You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘A Dad’s Responsibility’ category.

income distribution

The income imbalance is gigantic.  You may have see this before.  It is our income imbalance as seen in three perspectives… What it is… versus what we think it is,… versus what we would like it to be.

So what would it take to make it like we would like it to be?

Obviously we would take the top 20% down from 85% ownership to around 30%… a  drop by 55% of the nation’s wealth. That would be divvied up though not equally, among the other four 20%….

So what if we used those numerical principles to tackle income inequality?  Then instead of wealth, simply use the same alignment picked by most Americans to figure out a theoretical income distribution?

In 2007 prior to the Recession American families brought in $7..723 trillion dollars….  one half of that went to the two 20% with incomes over $100,000..

If our aim were to move the slider from 50% down to 35%… then this is how much a percent of national income, the top 10% would take…   From 50% to 35% is 15% and fifteen percent of $7.7 trillion is $1.1 trillion dollars each year…

So basically to get the middle class back to where it was in the past, we need to take $1 trillion a year from the top 10% and give it back to everyone else…

America is roughly at 315 million people. and they live in 123 million households… If we lop off the top 20%, we have 80% left which is 252 million people or 98.4 million households…

Giving us 25 million households giving up their $1 trillion to be split up with 98.4 million households.

The average given would be $40,000 given up by 25 million households per year. And if spread across America’s other 80%, it would average………………..$10,204……

The economic value of that total gets reflected by the memory that the wealthy don’t spend the $40,000 into the economy; they lock it away in stocks. But an yearly extra $10,000 in the hands of the stressed 80%, gives a big boost to economic demand.

And this does not get us to equal. It is just where Americans think the levels inequality SHOULD be.

In fiscal 2014, the federal government collected nearly $1.4 trillion from individual income taxes, making it the national government’s single-biggest revenue source. (Along with corporate income taxes and payroll taxes, other sources of federal revenue include gasoline and cigarette taxes, estate taxes, customs duties and payments from the Federal Reserve.)

WE are saying this now needs to be raised to $2.4 trillion with ALL that average increase borne by the top quintile… As a rough estimate (since they are actually paying near a 25% real tax rate now), because we need double the intake of income, doubling their rates up to the 50% level for the highest margins, would bring us close to parity. Exactly to the level to which Ronald Reagan cut taxes in his first term.

THAT, should give you an indication of where we were at one time, and how bad things have been allowed to slip away from the middle class.

I should add, there is only ONE candidate who is addressing this issue…All other candidates are pandering to those who already “have”…..

There is general agreement today that American society is top heavy.  We live in Bizarro World‘s Soviet Russia.  Our Congress is semi-capitalist instead of Communist, but certainly it is not there to represent our interests, which are those of We, The People. Our elite (primarily our largest investors) control all of Congress’ perks while we wait in line for daily bread. Gigantic tax breaks for the wealthy are easily and quickly passed, and services for the rest of the 99% are cut to pay for them. Though we too are taxed (lightly), our money spent, does not come back to us; it rises to the top and stays there.

Ironically this is the exact opposite of what every American child learned about his country if he grew up in the years after WWII… while there still was a communist Russia.  Everything we learned was bad about Soviet Russia, is now happening to us to some degree…. Mass surveillance; rigged elections; rigged judicial systems; loss of our class wealth.

But the big difference we learned was that in America, power rose from the ground up.  We elected our representative and they were beholden to us. Today despite on how we vote, big money first vets and then funds our representatives. We go through Communist-like fake elections to put a rubber stamp on one of the two candidates selected, but long before we do, they were the ones who first picked who runs.

We can see this personified by our educational policy.  The communists of Russia had a state system to which if you did not comply, you were shot. We have something similar but instead our punishment is that our school doesn’t receive Federal funding unless comply with the Politburo’s wishes…

This was decreed from the top and is still in place despite our representatives voting 60 to 10 to support of “Opting Out”.

It all goes to show the now blatant view that whatever We, The People want, does not matter.

And that is a colossal failure of democracy. Democracy was simply a government designed to do whatever its people want; not the opposite of their desires.  .

If we want to change this, we need to take a page from our own founding fathers and create millions of small conversations across America regarding  the direction our future evolves out of the issues affecting us, and not be deflected towards flaws in our candidates’ personalities…

Currently our media is devoted entirely to personalities… Carson’s lying?  What does that have to do with how well we live 4 years from now?  Who is winning in Rubio’s and Jeb’s tit for tat?  Plenty of conversation but no information on how our lives will be better 4 years from now.  Tomorrow our media will use the most popular High School social analyses to determine who *(they think) won the debate tonight.

We all know who lost.  The American People… After all this is our country and we too need to be informed; not entertained, not tricked into voting for whom the top echelon wants to be in power..  Imagine a brain surgeon who didn’t know medicine?  Would we go there?  Imagine a plumber who didn’t know plumbing?  Or an electrician who didn’t know electricity?  Or a Math Teacher who didn’t know math?  Would we ask them to do a job for us?

But We, The People (over these past 2 decades which has see the corporatization of all big media), must make decisions as blindly as do High School classmates when voting for a Student Body President… Consequently the same methods that work in high school with uneducated voters are in play for our national elections.  As in who would we like to spend time with? Who acts the part of Chief Exec the best?  Who comes across as snooty or arrogant?   Who is the sexiest?   Our press discusses these; it does not touch on policy that affects Americans like:

  • What result will we get if we raise taxes instead of lowering them?
  • What is the cost of immigration if we do or don’t seal our  borders?
  • What is the cost of not raising minimum wage versus raising minimum wage to $15/ hour?
  • Should our property legally be taken because “friends” of politicians want it for development?
  • Why is being spied on 24/7 bad for us all
  • What will life be under the TPP if it gets implemented? What will it do for wages 15 years from now?

Those of us who modify public opinion need to be wary of the tricks big media is playing.  We need to call them out with facts or ideas that actually help people and therefore indirectly help corporations.  But getting bogged down in pie fights does a disservice to our readers as well as to the nation as a whole.

There is only so much time.  If our time is wasted on inconsequentals, things of consequence do not get done!  Which makes one believe they almost all our pie fights are there only for diversionary purposes…

The Red Cup controversy is only one example…  Everyone is discussing how inane the argument is.  So far in real life I have not found anyone out of roughly a 1000 people who thinks the Red Cup is anti-Christian.  Yet I have heard quite a few media references to it.  But by just bringing it up,  people are wasting time talking about Christmas faux-rage instead of questioning under which candidate they are most likely to get their boss to adequately raise their salary… And as we listen to the media gear up for tonight’s debates… the best explanation for how crazy they sound, is that they are not crazy and know exactly what they don’t want you to ask, and deflect you entirely from breeching that number one question regarding……..

Our salary increases. … That is really what is important.

There is only one national candidate now who is intent on making that happen.  There are a lot more on the local level.. Those are the contenders around whom your discussions need to center  Everything else in the political-media jungle is right now aimed at keeping you from seeing that..

We are opting out of state mandated tests.

We are served up a spectacle of Presidential debaters living in bubbles saying nothing of substance.

Our media ignores the one person who is mouthing things of substance; basically the problems 99% of us face in balancing our paycheck against our expenses…. One is too low, the other is too high… They should be reversed.

Our Arctic Ice Cap is dangerously low, our entire global climate is reeling.

A seven billion person planet  freaks out and cannot handle a meager 1 million refugees from just 0.3% of its land mass.

The globe has never been richer…. EVER…. yet 99% of its people live in poverty.

Our own children are pawns in a grand scheme to eliminate public education and fix it so investors get rich off it.

Our corporate media simply doesn’t tell the truth anymore.  One has to turn to comedians to get real information.

A raspy brash loudmouth Jew with crazy hair calls out an Evangelist University of higher learning for not following the very laws laid down by Jesus Christ. An act very similar to that of another Jew a little under 2000 years ago who also challenged the religious authorities of HIS time.


That was today.  Meanwhile almost 50 million of our country lives in poverty, often while working too jobs… and everyone shrugs and thinks that’s ok.  The only thing worth discussing is Planned Parenthood and punishing Iran.

Is this really America then?  Are we no longer the land of opportunity emblazoned on the Statue of Liberty’s bottom?

Something has got to give, right?

It starts with you…. when you get mad enough to do something… that’s when it changes… 

You can… if you think about it…. start by going to Dover … 12:30 pm…. to protest the Smarter Balanced Assessment.   Because it is all connected… it is all about big money doing what it wants over your objections… It’s all about getting you out of their way….

As we approach D Day here are some following truths to keep in mind as the spin doctors on both sides chew the cherries that they pick and start spitting seeds at you…

A)  The Smarter Balanced is a corporate made-up test which had no educational experts involved in its development. Those handpicked token experts who were invited to attend its inception, were rudely pushed aside, treated derogatorily, and have all written disclaimers saying this test is the most ridiculous thing ever invented.  It has no basis for testing your child.

B)   The test has no accountability.. Your child can get a 0 by a mistake made in scoring and there is no way you can ask for his test to see why his score is inexplainably low.   No accountability opens the door for misdeeds. This test has no way to determine if the reader missed a line and graded all subsequent line wrong accordingly.. One can never find out.

C)   This test is an applicability test.  Basically it goes like this. Remember those word problems in your schooling years that always gave you headaches?  What were they talking about?   Sure, you could do division, multiplication, proofs, and read sines, cosines and tangents, and you could figure areas and volumes of geometric objects… but those word problems just made no sense.…  Well the Smarter Balanced is all word problems like that…  Those pushing this test think that is good.  Those who actually have children, think that is bad.  So when they say this test and curriculum teaches children to think, this is what they are telling you… They think it is a good idea if your child is exposed to these word problems and can learn the language of these problems and how to weed out what is and is not important.  The problem from that is that if these problems are too difficult, and not fun, then children will give up on learning in school entirely.  Most of learning is peripheral.. We are exposed to much and our brain records it and stores it if it thinks its important…  The damage of the Smarter Balanced Assessment is that it weeds out all but the best students and gives the failures no will to continue, being the scapegoat of a really bad test of a really bad curriculum.

D)  This test starts in 3rd Grade.  College level skills of 20 years ago, are now being forced on 3rd Grade.  I was just learning how to add two digit numbers when I would have had to take my first Smarter Balanced Assessment.  I would never have had success if I’d been in this program, and I doubt, any of Delaware’s children will either…   Again, there is no supporter of this test who has children who will be tested.. Most are in their 20’s still boozing and beaching every weekend.  They have no idea.  Those who do have children, who are concerned about education, say forcing children into narrow chutes of learning is damaging to their overall development.

E)  If you haven’t you can take the tests yourselves…   You can experience the frustration of not knowing what the fvck a question is asking.  You can experience choosing the obvious correct answer and having it be marked wrong.  You can see how tired you get after the first question… And that is the third grade test… If you want a migraine take the junior high ones…   Anyone who takes this test is against it.  You simply cannot go through one test and say it is good for children…

F) When you get the test scores, remember THEY COME FROM THE TESTING COMPANY…. They will try to sell you on that testing company... No company will say the reason your scores are low is because we tried out a new concept which was as appealing as both New Coke and the Edsel combined… We really fvcked up and that is why your child’s scores are so low…   But that is close to the truth… You will KNOW it if and when you take their tests

G)  When you get your test scores  you need to know your child is not at fault… Your teacher is not at fault… Your school, district,  and bus drivers and cafeteria volunteers are not at fault.  the test is at fault.  The test is graded on a curve.  That means it changes every year… 2500 may be proficient this year. 2500 may be failure next year, 2500 may be exceptional the following year… That is how grading on a curve works..  Even if all children got between 91% and 100% of the answers correctly, the bottom 25% would be below standards. the lower middle 25% would be close to standards, the third 25% would be proficient, and the top 25% would be exceptional…  In the real world, all of them would get A’s… some with a minus, some with a plus, and some with just A…..  That is a huge fallacy…  Nothing is measured except in relationship with other students… A parent is deeper in the dark about their school with this test than they were before.  it is a black hole from which no real data or information ever escapes.

H) We don’t need this crap… Although learning the concepts behind world problems before entering college or career is fine, (I think we began in 11th grade to master that concept and look, our generation can now run the world.). making that one single thing the do-or-die of all education is rather pointless.   Most of us do not use our Physics or Chemistry skills today.  They are nice to have but unless we went onward, they did little good.  What we did learn, is what made us what we are. Therefore allowing only this one math concept to be taught closes the door on many others.. and rewards those whose brains are genetically wired this way, while punishing those whose talents lie elsewhere. And with English, focusing only on the text  without looking at any underlying factors, was an idea that was intellectually popular among critics in the 1950’s. We have since moved on, except now this is all we are testing all our children on.  A taste of it might be good but the huge problem with these tests, is that is the single one thing that is being deemed important… It’s not, really.

I)  They will try to placate you to accept these scores.  They need to. They cannot afford you to get angry and demand we go back to the old test, which better tested children across a wide range of capabilities and showed great results across the board…  Simply put.  They are a corporation..  They are like makers of toothpaste… You don’t have to accept their brand, you can switch to something else… and that is what the opt-out movement is all about… Getting rid of this one product being forced on our children with no evidence, no research, no trial, which causes so much harm for so little good….

A curious thing popped up in Tennessee. I would be interested to follow it across several states because in theory, the same problem should hold true across the board….

In ELA in 2013, schools were, across the board much more likely to receive positive value-added scores for ELA in fourth and eighth grades than in other grades (see Table 1). Simultaneously, districts struggled to yield positive value-added scores for their sixth and seventh grades in the same subject-areas. Fifth grade scores fell consistently in the middle range, while the third-grade scores varied across districts


Table 1. Percent of Schools that had Positive Value-Added Scores in English/language arts by Grade and District (2013) (Districts which had less than 25% of schools indicate positive growth are in bold)
District      Third      Fourth    Fifth     Sixth     Seventh      Eighth
Memphis      41%       43%        45%      19%        14%           76%
Nashville      NA        43%        28%      16%        15%           74%
Knox             72%       79%        47%      14%         7%            73%
Hamilton     38%      64%        48%      33%      29%            81%
Shelby           97%     76%         61%       6%        50%            69%
Sumner         77%     85%         42%       17%      33%            83%
Montgomery NA      71%         62%       0%        0%              71%
Rutherford     83%   92%         63%      15%     23%             85%
Williamson    NA      88%        58%      11%      33%           100%
Murfreesboro NA     90%        50%     30%     NA              NA

SOURCE: Teachers College Record, Date Published: June 08, 2015 ID Number: 17987, Date Accessed: 7/27/2015


The premise made in the article (tongue in cheek) was that if a teacher scores bad on their Praxis, they get shoved to either 6th or 7th grade… All schools put all their bad teachers together in 6th and 7th grade?.. But look at those scores. There is something definitely going on at that level. and then, things return to normal as the grow older……

How can all students be great until they get to 6th grade then tube for two years, and bounce back?  Can it truly be as Markell and Murphy insist, the teacher’s fault?

Obviously not.   I don’t think anyone has to defend the scores… There is obviously something wrong here….

To explain, let me refresh how these scores are set…  You have a raw scores and a set score… The raw score is what we think of when we take a test… Oh, we got 550 out of 800.     The set score is where you create a stoplight of categories and label them exceptional, proficient, basic, and below.   Someone has to choose the number above which one gets one category; below which they fall into another.  This is called the cut score… Does your child make the cut and get into the upper two categories?

One can raise the cut levels to fail more people; one can lower the cut levels to pass more people.. Essentially someone actually decides what percentage should be called proficient, and what percentage should be below that level…  Once the raw scores have arrived, they then figure the levels where to separate the wheat from the chaff.

This means, if the raw scores on the test are very good, the percentage still stands… One can do well and get a failing grade because so many others happened to do better than them…  It is arbitrary.   Likewise if the raw scores are very bad, the highest and lowest categories will have the same percentages as before… The test determines rank, but does not determine what a child does or does not know…   That is because this test is not designed for students.  It was designed to fire teachers and close schools.

If you digested all that……. here is what happens. Once you set the scores for the eleventh grade, you go backwards down the grades setting scores that if passed will eventually meet that score you set for the graduating class.  A graph of what you did would look like this…

linear graph

Equal improvement across every grade… So you would set the cut scores along a linear line like this so every grade got improved….

But something systematically fails in 6th Grade and 7th Grade…  Across the board the expectations are set too high, and though children learn a lot in that year, they are not meeting the level of learning that was arbitrarily set for them.

In grown up terms it would be like you did Zumba every day and your trainer expected you to do it for one more hour each day….  Going from one to two, not too bad… Three hours to four… wow, close to your limit… 5 hours?  You needed help but got there… Now… after doing a marathon 5 hour stint… the next day there is no way you can do a 6 hour run.. Nor can you do a 7 hour run the day after… But after rest, you are able to designate a whole day so you do your 8 hours and the 9 and 10 hour days seem like regular days now….

I wondered:  what if there were brain charts of human development that might shed light on this mystery?

brain development

courtesy of docstoc

Notice the major drop in vision, hearing, habitual ways of responding, and language.  (The math dropped less and its standardized scores across the state of Tennessee corresponded likewise).  All the ELA skills have reached bottom of scale around 6th of 7th grade..

So we are testing children at a point when their capacity for brain growth for language is at zero and we are setting benchmarks based on when they were young and capable of growing new neurons and connections at a very rapid rate…

Now these kids learn fine just like you and I learned fine in 6th and 7th grades… The problem with this test, is that they don’t learn exactly up to the level of what someone behind a desk in Washington guesses they should learn; or more likely, doesn’t even care if they learn or not; he just wants his paycheck….

Here is what I saw that was fascinating…. peer social skills was developing at a very high rate compared to everything else.  This makes sense if anyone has children. At 6-7th grade they suddenly realize they need to gain skill at dealing with peer issues.  Unfortunately this huge part of their brains growth and development is not on the test.  Instead, they are being tested as if they were newborns….

Obviously the idea behind Common Core, is that if you force kids to learn more faster they will do it… However all of us would think it would be stupid to force a horse to go 100 mph… Horses simply can’t do that… Likewise, a child in 6th and 7th grade cannot perform faster than his brain will let him… It stands to reason if his brain has stopped growing in that field, his scores will too.

So every child in 6th and 7th grade will be labeled a failure… Their teachers will be fired.  Schools will be prioritized and rolled over to charters…. and it was all for naught…

Nothing was wrong.. They children are doing fine… it is the test that is fvcked up and boy, is it fvcked up royally…….

We did not have this problem with the DCAS…We must all join and scrap the Smarter Balanced Assessment and replace it with the DCAS ……

In Delaware, Common Core IS the Smarter Balanced Assessment.  You remove the Smarter Balanced Assessment, you get rid of Common Core…

Opting-out is nice, but this test’s removal is mandatory if we want educational gains to continue forward…….

Synopsis:  This bill removes the per-student funding to all Charter schools and allows them to be funded in the same manner as the Vocational Technical School Districts.

Section 1. Amend §509-518 of Title 14 of the Delaware Code by making insertions as shown by underlining and deletions as shown by strikethrough as follows:

(For an easier read of the new law, please jump to a cleaned up code version (without the deletions) which is a much easier read.)

§ 509 School financing.

(a) Charter schools shall be eligible for public funds under procedures established by this section. Notwithstanding that this Code may establish procedures for the funding of a public school choice program and that such program may include charter schools among those schools which students may choose,

(b) A charter school shall receive a payment with respect to each of its students equal to:  in the exact same manner as do the Vocational Technical School Districts within Delaware

(1) From the State on or before November 30, the entire yearly funding equivalent to ofpublic charter school‘s Division I staffing, including fractional funding of partial units, excluding  funding for a Superintendent, Division II– All Other Costs and Energy funding, minor capital improvements and school building maintenance funding, will be  generated by the annual student unit count conducted on September 30 of each year in accordance with Department of Education regulations. by the General Assembly as a line item in its previous fiscal year’s budget, ending June 30th of that same year.  Minor capital improvements shall continue to be funded in the same manner as the Vocational Technical School Districts. In the case of Division III — Equalization, a charter school shall not receive from the State an any amount that is determined by the weighting of the Division III per unit values that would have been generated by its students had they been counted in and that amount, shall remains and stay within each student’s  their district of residence. In addition A charter school shall not receive a prorated portion of any other funds appropriated to the Department of Education that are is intended to be allocated on a student, employee or school state share. For accounting purposes only and not for the purposes of calculating such funding, shall each charter school student shall be counted in a separately reported unit count of at the charter school, which makes note of that child’s district of residence,  and though not physically counted for any purposes in the student’s district of residence, that money which in that child’s district was originally allocated per that student must now remain in the designated home district of that child’s residence. For any other partially funded unit generated at a charter school, the charter school is free to negotiate the use of such unit with the chartering district, and other public school districts, in order to purchase central custodial, administrative, clerical, direct teaching or educationally related services. If such an agreement is not negotiated, a payment based on the average State cost per unit shall be payable to both the charter school and the district issuing the charter, provided that the sum of both fractions justifies an additional unit.  The State shall advance 75% of the anticipated funding pursuant to this subsection at the beginning of each fiscal year, provided that the charter school has provided the Department of Education with a preliminary roster of its students on or before May 1 of such year, and does not maintain the status of formal review or probation. The status of formal review or probation shall prompt the Department of Education to advance a level of funding appropriate to pending administrative action. A final roster shall be due September 30. Notwithstanding the above, a charter school in its first year of operation shall receive 50% of the anticipated funding pursuant to this subsection at the beginning of the fiscal year, provided that the charter school has provided the Department of Education with a preliminary roster of its students on or before May 1 of such year. The charter school shall receive an additional 25% of the funding due pursuant to this subsection on October 1 of its first year in operation and shall receive the remaining 25% on February 1 of its first year in operation, provided that the school has completed and posted the required standardized financial report forms and the Department has reviewed those forms and determined that the school’s finances will not at that time lead the Department to submit the school for formal review pursuant to § 515 of this title. A determination that the school will be submitted for formal review shall prompt the Department of Education to advance a level of funding appropriate to pending administrative action. The percentage of funding to be provided to charter schools on July 1 and October 1 pursuant to the above may be increased in the Secretary’s discretion.

(2) From the school districts in which its students reside on or before November 30 of each year, the local cost per student (regular or special education, as the case may be), net of transportation expenses provided for pursuant to § 508 of this title. The school districts in which its students reside shall advance at least 35% of the anticipated funding pursuant to this subsection at the beginning of each fiscal year provided that the charter school has provided the school districts of residence with a preliminary roster of its students on or before May 1 of such year. This advance may be paid from Division III — Equalization funds if the district’s prior fiscal year current expense local funds balance was 20% or less pursuant to § 1507 of this title. A final roster shall be due September 30. In the event of the failure of a school district to make timely payments to a charter school as required in this paragraph, the Department of Education shall have the authority to direct transfer of such funds from future State funding allocations after the school district receives reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, as set forth in the rules and regulations established by the Department.

(c) If a parent or legal guardian of a student enrolled outside the district pursuant to this chapter moves during the school year to a district different from the district in which that parent’s or legal guardian’s child resided at the time of the annual unit count, the child’s first district of residence shall continue to be responsible  to receive any portions of payments allotted for that child  to the charter school for the balance of the school year pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The child’s new district of residence shall be responsible the recipient  for all such payments revenue during succeeding years.

(d) The Department of Education shall annually calculate the local cost per student expended by each school district for each type of student for the year immediately preceding based on the formula set forth in subsection (e) of this section, adjusted by a factor necessary to fund the charter school on a basis reasonably equivalent to the current year local cost per student, which factor shall be established  and shall give that total cost along with the estimated enrollment of each Charter School to the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee before the completion of  the annual Appropriations Act. The Department shall annually certify each district’s local cost per student expenditure, as if all Charter students still resided within that district by September 1st of each year.

(e)  Local cost per student as used in this section shall be calculated as follows:

Total local Operating Expenditure in Preceding Fiscal Year

Total Division I Units minus

Special School Units minus

Vocational Deduct plus

Vocational Units

Number of Pupils or Pupil Minutes per Unit


Total local Operating = Sum of all expenditures

Expenditure in from local sources minus

Preceding FY local expenditures fortuition minus

local expenditures for debt service minus

local expenditures for Minor Capital Improvement

Division I Units for each= Division I Units certified by District or Special School the State Board of Education as of September 30 of each year…

Pupils or Pupil Minutes =

Number of Pupils or Pupil per Unit Minutes required for one
particular unit of funding as specified in §1703 of this Title

(f) For any student, who because of educational need requires services that are appropriately financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6 of this title, either at the outset or subsequent to a decision to enroll in a charter school, the student’s district of residence shall no longer continue to remain financially responsible for such student and the charter school shall receive from such district request from the Department of Education, a payment determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 of this title, that would have been allotted to the Department of Education by the General Assembly for this purpose,  Beginning fiscal year 2015, the General Assembly will provide a charter fund of $1 million dollars to the Department of Education to be used for assisting charter students requiring additional resources to meet their educational needs.

(g) Any payment received by a charter school from the General Assembly pursuant to this section may be used for current operations, minor capital improvements, debt service payments or tuition payments.

(h) The Department of Education, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, shall annually publish a list of vacant and unused buildings and vacant and unused portions of buildings that are owned by this State or by school districts in this State and that may be suitable for the operation of a charter school. The Department of Education, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, shall make the list available to applicants for charter schools and to existing charter schools. The list shall include the address of each building, a short description of the building and the name of the owner of the building.

(i) In return for the receipt by a charter school of any special allocated  state funds allocated directly to the school for extra time, professional development, driver education or disciplinary programs, the school shall provide such programs.

(j) If after September 30  April 15th a pupil ceases to be enrolled in a charter school and is thereafter enrolled in a reorganized school district for the balance of the fiscal year, nothing contained in this section shall prevent a charter school which has received any funding for the student and the school district in which the student is subsequently enrolled from entering into an agreement providing for the proration of student funding between or among the charter school and the school district in which the student is subsequently enrolled. Funding in any subsequent fiscal year shall be as otherwise provided in this Code.   no funding transfer shall take place, since that child’s assessment is already designated towards his district of residence.

(k) A charter school shall display on its website as do all public schools, all standardized financial report forms for the current fiscal year and the final monthly standardized financial report forms for each previous fiscal year of operation. Charter schools that are required to file Internal Revenue Service Form 990 shall post the current and prior year Form 990 on the website as well.

(l) Charter schools shall have the same access to conduit bond financing as any other nonprofit organization, and no state or local government unit may impose any condition or restriction on a charter school’s approval solely because the applicant is a public charter school. It is the further intent that a charter school shall apply for conduit funding to issuers within the State unless more favorable terms may be found elsewhere.all Vocational Technical School Districts within Delaware

(m) The Department of Education shall administer a performance fund for charter schools, to be known as the “Charter School Performance Fund.” The Department of Education shall establish threshold eligibility requirements for applicants desiring to apply for funding, which shall include but not be limited to a proven track record of success, as measured by a performance framework established by the charter school’s authorizer or comparable measures as defined by the Department. The Department of Education shall also establish criteria to evaluate applications for funding, which shall include but not be limited to the availability of supplemental funding from nonstate sources at a ratio to be determined by the Department. The Department of Education shall prioritize those applications from applicants that have:

(1) Developed high-quality plans for start-up or expansion; or

(2) Serve high-need students, as defined by the Department.

The Fund shall be subject to appropriation and shall not exceed $5 million annually.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 270 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 171 Del. Laws, c. 132, §§ 360, 36171 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 2671 Del. Laws, c. 354, § 38372 Del. Laws, c. 395, § 35173 Del. Laws, c. 164, §§ 9, 1075 Del. Laws, c. 88, § 16(2)75 Del. Laws, c. 89, § 42578 Del. Laws, c. 77, § 33(b)78 Del. Laws, c. 187, §§ 2, 379 Del. Laws, c. 51, §§ 3, 4.;

§ 510 State assistance.

(a) The Department of Education shall distribute information announcing the availability of the charter school program, explaining the powers and responsibilities of a charter school contained in this chapter, and describing the application process to each school district and public post-secondary educational institution, and through press releases to each major newspaper in the State.

(b) The Department of Education shall provide technical assistance to potential charter school applicants upon request.

(c) The Department of Education shall provide technical and other forms of assistance to charter schools on the same basis as to school districts.

(d) The Department of Education shall, in concert with the approving authority and the applicant, apply for available federal or foundation grants providing funding for the planning and start-up of charter schools and the Department of Education shall administer such funds as may be appropriated by the General Assembly for the purpose of assisting in the planning and start-up of charter schools.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 271 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 27.;

§ 511 Approval procedure.

(a) An approved charter school application, together with such conditions imposed pursuant to subsection (l) of this section, shall be the basis for a charter granted to the charter school by the approving authority pursuant to this chapter and shall be governed by the terms of this chapter.  Charters must first receive a majority approval from the local district’s school board in whose district they are located. Upon approval of a charter school application by that district, the Department of Education shall present applicants seeking a charter from the state with a charter contract (“Charter Contract”) that clearly defines the respective roles, powers, and responsibilities of the school and the approving authority and incorporates the provisions of the performance agreement entered into between the charter school and its approving authority pursuant to CDR 14-200-275. Other approving authorities may choose to present applications they approve with such a Charter Contract. Where Once a Charter Contract is utilized has been approved by the Department, both the school Charter School and the approving authority that school’s local school district shall execute the Department of Education’s Charter Contract. Notwithstanding anything in this chapter to the contrary, the initial term of a newly approved charter shall expire at the end of the fifth  third fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the charter was initially approved, and any subsequent charter renewal term shall expire at the end of each successive fifth third fiscal year thereafter unless extended pursuant to § 514A(b) of this title. If an approved charter is modified to delay the initial opening of the school, then the expiration date of the initial term of the charter shall be adjusted accordingly.

(b)(1) Charters shall be modified by the same procedure and based on the same criteria as they are approved. When the approving authority is the Department of Education  local school district, minor modifications to a charter that are requested by the charter school only may be approved by the Secretary  District Superintendent subject to rules and regulations established by the local district’s Board of Education with the approval of the State Board. Modifications associated with the provision of student transportation services as a result of changes to the Annual Appropriations Act to § 508 of this title shall be considered a minor modification.

(2) A request for modification to increase a charter school’s total authorized enrollment by more than 15% shall be considered a major modification, regardless of whether the additional students will attend school at the current location or at a separate location.

(3) In addition to meeting the approval criteria established in § 512 of this title, an authorizer considering an application for a new charter school or for a modification as described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section in which the increased enrollment will occur less than 18 months from the date of application (an “expansion”), shall also consider the potential positive and negative impact of the proposed new school or expansion on the schools and the community from which the charter school’s new students will likely be drawn. In reviewing the impact, the authorizer shall consider all information furnished to it during the new charter school application process and may exercise its reasonable discretion in determining whether the proposed new school or expansion is contrary to the best interests of the community to be served, including both those students likely to attend the charter school and those students likely to attend traditional public schools in the community.  Local impact of the charter shall be considered during the initial application process before that district’s Board of Education, which oversees the locality in which that charter wishes to locate.

(4) Information regarding impact shall be considered in conjunction with the factors in § 512 of this title but shall not alone provide the basis for disapproval of an application for a new charter application or an expansion. The information regarding impact may, however, be among the bases for disapproval of an application or expansion if at least 1 criteria in § 512 of this title is also deemed not satisfied by the authorizer. The information regarding impact may, by itself or in combination with other factors, form the basis for conditions being placed on the approval.

(c) Charter school applications shall be submitted to a local school board or the Department for approval as an approving authority. Whenever a charter school seeks a charter from the Department as approving authority, such approval shall require the assent of both the Secretary and the State Board, as shall any action pursuant to §§ 515 and 516 of this title. The approving authority shall be responsible for approval of the charter school pursuant to this section and for continuing oversight of each charter school it approves.

(d) The Department shall make an initial secondary review of all charter school applications it receives forwarded to it by the local district Superintendents, in order to assess the completeness and viability of each such application based on the application submission criteria established in this title. Upon a finding that an application does not warrant a full review, the Department shall notify the applicant in writing of the deficiency or deficiencies and the application shall receive no further consideration. Each local district that is asked by an applicant to serve as an approving authority may, in its discretion, undertake such an initial sufficiency review and make such an initial sufficiency determination.

(e) Applicants seeking a charter approval from the Department that have submitted an application deemed by both the local distict and Department sufficient to receive a full review, shall be offered an opportunity for an interview in support of the application. Such interviews will allow the Department to assess applicant capacity, allow it to clarify information provided in the application, and gather additional information. The information gained in the interview process may be among the factors considered by the approving authority in approving or denying an application.

(f) Potential charter school applicants may engage in discussions with a potential approving authority before submitting an application for approval to establish a charter school.

(g)(1) Except as noted in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, new charter school applications shall be submitted to an their local district approving authority between November 1 and December 31 for schools to be established and prepared to admit students on or after the second August 1 thereafter.

(2) Applications by a highly successful charter school operator as described in subsection (p) of this section shall be submitted to an approving authority between November 1 and December 31 for schools to be established and prepared to admit students on or after the August 1 thereafter. The application submission dates in this subsection may be amended by agreement of the authorizer and the applicant if necessary to allow the applicant to serve students who would otherwise be displaced due to the closure of an existing charter school.

(3) Applications to renew a charter shall be submitted to the local approving authority on or before September 1 of the year immediately preceding the calendar year in which the school’s current charter term will expire., except that all applications to renew a charter that expires on or before December 31, 2012, shall be submitted to the approving authority on or before October 15, 2011.

(4) Charter school applications which propose the conversion of an existing public school, or a part thereof to charter school status must be submitted to an a local approving authority on or before October 30 if the application proposes that the newly converted charter school is to be established and prepared to admit students for the next ensuing school year.

(5) If the date for submitting an application or commencing the school’s instructional program shall fall on a weekend or state holiday, the time for such shall be continued to the first working day thereafter.

(h) Any local school board may limit the number of new charter school applications it will consider in any year or the number of charters it will grant, but within 20 working days after December 31 must hold a public meeting to decide whether or not to consider it. A local school board shall not be required to accept any new charter school applications for a charter school unless, by September 1 of each year the school board shall affirmatively vote to accept such applications.

(i) If an the local approving authority decides to consider a charter application, the local approving authority must rule on whether to approve the application at a public meeting within 90 working days after December 31.

(j) Within 5 days of deciding to consider an application, the local  approving authority shall form an accountability committee to review the charter school application. The accountability committee’s report to the local school board shall address the approval criteria set forth in § 512 of this title. The committee shall meet with the applicant in the course of its investigation and provide the applicant the opportunity to review and comment on the committee’s report 15 days before it is issued to the approving authority. The committee’s final report shall be provided to the applicant and be made available to the public.

(k) After giving 15 days public notice, the local approving authority shall hold public hearings to assist in its decision whether to approve a charter application. At least 1 such hearing shall be held prior to the issuance of the accountability committee’s final report on that application. The approving authority shall, in advance of the 15-day public notice period, post any and all charter applications under consideration on a public website maintained by the approving authority, and during this public notice period shall accept electronically submitted and written comments from the public.

(l) Subject to any limitations imposed by the local approving authority pursuant to subsection (h) of this section, if the application is found by the approving authority of the State Board to meet the criteria set forth in § 512 and complying with the approval process in § 511 of this title, it shall approve the application. The State Board’s approving authority may approve an application subject to such conditions as the approving authority, in its sole discretion, may deem appropriate to ensure the applicant’s continuing compliance with the approval criteria.

(m) If an application is made to the Department or a local board as an approving authority and the charter application is not approved, such decision shall be final and not subject to judicial review.

(n) All applications for a charter shall contain an affirmative representation by the applicant that no later than June 15 immediately preceding the authorized opening date of the school, the applicant shall secure a certificate of occupancy, either temporary or final, for the premises in which the school is to be located, provided that any temporary certificate of occupancy must permit occupancy at the premises by school staff and students for school purposes. If the charter is approved and the charter holder shall subsequently fail to obtain the necessary certificate of occupancy as required by this section, the opening of the school shall be delayed by 1 year from the date previously authorized by the approving authority and the charter shall be placed on probation subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Department of Education with the consent of the State Board of Education. No waivers are available for this requirement.

(o) A local school board that approves an application for a charter school may do so only on the condition that the charter school is located in and provides all educational and related services, with the exception of transportation services and other K-12 noninstructional services and activities, within the boundaries of the approving local school board’s district lines. Once approved, the charter school may not subsequently change its location from the school district specified in its originally approved charter.

(p) ”Highly successful charter school operator” means an entity that currently operates or whose principals currently operate 1 or more highly successful charter schools showing sustained high levels of student growth and achievement and sustained fiscal stewardship, as further defined by Department regulation. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, for purposes of this definition the phrase “charter school” shall include public schools operated under a charter regardless of whether the schools are located or organized in Delaware. A highly successful charter school operator may be authorized to operate a charter school in the timeframe provided by paragraph (g)(2) of this section provided that the application is submitted for the purpose of operating a charter school at the site of and serving students currently attending a charter school whose charter has been revoked, has not been renewed, or whose charter is on formal review and whose board has agreed to abandon their charter.

(q) The charter school application shall include a disclosure of any ownership or financial interest in the charter school, including but not limited to the building and real property to be used in the operation of the charter school, by the charter school founders and the board of directors of the proposed charter school. If the building and real property to be used in operation of the charter school are not known at the time of application, disclosures pertaining to those interests shall be made once the building and real property to be used in operation of the charter school become known. In addition, the board of directors of the charter school shall have a continuing duty to disclose such interests to the approving authority pursuant to this chapter during the terms of any charter. The charter school and the Department shall promptly disclose the information required by this subsection to any member of the public upon request.

(r) Charter school board members and founders shall be required to complete the criminal background checks in the same manner as persons seeking employment with a public school pursuant to § 8571(a) of Title 11. In addition, the authorizer shall complete a check of the Child Protection Registry established by § 921 of Title 16 for charter school founders and board members. The results of said background and Child Protection Registry checks shall be provided to the authorizer for review as part of the application process and on an ongoing basis if new board members are seated or current board members are convicted of a crime or placed on the Child Protection Registry. Any person convicted of a felony offense or of any crime against a child in this State or any other jurisdiction shall not be permitted to serve as a founder or member of a charter school board of directors. No individual shall be permitted to serve as a charter school founder or board member if the individual would not be permitted to be employed in a public school pursuant to § 8563 of Title 11 regarding the Child Protection Registry. Other crimes may be considered disqualifying, in the discretion of the authorizer. The State Bureau of Identification may release any subsequent criminal history to the authorizer. Individuals currently serving as board members of a charter school must complete a criminal background check and the Department shall complete a Child Protection Registry check for such members on or before February 1, 2012.

(s) The founder or board member shall be provided with a copy of all information forwarded to the authorizer pursuant to subsection (r) of this section. Information obtained under subsection (r) of this section is confidential and may only be disclosed to the chief officer and 1 additional person in each authorizing body.

(t) Costs associated with obtaining criminal history information and child protection registry checks shall be paid by the applicant.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 270 Del. Laws, c. 425, § 34671 Del. Laws, c. 132, §§ 357-359, 371, 37271 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 2872 Del. Laws, c. 118, § 372 Del. Laws, c. 473, § 173 Del. Laws, c. 164, §§ 11-1473 Del. Laws, c. 313, §§ 1, 874 Del. Laws, c. 360, §§ 2, 3, 675 Del. Laws, c. 112, § 176 Del. Laws, c. 79, § 14076 Del. Laws, c. 280, § 39578 Del. Laws, c. 187, §§ 4-779 Del. Laws, c. 51, § 5.;

§ 512 Approval criteria.

Subject to the process prescribed in § 511 of this title, charter school applications shall be in the form established by the local approving authority and shall be approved if, after the exercise of due diligence and good faith, the local approving authority finds that the proposed charter demonstrates that:

(1) The individuals and entities submitting the application are experienced and qualified to start and operate a charter school, and to implement the school’s proposed educational program. Certified teachers, parents and members of the community in which the school is to be located must be involved in the development of the proposed charter school. At the time at which the school commences its instructional program and at all times thereafter, the board of directors must include a teacher from at least 1 of the charter schools operated by the board and at least 1 parent of a student enrolled in a charter school operated by the board;

(2) The chosen form of organization, identified in the articles of incorporation and by-laws, or the membership agreement, conforms with the Delaware General Corporation Law;

(3) The mission statement, goals and educational objectives are consistent with the description of legislative intent set forth in § 501 of this title and the restrictions on charter school operations set forth in § 506 in this title;

(4) The school has set goals for student performance and will utilize satisfactory indicators not limited exclusively to state tests, to determine whether its students meet or exceed such goals and the academic standards set by the State. The indicators shall include the assessments required for students in other public schools, although the charter school may adopt additional performance standards or assessment requirements, and shall include timelines for the achievement of student performance goals and the assessment of such performance;

(5) The school proposes a satisfactory plan for evaluating student performance and procedures for taking corrective action in the event that student performance at the charter school falls below such standards which are reasonably likely to succeed;

(6) The school’s educational program, including curriculum and instructional strategies, has the potential to improve student performance; and must be aligned to meet the Delaware Content Standards and state program requirements, and in the case of a charter high school, state graduation requirements. High school programs must provide driver education. The educational program at all charter schools must include the provision by the school of extra instructional time for at-risk students, summer school and other services required to be provided by school districts pursuant to the provisions of § 153 of this title. A previously approved charter school may continue to operate in compliance with the terms of its current approval, but its charter shall not be renewed unless the school shall submit an application for renewal in full compliance with the requirements of this subsection;

(7) The school’s educational program sets forth appropriate strategies to be employed to accommodate the needs of at-risk students and those needing special education services;

(8) The plan for the school is economically viable, based on a review of the school’s proposed budget of projected revenues and expenditures for the first 3 years, the plan for starting the school, and the major contracts planned for equipment and services, leases, improvements, purchases of real property and insurance;

(9) The school’s financial and administrative operations meet or exceed the same standards, procedures and requirements as a school district. If a charter school proposes to operate outside the State’s pension and/or benefits systems, a specific memorandum of understanding shall be developed and executed by the charter school, the approving authority, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Controller General and the Secretary of Finance to assure that the State’s fiduciary duties and interests in the proper use of appropriated funds and as a benefits and pension trustee are fulfilled and protected, the State’s financial reporting requirements are satisfied, and the interests of charter school employees are protected. All charter schools shall operate within the Delaware Financial Management System (DFMS) and be subject to all of the same policies and procedures which govern other agencies operating within such system, except that any charter school previously approved to operate outside of the DFMS may continue to so operate subject to the terms of its memorandum of understanding until such time as the school’s charter is renewed pursuant to this chapter;

(10) The assessment of the school’s potential legal liability, and the types and limits of insurance coverage the school plans to obtain, are adequate;

(11) The procedures the school plans to follow to discipline students and ensure its students’ adherence to school attendance requirements comply with state and federal law;

(12) The procedures the school plans to follow to assure the health and safety of students, employees and guests of the school while they are on school property are adequate and that the charter school will comply with applicable provisions of local, state and federal law, including the provisions of Chapter 85 of Title 11;

(13) The school shall have a satisfactory plan for timely transferring student data and records to the Department of Education;

(14) The school’s board of directors shall annually certify to the Department, on a form to be provided by the Department, that prior to the payment of any fees or other sums to any management company employed by the board, the board will insure that sufficient revenues of the school are devoted to adequately support the school’s proposed educational program. Such form of certification may require documentation of all actual or proposed expenditures by the school. Failure to provide sufficient funds to adequately support the school’s proposed education program shall be grounds for revocation of the school’s charter.

(15) The school shall have a satisfactory plan to ensure the effectiveness of its board of trustees, including governance trainings conducted for any new board members and at a minimum of once every 3 years; and

(16) The school shall have a satisfactory plan for procedures it will follow in the case of the closure or dissolution of the school, including a plan to set aside sufficient funds to cover the salaries owed to those employees who are paid over a 12-month period. For a new applicant granted under this chapter, the application shall include a reasonable plan to establish sufficient available balances pursuant to § 516(1) of this title.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 271 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 2971 Del. Laws, c. 354, § 38673 Del. Laws, c. 164, §§ 15-2173 Del. Laws, c. 313, §§ 9, 1075 Del. Laws, c. 88, § 21(7)78 Del. Laws, c. 187, § 879 Del. Laws, c. 51, § 6.;

§ 513 Reporting and oversight.

(a) On or before December 1, each charter school not seeking renewal of its charter shall produce an annual report for the school year ending the previous June, which shall:

(1) Discuss the school’s progress in meeting overall student performance goals and standards;

(2) Discuss the innovation occurring at the charter school, including but not limited to the areas of curriculum development, instruction, student culture and discipline, community and parental involvement, teacher and staff development, school operations and management, and extracurricular and after-school programming; and

(3) Contain a financial statement setting forth by appropriate categories the school’s revenues and expenditures and assets and liabilities.

Each charter school seeking renewal of its charter shall produce an annual report on or before September 30. The approving authority may, in its discretion and for good cause shown, elect to accept an annual report submitted subsequent to this deadline. To ensure that such reports provide parents and approving authorities with clear and comparable information about the performance of charter schools, the Department of Education shall prescribe a uniform format for such reports, which may be supplemented by requirements set by the approving authority for schools it has chartered. The charter school shall contract to have an audit of the business and financial transactions, records, and accounts after July 1 for the prior fiscal year. The results of the audit shall be shared with the Department of Education by October 1. A charter school shall display on its website the annual report including financial statement and audit required by this subsection.

(b) The annual report shall be submitted to the approving authority, the Department and the State Board. Employees of the school and parents of students attending the school shall receive a copy free of charge, upon request. The reports shall be public records pursuant to Chapter 100 of Title 29.

(c) The Department of Education, the State Board, and the approving authority may conduct financial, programmatic, or compliance audits of a charter school. In cooperation with the Department, the approving authority shall conduct such audits no less often than every 3 years. The State Auditor shall conduct an audit of all charter school funds annually on the same basis as applied to regular school districts.

(d) The Department of Education shall notify the superintendents of all reorganized and vocational-technical school districts of receipt of new charter school applications within 30 days of the close of the application deadline. The Department of Education shall also notify the superintendent of a reorganized school district of any applications for a major charter modification submitted by a charter school with a facility located within their district.

(e) Local school boards shall notify the superintendents of all reorganized and vocational-technical school districts of receipt of new charter school applications within 30 days of the close of the application deadline.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 271 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3073 Del. Laws, c. 313, §§ 4, 1278 Del. Laws, c. 187, § 9;79 Del. Laws, c. 51, § 779 Del. Laws, c. 128, § 2.;

§ 514 State reports on the charter school program.

Annually, the Department shall prepare a report for the Governor, the General Assembly, and the State Board of Education on the success or failure of charter schools and propose changes in state law necessary to improve or change the charter school program. Such report shall contain a section comparing the per student expenditures of charter schools, considering all sources of such expenditures, with those of other public schools. Such report shall also contain:

(1) The Secretary of Education’s analysis of, recommendations relating to, and proposed changes relating to Delaware education laws, in light of the content of annual reports submitted pursuant to § 513 of this title; and

(2) The Secretary’s assessment of specific opportunities and barriers relating to the implementation of charter schools’ innovations in the broader Delaware public education school system.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 271 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3179 Del. Laws, c. 128, § 2.;

§ 514A Renewals and nonrenewals.

(a) Four years after a charter school has commenced its instructional program pursuant to this chapter and not later than every 5 years thereafter, the approving authority shall, upon notice to the charter school, review the performance of the charter school to determine its compliance with its charter and its satisfaction of the criteria set forth in this title for the purposes of renewal or nonrenewal.

(b) A charter school may be renewed for successive 5-year terms of duration. An approving authority may grant renewal with specific conditions for necessary improvements to a charter school. Where a charter school has demonstrated an outstanding record of performance, an approving authority may grant it a renewal term of 10 years. Any charter school receiving such an extended renewal term shall, at the midpoint of the 10-year charter, be subject to an annual performance and program evaluation that includes academic, financial and operations data that looks back to all of the years of the charter up to that point. If, upon this evaluation, the approving authority determines that the charter school’s level of performance is deficient by renewal standards, the approving authority may initiate the formal renewal and nonrenewal process set forth below.

(c) No later than April 30, the approving authority shall issue a charter school renewal report and charter renewal application guidance to any charter school whose charter will expire the following year. The renewal report shall summarize the charter school’s performance record to date, based on the data required by 79 Del. Laws, c. 51 and the charter contract, and shall provide notice of any weaknesses or concerns perceived by the approving authority concerning the charter school that may jeopardize its position in seeking renewal if not timely rectified. The charter school shall have 10 working days to respond to the renewal report and submit any corrections or clarifications for the report.

(d) The renewal process shall, at a minimum, provide an opportunity for the charter school to:

(1) Present additional evidence, beyond the data contained in the renewal report, supporting its case for charter renewal;

(2) Describe improvements undertaken or planned for the school; and

(3) Detail the school’s plans for the next charter term.

(e) The renewal application guidance shall include the criteria that will guide the approving authority’s renewal decisions. Renewal determinations by the Department of Education shall be based on its performance framework, the terms set forth in the Charter Contract, and shall take account of the school’s performance agreement with the approving authority, consistent with CDR 14-200-275, and with 79 Del. Laws, c. 51. Other approving authorities may choose to adopt the criteria utilized by the Department of Education. Each approving authority shall develop a rubric based on its criteria for evaluating renewal applications and shall provide this rubric to applicants as part of the renewal application guidance. The approving authority shall publish the renewal application guidance on its website and make it available in written form upon request.

(f) No later than September 30, the governing board of a charter school seeking renewal shall submit a renewal application to the approving authority pursuant to the renewal application guidance issued by the approving authority. The approving authority shall rule by resolution on the renewal application no later than 30 working days after the filing of the renewal application.

(g) In making charter renewal decisions, every approving authority shall:

(1) Ground its decisions in evidence of the school’s performance over the term of the charter contract in accordance with the performance agreement set forth in the charter contract;

(2) Ensure that data used in making renewal decisions are available to the school and the public; and

(3) Provide a public report summarizing the evidence basis for each decision.

79 Del. Laws, c. 51, § 8.;

§ 515 Oversight and revocation process.

(a) The approving authority shall be responsible for oversight of the charter schools it approves.

(b) In addition to the review required by § 514A(a) of this title, the approving authority may notify a charter school of potential violations of its charter and submit the charter to formal review to determine whether the charter school is violating the terms of its charter and whether to order remedial measures pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.

(c) The approving authority shall issue its decision within 90 working days of giving the charter school notice pursuant to this subsection (c). An accountability committee appointed by the approving authority shall conduct the initial review pursuant to subsection (b) or (c) of this section. The accountability committee’s report to the approving authority shall address the relevant criteria set forth in §§ 512 and 516 of this title. The committee shall meet with the applicant in the course of its investigation and provide the applicant the opportunity to review and comment on the committee’s report 15 days before it is issued to the approving authority. The committee’s final report shall be provided to the applicant and made available to the public.

(d) If the accountability committee reports probable grounds for remedial measures pursuant to subsection (g) of this section, the approving authority shall hold public hearings to assist in its decision whether the criteria set forth for remedial action in § 516 of this title have been satisfied, after giving the charter school 30 days notice. The school shall be given the opportunity to respond to the accountability committee’s report at the meeting. Members of the public shall be given the opportunity to comment at the meeting.

(e) If the accountability committee reports that the school has complied with its charter and the criteria set forth in § 512 of this title, the approving authority shall approve or disapprove its report at a public meeting after giving the charter school 30 days’ notice. If the approving authority disapproves the report, it shall identify the reasons for that decision with particularity. Thereafter, the approving authority shall hold a hearing, within 30 days, to decide the appropriate remedy pursuant to subsection (f) of this section.

(f) If the approving authority determines that the criteria for remedial action set forth in § 516 of this title have been satisfied, it may revoke the charter and manage the school directly until alternative arrangements can be made for students at the school or place the school on a probationary status subject to terms determined by the approving authority which are directly relevant to the violation or violations.

(g) If a local school district which is an approving authority decides to revoke the school’s charter or place the school on probationary status, the applicant may file for arbitration in writing with the American Arbitration Association in Philadelphia within 20 days of the local board’s decision stating the reasons why it believes the local board decision was in error. A copy of said filing shall be provided simultaneously with the approving authority. The parties shall select an arbitrator in accordance with the American Arbitration Association’s procedure for voluntary labor disputes, provided, however, that such arbitration shall occur in this State. The arbitrator’s fees and costs shall be borne equally by the parties. The arbitrator shall convene a hearing and determine whether the local board’s decision was in error. The arbitrator shall have 30 days to render a decision following the close of the hearing. The arbitrator’s decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.

(h) If the approving authority is the Department and it decides to revoke the school’s charter or place the school on probationary status, its decision shall be final and not subject to arbitration or judicial review.

(i) Prior to any charter school closure decision, an approving authority shall have developed and shall utilize a charter school closure protocol to ensure timely notification to parents and employees, orderly transition of students and student records to new schools, and proper disposition of school funds, property, and assets in accordance with the requirements of 79 Del. Laws, c. 51 and other applicable laws. The protocol shall specify tasks, timelines, and responsible parties, including delineating the respective duties of the school and the approving authority. In the event of a charter school closure for any reason, the approving authority shall oversee and work with the closing school to ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students, parents and employees, as guided by the closure protocol.

(j) In the event of a charter school closure for any reason, all cash and cash equivalents held by or available to the school shall be distributed first to satisfy outstanding payroll obligations for employees of the school, then to the remaining creditors of the school. Remaining State General Fund appropriations for that school year shall be returned to each district in an amount proportionate to the number of students received by each district. Additional remaining State General Fund appropriations shall be returned to the general revenue fund through the State Treasury. Remaining funds received from local school districts shall be returned to each of the districts in an amount proportionate to the number of students from each district. Any remaining funds and assets will be managed by the charter, as appropriate. In the event that a charter school files for bankruptcy, the distribution of all assets will be managed by the Bankruptcy Court or otherwise in accordance with bankruptcy laws. Nothing herein shall be construed in any way to impair or preempt a lien or security interest on any asset owned by a charter school or to prevent the school from paying the costs required to close or dissolve.

(k) In the event that all state and local funds due to a charter school are paid timely as required by § 509 of this title, a charter school authorized to operate in the State must by December 31 of that fiscal year maintain an available balance sufficient to pay the minimum costs necessary to provide students with the minimum annual instructional hours required by the Department of Education during the remainder of that fiscal year as reasonably projected by the charter school. Such costs include, but are not limited to, all employee compensation required to attain the minimum annual instructional hours during the remainder of that fiscal year. Such costs also include all fixed and variable nonpayroll expenditures incurred through the final month of that school year. A school’s failure to maintain sufficient available funds by December 31 of its third year of operation shall be deemed a material violation of its charter.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 270 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 171 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 3173 Del. Laws, c. 164, §§ 22, 26;74 Del. Laws, c. 360, § 479 Del. Laws, c. 51, § 9.;

§ 516 Revocation criteria.

Approved charters shall be subject to revocation or probation, after the exercise of due diligence and good faith, only for the following reasons:

(1) The school, or its representatives, has committed a material fraud on the approving authority or misappropriated federal, state or local funds; or

(2) The school fails to comply with its charter or to satisfy, in its operation of the school, the criteria set forth in § 512 of this title.

70 Del. Laws, c. 179, § 2.;

§ 517 Charter transfer to different authorizer.

Transfer of a charter, and of oversight of that public charter school, from 1 authorizer to another before the expiration of the charter term shall require a petition by the public charter school or its authorizer to the new authorizer. A petition to transfer is considered a major modification and will follow the same timelines and hearing process as a major modification.

78 Del. Laws, c. 187, § 10.;

§ 518 Oversight and revocation for multiple charter holders.

For purposes of §§ 515 and 516 of this title, each charter held by a common board of directors shall be treated separately and individually.

Delaware’s 1 percent reported average income of $863,734 in 2012.  There are 4747 filers in Delaware who meet the 1% threshold.

What that means is that half of those, 2424 have to make more than $863,734…

Currently everyone making more than $60,000 each year, pays the same marginal rate. … So all these 2424 pay the highest rate of 6%…..

So if all 2424 average above $863,734 then the minimum income available to be taxed would be this product of both.

2525  X  $863,734  =   $2,093,691,216   That is as in two billion…

Therefore, if we raise tax rates on this group, with each percent, we would raise $20,936,912. ($21 million) Enough to fund all of Delaware’s casino losses for a full year or the average spent on Race To The Top per each of its 5 year cycle; or a one percent raise for all of Delaware’s state employees.

Keep this in light of the startling fact that this group grew incomes at 15%….  15% of $2 billion is $300 million.   So whereas this group of 2424 top 0.5%’rs grew incomes at $300 million yet paid the same rate as someone making $60,000… that person stuck making $60,000 lost income at 1.6% but still paid the same rate as those earning a combined $300 million a year….

Which is why saying we can’t fund seniors credits for school taxes is nothing less than a joke…. Perhaps such might be true, IF WE WERE TAXING THE TOP 0.5% AT ABSURD HIGHLY RIDICULOUS RATES.  But we aren’t.. 

  • California charges 13.3%… It’s economy is booming btw.
  • Oregon charges 9.9%… Doing well too.
  • Minnesota at 8.95%… No harm there.
  • Iowa 8.98%… Those corn huskers are quite happy there.
  • New York 8.82%… Everyone “Hearts” NY.
  • Our neighbor, New Jersey?  8.97%….

Even Republican Scott Walker’s state, Wisconsin charges higher:  7.65%!!!

There is a lot of room to expand….

Here is the recommended rate schedule that Delaware needs to implement.

  • Incomes over $400 billion   @ 12 %
  • Incomes between $400 and $100 billion  @ 11%
  • Incomes between $100 and $1 billion  @ 10%
  • incomes between  $1 billion and $400 million @ 9%
  • incomes between $400 million and $100 million  @ 8 %
  • incomes between $100 million and 1 million.   @  7%
  • No change for incomes under $1 million…

The reason for the above is contingent on how much each level of income impacts the local economy.  Those who don’t provide a local benefit with their purchases, should be taxed higher than those who do.  And keep in mind this is all taxed marginally… That means the the first million for all of the 2424 is taxed the same, and only those amounts that expand over into the higher brackets will pay out at a higher rate….

For any sacrifices to be borne at all by those losing income at rates of 1.6% without ramping up the donations exculpated from those whose incomes rose 15% over the same identical time frame, is simply unjust, immoral, and positively Un-American.

These people have to be taxed more.  No if’s; No and’s; No but’s.

It is so obvious… Like hitting you in the eye with a big Pizza Pie!

My national antithesis put it very well this way.

“I think the people who support Common Core out of good intentions do not realize the bad side of Common Core. Beyond the emotional arguments, the philosophical arguments, and the crazy arguments—there are a lot of crazy arguments both for and against Common Core—there is a very practical argument the Common Core supporters have no answer for.

Moms cannot help their children with math homework. Reporters who are single and Common Core supporters without kids may not be able to relate here or identify with this, but that’s why this is such a sleeper issue. Moms cannot help their kids with math homework and that’s creating most of the rage against Common Core.

That is why we fight.  That is why we opt out.

Tonight’s State of the Union, unfortunately not seen by many Americans, but don’t worry if you missed it; your grandchildren in the future will be able to tell you all about it…

2014 establishes a new record… Never in the course of scientific measurement, has the globe been as hot as it was this past year…

Not in 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, or ever… Furthermore all the top ten hottest years have occurred over the past two decades… To give you any indication of that significance, there have been 602 decades since the world was created by alleged creationists. The last two include the 10 hottest years ever.  Some say it’s because we are moving closer to hell, and if Republican policies continue unabated, there is some truth to that.

But there is no mistaking the evidence.  Based on coincidence alone, the evidence is overwhelming.  Some may not agree. But that disagreement is solely based on fancy, and not fact… Such disagreement’s factual consistency falls in level near the bottom of credibility  alongside that of saying that allowing blacks to play sports will bring down the level of the game (yes, once said and believed); or that the Negro was sub-par to the white man, and slavery was a blessing for it, over the freedom of living naked in squalid jungle… or that all sickness was caused by bad blood, or the earth was flat, or the sun went around the earth, and not vice versa.  On the latter, people were burnt at the stake for telling the truth.

But those days are gone. Thanks to science.  Explanations for the unexplained based on fancy, only work until that unexplained gets explained in fashions we can understand.

And we know from scientific experiments that  increasing the amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, as well as decreasing the forest process which breaks down CO2 into Carbon and Oxygen, will result in warmer temperatures… no matter what anyone else says.  And we do know that since 1990, the world has never, ever, ever put as much CO2 into the air, simply because there never has been as many people driving cars as now, and we know how much carbon is mined or pumped, how much is held in reserves and can use simple math to determine how much is being burned.

  • 90,354,000 barrels each single day,
  • 231,070,609,17  tons per day,

For eons this amount of carbon has been stored underground where it was protected from the atmosphere.  Never before in recorded history have we seen carbon reunited with our atmosphere on such a scale.  Without question, Global Warming is man-made and is caused by mankind’s burning of carbon.   Even the most skeptical must now accept it.

So what to do about those who continue to deny it?   First, recognize they are not serious.  They know and are just creating noise for personal reasons.  There is nobody on this planet who can look at the graphic above showing warming trends, and truly believe it doesn’t exist…  They may say so, but what they are saying is this:  I was so wrong that the only way I can have any self respect is to fool myself and others that I still believe as I did when I was wrong… If I ever admit I was wrong, I’ll be teased unmercifully.  So.. here goes again… That’s bull; there is no proof o global warming and there is tons of proof against it…
Such defiance of the obvious would be funny and cute if it were evidenced in say a dog experiencing winter for the first time, running and jumping off the dock and slamming onto an ice cover lake.  But when such denial affects our ability to counter the problem, we can’t let it continue…
If we lived in a village of 200 years ago, and wolves came into town every night to feed on young’uns, we would band together to do something.. Like build a stockade around town, or man a gate, or something to protect our children. What if we had townspeople getting up in the middle of the night, opening the gate, or cutting holes in the fence to let the wolves come in, so they can continue devouring our children… (Damn children scream in restaurants and give me indigestion).

What if we caught… one of those people…  200 years ago?   I’d kill them, and think I’d be seated near the right hand of God for doing so.  No question. No doubt. never any guilt.   Alas, today, killing people is frowned upon as it should be.

But what if we did something else?

“This is bullshit. There is no proof of Global warming.. It’s a liberal hoax.”  I put my fist through his fvcking head. Would the next person be so inclined to speak up so?  I think the entire gig would be up…

If one person does it, people may say… Oh, tsk,tsk. That is terrible, brutish behavior.  But if 99 people do it for every person holding up progress, the myth that man-made global warming is a hoax will rapidly die.  The sides of wrong have been employing such tactics for years…  “Oh, you’re gay?  We’re going to beat you up and leave your body on a barb wire fence”.  Or Selma. “Oh, think you can challenge whitey’s rule, huh?  Well how about you try challenging this?” WHACK, THUD.  The same people letting in the wolves, are the same people who think Timothy McVey is a hero for what he did.

These are sick people and the only way to make them see their ill ways is to punch them in the jaw.  No warning  (Ok, ladies, you can slap them then, doesn’t have to be  punch)…  Just something to punish their stupidity.  Would you let your child say something like that in public? Of course not. You’d back hand him so fast he wouldn’t know what hit him.. “Stop Lying.”  “Don’t tell lies.”

Remember just a decade ago where the boys gather on the outside of a Midwestern town to settle by a fistfight, who was better, Ford or Chevrolet?  If it is ok to do such in a Super Bowl Commercial for a stinkin’ truck, isn’t it even more acceptable to do so for the saving of the planet?

There is no more argument. The last decade of ten years of argument,has come to one conclusive conclusion.. What that conclusion is, is evident  to you in the video shown above.

Here is your piece of the puzzle. All you have to do is next time someone says man made global warming is not true, instantly hit them in the face. When they say, “what the hell did you do that for”, reply with… “stop lying”.

End of problem. Sometimes you have to treat little kids like little kids.