governor AND that he was appointing Pete Schwartzkopf. It had such wide circulation that people in both parties were planning their run for Pete’s 14th House seat. My reaction? “If The Governor had such a plan,how the hell would Republicans know?” No Democratic legislator would support any Right to Work legislation. Neither would Governor Markell–I have that on the highest authority and it isn’t a legislative aide of the other party. Gossip belongs on Fox News not on Delaware Liberal.
Oh, Mitch… There you go again… Being the voice of reason. Now you’ve gone and spoiled all the fun for the kids in the hall!
If you’ve read some of the blogs frequently referred to here (I’ll spare the negative shout-out), you’ll encounter a helluva lot of “A little birdie told me…” (verbatim), or “I talked to several legislators…”, or “Moles in the DOE…”. It’s fast become a stock & trade for several blogs, which is disappointing, but unsurprising.
We’re not talking about Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein writing the blog, so “I talked to legislators” could very well be “I saw a legislator and said hello, therefore I can say ‘I talked to legislators’ when I write whatever I want on my blog” and not “I actually had a substantive conversation with various legislators about the very topic on which I’m writing about.”
But, hey… I’ve always been a Doubting Thomas…
If you were at the hearing and watched the multiple lobbying conversations between DOE reps, legislators, and the business community, right on the floor, you’d know for certain there is fear at play. Such a strident fear, the Rep. Jaques intentionally branded the bill an effort to opt the state out of testing and declared it was irresponsible because we have an obligation to measure the common core.
As if testing has solved problem one in the twenty years we have been cramming it down kids throats.
What I don’t get, is how any legislator, and I mean any, could actively support telling a parent they have no right to control the impact of state’s decisions that are directly foisted upon a child. This bill does not stop testing, nor is it designed to do so.
It simply, and solely seeks to protect parents (from bullying and intimidation by schools who are being judged by the results) who make the choice to not subject their child to a test that has not been peer reviewed, and has no demonstrable proof of being a valid measure, and whose results will be used, as they have for 15 years running, to label, shame, and punish schools, teachers, and students. This ideology, fully embraced by our Governor has not made schools better, it’s made them worse. Just look at Priority Schools.
Does anyone really wonder why we, as a state, can’t get what the Governor calls the best teachers into our poorest schools? Really? Education policy in Delaware is tragically fractured and the fuel for the failure machine: testing data.
Starve the beast.
Opt Out, it’s your right already.
What I take from this is that there is no verification that Markell cut some sort of tacit deal with the R’s.
Didn’t think so.
The history around education in Delaware the last 4 years has been most legislators don’t pay attention to it, nor understand it. They “go along to get along” with whatever was put in front of them by the Governor etc.. Well, there’s been a wake-up call, and IF ANY legislator aligns with the Governor on this, in trade of RTW, they just traded their legislative job for the real world. The Governor can Executive Order this one–and stand alone. Any 11th hour rally of support, clearly would demonstrate no support of one’s constituency, and whose dance card they are on. You back Jack, well maybe this time Delawareans will remember NOT to back you. Blood on your hands doesn’t fare well if up against clean hands, or those who have finally washed their hands of his messes.
Anybody remember the ol’ library story a certain Wilmington legislator was supposed to get if voting a certain way? I think the Bookmobile is still on the same scheule :)!
John,
Paragraph 2 is egregious because a parent has the right to pull their kids out of any activity at any time; right up to the minute of or during the test in this case. I don’t care that you’re trying to put something into law that already exists, but you can’t put requirements on parental rights.
Paragraph 4 is exactly what I said it is. It’s an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional data collection. There’s no good reason for it. But even if you had a “reason,” it’s still unconstitutional and wrong.
Why don’t you just remove those two paragraphs? It wouldn’t change the actual opt out portions of the bill. If opt out is your true intent, then remove these infringements on liberty and we can all move on.
Hah just out of curiosity… How is it unconstitutional to keep a record of the people who opted-out of taking a test? So is keeping a record of student attendance unconstitutional too?
@Liberty Guy–re Paragraph 4–The State already assigns a unique student number to every Delaware child and tracks every other piece of information about them regarding it. For example, it tracks how many days/weeks/months the student spent in the school prior to taking the test so that the State can parse out credit/blame for the student’s score on a pro-rated basis if a student just transferred schools before taking the test.
In other words, the State has been doing this for years with everything else, and would have done this anyway as a matter of course. It may be “unconstitutional and illegal” (both of which, unfortunately, I seriously doubt), but it ain’t new or ground-breaking.
“Paragraph 4 is exactly what I said it is. It’s an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional data collection. ”
@Liberty Guy; would you please provide your argument as to why p4 is unconstitutional. Please contrast and compare with SSNs, student attendance, census, identification systems such as drivers licenses, etc.
Also please explain how that data cannot be collected, since schools maintain a record of students who take the test and consequently the set of all students minus the set of students who did take the test must equal the set of students who did not take the test.
I am honestly interested in how you arrive at opinion of unconstitutionality and how you think schools can avoid collecting that specific data. A reference to the specific constitutional article, clause, or amendment would be appreciated.
Para 2 does not nullify the right to opt out on short notice. The right to opt out pre-exists HB 50. Para 2 provides an orderly way for the school to implement alternative activities for those not taking the test. Yoy can’t have kids standing up as the test is starting and saying “Here’s my opt out note – where’s my alternate activity?” (Well, schools would still probably try to honor that, but if enough people did that it would make for chaos.)
Para 4 is essential to enforce the “no repercussions” clause. Plus, we already have a ten million dollar tracking system for the test outcomes – opting out is just another outcome.
Now, now, let’s not fight amongst people who all agree we don’t want this test. I don’t speak for Liberty Guy or anybody else, but I think what Liberty Guy might be going here is #4 would be a collected piece of data, useless to a student’s progress–hence why the need to collect? In this data crazy environment we’re heading….that piece of notation in a file, may reflect poorly to the child (not the parent), as in “trouble-maker, non-compliant” whatever “opt-out” will be siloed in the feds rubric yet to be decided.
Consider this….of the 271 pieces of info. the federal government is permitted to collect now via this test or ancillary works, a “social rating scale”, not yet for public viewing is already being determined. Religious affiliation is cycling out to the side scale of “emotional disturbance”. I guess opt-out, will go to some such, “defiance of authority” or whatever. To the point though—yes your child has absence days reported. For now…it’s excused and unexcused. It doesn’t say…..asthma, appendicitis, liver transplant, or senior skip day. “Opt – out”……..kinda speaks for itself. That’s all. Play nice.
I thought Stephanie Bolden made a good point in that some schools will encourage parents to opt out because of problems their kids have with learning.
AQC. no school is going to encourage parents to opt out because every school needs over 95% participation in order for its test results to remain valid…. Without that margin of participation, those scores cannot be used for student evaluations, teacher evaluations, school evaluations, principal evaluations, school district evaluations or state evaluations…
That was the entire premise behind the Opt Out Movement: making these test results invalid for all, by educating the public so they keep that percentage under 95%.. Stephanie’s comment shows a lack of expertise quite common among many legislators on this topic. For those of us who understand how this works, her statement is rather silly….
(In her defense, her point would have merit if the penalty of 95% participation had not been inserted in “No Child Left Behind” but it was, to guard against the very reason she states;… if there were no penalty, schools might try to up their average scores by sending the low scorers off to Hershey Park for the day… )
Do we have any idea how the count is shaping up in the House should this bill be brought to a vote?
As with anything, prior to a vote there is tremendous flux, so whatever said here means nothing whatsoever;
Right this minute, I’d say 18 for.
11 against,
and 12 fence-sitters.
Need to figure out the fence sitters and get people lobbying.