No bill is perfect. There is always something one thinks of at the end that needs tacked on. More minds are better than one…. Whereas SB 51 was pushed through too fast, and amendments were added at the last step, it makes sense to begin discussing them with this bill, HB 165 at its beginning…. The bill has a hearing before the House Education Committee on Wednesday at 2:30 ….
The members are:
Chairman: Darryl M. Scott
Vice-Chairman: Kimberly Williams
Members: Michael A. Barbieri
Donald A. Blakey
Stephanie T. Bolden
Timothy D. Dukes
Debra J. Heffernan
Earl G. Jaques Jr
Harvey R. Kenton
John A. Kowalko Jr.
Joseph E. Miro
Edward S. Osienski
Charles Potter Jr.
That is what this thread is for….. Proposed Amendments to make it a solid piece of legislation.
The biggest issue with Charter Schools and why the issue is divisive is that Charter Schools take money away from public schools. Many public schools are underfunded. Decreasing their income further and giving that to Charter Schools, is controversial.
But, if no money gets taken away, then that issue becomes moot. So hence this amendment.
(p) No new moneies being diverted to Charter Schools can come from the loss of any public school funding. Nor can they come from the closing of any pre-existing programs. All funds for Charter Schools must come from new assessed revenue that will be deposited within the State Treasury, which shall be increased by the amount expected to fund the Charter School’s demands.
If we want $50 million for Charter Schools, we increase the income tax on top earners to a percentage that gives us $50 million. The funding for public schools is never touched and is completely independent upon whatever goes on with Charter Schools.
This way we can have our theoretical laboratory which tests out new ideas, and can implement the working ones into our public school system without penalizing the public school system to do so.
The top percentage doesn’t need their money. If we need Charter Schools enough, that is where all Charter School funding should arise. Not that school district’s property tax base.
There are enough votes in both the House and Senate to make this tiny change, which then moves us forward.
But, if we fail to do that… there are some alternatives not as pretty.
One, is to pick off the News Journal phrase, that since Charter Schools are Public Schools too, they should have teachers under the umbrella of the DSEA as well… So we should then add:
(q). All employees working for a Charter Organization, must be represented by the exact same union as their counterparts in the public school system.
This should help public and charter teachers communicate and spread ideas among themselves. They will not be enemies trying to take each other’s job, but members of the same union having the exact same interests. ..
Another problem that has been expressed with this bill, is it is holding Charter Schools to an accountability that has not yet produced results. It is new, and therefore experimental.
Therefore perhaps this wording change could clarify….
(r) The Charter School must meet all testing requirements expected of students in public schools.Their assessments shall be on the same test and taken during the same window of time. All rules applying to Public Schools in regards to meeting the standards shall also apply to Charter Schools as well…
Feel free to put more on the bottom. I’ll move them up… Keep in mind, we have 3 days.
kavips 
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 1, 2013 at 2:03 pm
John Young
The bill adds this:
Need to revise to:
In the event of the failure of a public school to pay a bill due and owed to another public school based on tuition or funding, the DOE shall have the authority to direct transfer of such funds.
Here’s why: the deaf and autism programs, both administered by CSD are routinely stiffed by districts that send us their kids. Why should should the DOE be allowed to speedily move money from a TPS to help a charter while allowing disable kids to continue getting the shaft?
June 1, 2013 at 4:10 pm
kavips
That’s horrible. Deaf and autism should be paid long before any profit making school should….
June 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Nancy Willing
I will be thinkin’ on this an make my submissions soon.
June 1, 2013 at 8:29 pm
John Young
I want to be sure to clarify “stiffed by districts” I mean it just as the charters, who have clearly complained to DOE to get this clause inserted, don’t get paid in a timely manner by districts. The exact same thing happens to the deaf and autism kids.
2 additional points:
I support charters getting paid on time the same way we should get paid on time for deaf and autism.
CSD, under the direction of our CFO, Bob Silber, ensures that no child who is deaf or who has autism suffers as he makes certain to advance the funds, LOCAL FUNDS, to the two programs while we wait for the sending districts to pay their bills.
This is cause for great consternation as local funds are directly, even if only temporarily (1-8 mos) delayed by the offending districts’ behavior.
It’s wrong and it should stop. Charters whould also get their monies promptly after certified counts.
Lastly, notice this poorly worded section of this poor HB 165 does NOT provide any relief or process for a district to dispute a charge, it just gives over absolute power to the DOE.
Who’s for that?
Not me.
June 1, 2013 at 10:25 pm
kavips
That is a separate issue that needs fixed. Perhaps now is the time. Can you direct the world to a site that lists those recalcitrant districts and the payments unmade? (It would also be nice if it also had the length of time the district had chosen to keep the money). If not, perhaps that might be something that could speed up the process of payment the next time the News Journal has no issue for their front page, they can publish it….
June 1, 2013 at 11:12 pm
John Young
Kavips, I can only direct you to the wonderfully hi-fidelity school board meetings of the CSD, where we discuss this issue at least twice a year (sometimes more) and even passed a motion to allow the Board President to issue a letter of demand.
point is, why should the DOE intervene in a corporate based charter movement’s issue before an issue of a child with a disability?
they both should be paid promptly.
June 1, 2013 at 11:21 pm
John Young
You can read a CBOC report and noted the money we have to advance to the deaf, autism, and severe/profound handicap (I left them out of my original concern, but they get shafted too)
Click to access 2012-12-11.pdf
We don’t publish a list of shame for the districts that stiff us. They know who they are, though.
June 1, 2013 at 11:28 pm
John Young
Here’s the description of the tax that yields the bills (not unlike a charter billing a district for it’s residents attenting that charter):
page 22, top of page: http://www.christinak12.org/ourpages/auto/2013/1/14/49996585/FY2013-Final-Budget.pdf
Programs
and
Other
Agencies
Tuition
School
Programs
including
the
Sarah
Pyle
Academy
and
the
Bilingual
Program
are
operated
within
Agency
953300
(Regular
School).
Other
Tuition
School
Programs:
The
Delaware
School
for
the
Deaf;
the
Christina
ILC
program;
the
Christina
REACH
program;
and
the
Delaware
Autism
Program
have
balanced
budgets.
Expenses
for
these
programs
are
driven
by
student
Individualized
Education
Plan
(IEP).
The
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education
Act
(IDEA)
requires
public
school
to
develop
an
IEP
for
every
student
with
a
disability
found
to
meet
the
federal
and
state
requirements
for
special
education.
The
IEP
must
be
designed
to
provide
the
student
with
a
Free
Appropriate
Public
Education.
The
Delaware
School
for
the
Deaf
and
the
Delaware
Autism
Program
are
Statewide
Programs,
administered
by
the
Christina
School
District.
The
Christina
ILC
and
the
Christina
REACH
programs
are
not
limited
to
students
of
the
District.
The
local
operating
expenses
attributed
to
these
programs
are
allocated
to
Districts
with
students
attending
these
programs.
Tuition
Bills
are
sent
to
each
District
calculated
on
each
student’s
participation
in
these
programs
June 1, 2013 at 11:28 pm
John Young
Here’s the description of the tax that yields the bills (not unlike a charter billing a district for it’s residents attending that charter):
page 22, top of page: http://www.christinak12.org/ourpages/auto/2013/1/14/49996585/FY2013-Final-Budget.pdf
June 2, 2013 at 10:28 am
kavips
Question for all… Does this give the DOE authority to directly transfer any future funds it wishes to anywhere it wishes in the future? I’m curious. Does it currently have any authority to go into any district’s accounts and move money around or out?
One would think that since a district is mostly based off property tax revenues and to some extent referenda voted on by THEIR districts residents, (and granted, to some extent if such a district is poor,it’s funds are augmented by the state), that it is the district who should be in control of the local finances. What’s the point of making a district budget if the state can intervene in the dark of night and move funds around?
In this bill, the phrase designating “in case a payment is late” is there…. but is this a major game changer in allowing the DOE access to every school’s account?
If so, I can see big problems in Sussex if for example, someone says a prayer in public creating another whirlwind of controversy and that districts financing becomes suddenly marginalized. I can see big problems in the future that when the DOE’s policy is dead wrong, no one will speak up, because …poof,… suddenly their money might disappear in retaliation… I can see really no point of local control if this is a game changer and is allowed to go forward unchallenged….
June 2, 2013 at 11:22 am
John Young
All I ask is for our elected to ask these types of questions, unlike their behavior on SB51…
July 6, 2014 at 5:45 pm
All About Common Core, Charters, and Public Education | kavips
[…] Amendments to HB 165 […]
July 6, 2014 at 5:45 pm
All About Common Core, Charters, and Public Education | kavips
[…] Amendments to HB 165 […]