Emily Falcon, Director, Financial Reform Resources, resigned effective June 1, 2013.Jim Lesko, Director, Early Development and Learning Resources, retiring effective June 30, 2013.Diane Donahue, Special Assistant, Teacher Leader Effectiveness Unit, retiring effective September 30, 2013.
Hamburg superintendent steps down
Updated: Thursday, 27 Jun 2013, 6:04 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 27 Jun 2013, 6:04 PM EDTHAMBURG, N.Y. (WIVB) - The superintendent of the Hamburg Central School District is stepping down....Achramovitch and the district had been pursuing a lawsuit to try and identify an anonymous blogger who was critical of him and the school board. A judge threw that lawsuit out...
Learn More Here: http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/erie/hamburg-superintendent-steps-down
The independent-study program, at the University of Connecticut's Neag School of Education, was created specially for Vallas. Connecticut's law requires superintendents to have a certification that Vallas, who was appointed by state education commissioner Stefan Pryor, had not obtained.
The Post reports that in arguments, the course was described to the judge as requiring between a week and ten days of work for Vallas. Vallas apparently got an A. Other superintendents in the state were required to take a 13-month course at the NEAG school. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2013/06/conn_judge_paul_vallas_must_st.html
On Monday, Bridgeport's school board voted to ask the state to waive some of the state's requirements for superintendent, the Post reports. But this decision overrides that vote.
UPDATED
Long-awaited rules that regulate the fat, salt, sugar, and calories in snacks and vending machine foods sold in schools were finally released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture today.
The rules take effect during the 2014-15 school year. Nutrition advocates have been pressing the USDA to issue the rules this month. Any later, and they wouldn't have taken effect until the 2015-16 school year.
The new rules are the first update to school snack regulations since the 1970s. The existing rules only limited "foods of minimal nutritional value," which didn't keep candy bars, snack cakes, and sugary, vitamin-fortified sports drinks, from being regulated, said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Despite some high hopes for the rules, which come on the heels of strict rules for school lunches, they won't completely wipe out sodas, chips, or sweets from schools. But they will make a dent.
Some specifics:
- All snacks and vending machine foods must be either a fruit, a vegetable, a dairy product, a protein food, whole-grain-rich or a combination food that includes at least a quarter cup of fruits or vegetables.
- For the first two years after the standards take effect, foods qualify if the items contain at least 10 percent of a nutrient designated as public health concern for children. These include calcium, potassium, vitamin D, and fiber. That means after two years, items fortified with these nutrients won't be allowed, Wootan said. "Companies won't be able to just fortify snacks with cheap nutrients to qualify them as healthy; all school foods will have to contain food―some fruit, vegetables, whole grains, or another healthy food component," she said.
- Any snack or side dish would be limited to 200 calories. Entrées sold individually would be limited to 350 calories.
- Snacks could have no more than 230 milligrams of sodium, and that cap would drop to 200 milligrams of sodium for the 2016-17 school year. Entrée items must have no more than 480 milligrams of sodium, unless these items are already part of regular school meals.
- Items can get no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat. Trans fats are banned. There are exceptions to the fat limits on some items, such as reduced-fat cheeses and nuts.
- Total sugar must be no more than 35 percent by weight, with exemptions for dried fruits or vegetables.
- Items sold as entrees in school lunches wouldn't have to meet these rules—which was a concern for some school nutrition advocates.
- All schools can sell water, carbonated water, plain low-fat milk, flavored or unflavored fat-free milk and soy milk, and juices made only of fruits and vegetables.
- High schools can sell all of those drinks as well as caffeinated sodas as large as 12 ounces, but they cannot have more than 60 calories. Full-calorie sports drinks won't be allowed. They can also sell flavored and carbonated water as long as these items have less than five calories per eight-ounce serving.
- After reviewing comments the USDA decided it won't allow side dishes, such as french fries or chips served as part of a regular school meal, to be sold a la carte unless they meet all of the requirements listed here.
- As originally proposed, the standards wouldn't apply to occasional school fund raising events or during evening and afterschool activities. States get to decide what that means.
What happens if schools don't comply? Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he hopes schools do, though there aren't explicit penalties if they don't, unlike rules for the school lunch and breakfast programs.
"It's not about carrots and sticks," Vilsack said, then paused. "Well I guess it is about carrots."
For better or worse, the message was clear that teacher engagement works within bounds, much like a managed classroom. Less clear, though, was to whom the message was directed—it seemed better suited to district- and state-level administrators than the teacher-led organizations in the room.
It was not until the sole teacher on the panel—Anthony Mullen, 2009 National Teacher of the Year and former blogger for Education Week Teacher—took the floor that the specifics of what teachers are contributing to these policy conversations were broached. When Coggins asked how he'd been involved in policy, he said, "I've had very few opportunities to affect policy, both on the state and national level. I've repeatedly asked the state superintendent to meet with me and he has declined." The answer was clearly not what the moderator had expected. (Mullen later told me he knew little about the event before he got there and thought he'd be promoting a book, which he did not receive in time to read, on teacher leadership.)
On behalf of Dr. Freeman Williams, Superintendent Christina School District
Dear Delaware Legislators:
Greeting from the Christina School District!
As the largest school district in Delaware and administrator of 2 statewide
programs, I would like to pass along that the Christina School District Board of
Education unanimously passed a resolution on 6/11/13 opposing HB 165.
The Resolution reads:
Whereas the Delaware Legislature is currently considering HB 165, and act to
amend Delaware Charter Law under Title 14 Chapter 5,
and Whereas the proposed law was crafted by a public body that took no notes nor
published public minutes,
and Whereas the proposed bill establishes a performance fund for 8% of
Delaware's students while providing no similar funding for the 92% attending
traditional public schools,
and Whereas the proposed bill would allow unilateral authority to the DEDOE to
move local funds to a charter school without due process,
and Whereas the proposed bill uses an unproven framework to hold charter schools
accountable,
and Whereas the DOE has had significant difficulty in holding charter schools
accountable in the recent past,
We the undersigned urge our local elected representatives to strongly consider a
vote against HB 165 in the 147 Legislative session and to seek broader and more
comprehensive input for any replacement bill in the future.
While one of the concerns was amended, the rest remain. I wanted to share this
on behalf of my Board and district as you consider this extremely important bill
next Tuesday. If you have any concerns, questions or thoughts to share, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dr. Freeman L. Williams.
Superintendent- Christina School District
We often talk of charter versus public. We’ve never even once talked about new charter schools wiping out existing charter schools. It would be one thing if the new charter conglomerate were to do so, with the expense of loan repayments at least evening out the playing field for the small school competing with it. But to give the big megalithic charter a free building, free start up costs, all out of taxpayers dollars when there are banks lined up to loan money,… is simply unfair.
The referee (Markell, Rodel, DOE, charter lobbyists, Jacques) in the match, is blowing the whistle for only one side…
This though unfair, happens a lot in government. Quite often laws are put in place by who you know, and how much you get for your vote. The only way justice gets done, is when those with a backbone of courage, step up and say “no”…
9 did in the House and 31 didn’t. But we know far less about the damage this bill would do then, than we do now.
It is a terrible state of affairs when a legislator will give a corporate megalith the unfair advantage over a religious or non-profit organization. It is sickening … really.
Senate Bill 100, a bill to restrict the use of seclusion and restraint in public
schools has PASSED the House and heads to the governor for signature!
http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS147.NSF/vwLegislation/BAFA8D86E911FD3885257B60004BE962?Opendocument
| Primary Sponsor: | Sokola | Additional Sponsor(s): Rep. Q. Johnson |
| CoSponsors: | Sens. Lawson, Lopez, Poore, Townsend; Reps. Heffernan, Longhurst, Scott, M. Smith | |
| Introduced on : | 06/04/2013 |  |
| Long Title: | AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO USE OF SECLUSION AND RESTRAINT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. |
| Synopsis: | Based
on national reports documenting misuse of seclusion and restraint
within public schools, many states are adopting remedial statutory or
regulatory standards. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education issued
authoritative guidance encouraging states to adopt written standards
deterring use of seclusion and restraint in public schools. This bill
is the product of research and deliberations of an interagency committee
formed by the Governor’s Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens
(GACEC) to identify best practices and develop standards for Delaware
public schools. |
| Current Status: | House Passed On 06/19/2013 05:21:05 PM | ||
FITNESS CENTERS COMING TO 3 DELAWARE SCHOOLS
The gyms will be different for each school. At Bancroft, students will have traditional cardio equipment but also Nintendo Wiis and “Dance Dance Revolution” consoles, video games where students move their bodies to play. At A.I and McCullough, the gyms will include cardio machines, such as stationary bikesThat's right, Bancroft and two other Delaware schools are about to be the recipients of $100,000 fitness centers - each! And these are not your run-of-the-mill gyms - the fitness centers are both health and sensory-oriented and planned with a "hook" that will entice our children to enjoy exercise, and reward them for work well-done, even when it's anything but a preferential task!, and weightlifting equipment.
To earn the gyms
The group rewards schools in four states every year, putting gyms in three schools in each state. More here: www.delawareonline.com/article/20130616/NEWS/306160028/Fitness-centers-coming-3-Delaware-schools
What will be the legacies of the Markell administration in Delaware?
Wow, there are so many to choose from:
The tax dollarsinvestedsquandered on Fisker and Bloom Energy.
The new hospital to be built after Markell did not like the decision of the regulatory board and simply replaced it with new toadies who would do what he wanted.
The "not a public body" charter school work group that created HB 165 (with Pistol Pete Schwarzkopf following instructions to the letter and not even allowing comment on the illegalities during legislative debate).
Race to the Top and all the massive advances in Delaware public education, especially for children in Wilmington. Not.
Removing SROs from the budget while simultaneously ballooning the budget of the Office of the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security.
Never proposing a raise for state employees.
$80 million of last-minute regressive taxes proposed in the last three weeks of a General Assembly session after cutting taxes on the wealthy a few months earlier.
I'm sure you have your favorite Markell moment that I've omitted (there have been so many). http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/06/governor-markell-creates-private.html
Democratic caucus? There's a real laugher these days.
Meanwhile, Governor Markell's secret work group on excess puppies has reported (and his private council has agreed) that it would improve his chances of becoming US Secretary of Education to be seen executing strays on WDDE.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2013/06/governor-markell-creates-private.html
Everyone is tired, myself included, so briefly here it goes….
A) We learned we are right. You say “How? We lost”. Yes for now, but we now erase the doubt we might have had that we couldn’t make any difference. We did. We did not lose 21 to 0 as we did in the Senate on SB 51. We gained 6 converts in the House since SB 51 passed there There is far more fired up opposition than before… Here is what is important. Everyone… whether its been on blogs, through emails, or one on ones, whom we’ve engaged has come around to our way of thinking. The other side knows this. That’s the reason for the rush, That’s the reason for the secrecy. That’s the reason there was no debate on any education bill, until we parents pushed it!.. Bottom line is we are gaining numbers; they are losing numbers. Something of which we should all be extremely proud!
Based on the information you provided and our review, the Working Group may be a “public body” within the meaning of FOIA. 29 Del. C. § 10002. If that is the case, the Working Group was (and, if still active, remains) subject to the “open meeting” provisions of the Act. See generally 29 Del. C. § 10004. Thus, any prior meetings conducted without adequate public notice or compliance with other open meeting requirements may have been held in violation of the Act. We note however that, as a practical matter, there may be no effective way to remediate any such violations. According to your email below, the Working Group has already made its recommendation to legislators. http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/hb-165-foia-bomb-rep-williams-gets-her-foia-answer-rep-jaques-d-rodel-are-you-paying-attention-rep-darryl-scott-d-rodel-what-do-you-think-of-them-apples-netde/
My message, Earl, is that as these reforms are brought forth in Dover, as attempts are made to even the playing field between charters and traditional public schools, safeguards must remain in place. I implore you to reconsider some of the legislation as proposed and provide amendments to protect education funding:
1. Any new streams of funding or methods of obtaining capital funding should be restricted to charters that own their own facilities or lease facilities that are state or school district owned. This will compel charters that are establishing themselves or growing to consider the state's excess property list for their facility plans. It will ultimately help address a growing problem: a future glut of under-populated district school buildings by encouraging districts and charters to work together to serve the same student populations. You see, as more students leave traditional schools, we are creating capacity in these buildings, yet our operation costs will not decrease. It will cost the same to operate a building with 500 students as it will to operate that same school with 300 students. The facility operational needs will not change - water, electricity, sewer, those will remain the same. But, the funds won't be there b/c they will follow the 200 who have left for charter.
In reality, if CSD were to close a traditional high school today, we would have capacity to serve the affected students in our other two high schools. Reality. The flip side - CSD will never be permitted to close a neighborhood school - our neighborhood schools are the result of a failed attempt to close schools in the City of Wilmington under Lillian Lowery's leadership years ago. Lowery went to court and lost. This legal precedent will hurt any traditional school district that attempts to close a school regardless of the population serve.
It is these future considerations that need to be addressed along with parity for charter funding in today's legislation. And I am sad that I don't see this happening. We simply cannot afford to paralyze districts in order to create parity w/o safeguards.
2. Somewhere in the glut of bills and amendments, there must be a transparency bill. It is paramount that all schools adopt transparency and accountability best practices - this means recording their school board/board of directors meetings and making that content available on their websites. If a slush fund is to be established, let it be required that a charter must first utilize funds from this new pot to establish these absolute best practices before it can tap these funds for other expenses/projects.
In the absence of this best practice - are you willing to attend every charter board meeting of every charter board that wishes to utilize these funds and provide a report back to your constituents on a consistent basis regarding the fund usage? I'll hazard to guess that you haven't the time. Nor do the majority of your constituents - myself included. There is a bridge to overcoming this capacity gap - mandatory recordings and publication. And this new fund now provides charters with access to new funding to achieve this safeguard.
In closing, I sincerely hope that you will consider my email, my thoughts as a parent in two different worlds, both designed to prepare my children for a successful future. You sir are charged with a very precarious task - balancing the needs of students with the demands of the tax payers. Find the balance, re-establish the safeguards.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Scheinberg
tax payer
-----Original Message-----
From: Jaques, Jr, Earl (LegHall), Earl (LegHall) <Earl.Jaques@state.de.us>
To: montagnebeau <montagnebeau@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 10:18 am
Subject: RE: Charter Thoughts
Elizabeth,First the fund you are referring to is not a "slush" fund. If you attended yesterday's public meeting you would know that it is not used for capital projects. It is connected to the Charter Performance framework, which will ensure that is used for education issues for either high-performing or high-need students. The money allocated came from the last budget numbers - NOT from the Department of Education. So this isn't a case of taking money away from our public schools. In fact, the number one priority, according to the testimony from the School Superintendents to the Joint Finance Committee was money for technology. That money is in the budget! The Charter's number one priority was money for this Strategic Performance Fund, which again the Joint Finance Committee granted and is in the budget based on whether the legislation passes. Since it doesn't apply, I shouldn't comment. However, the points you make in the first few paragraphs are done each and every year for our Colleges and Universities. We give them capital money and we don't own the buildings. If you took the time to read House Bill 165 you would see loads of transparency and accountability throughout. I hope you are not listen to the nay Sayers who just like to yell at the top of their voice, but most of the time don't know what they are talking about! HB 165 has been properly vetted and has loads of support throughout the education community.Earl
Earl,Rep. Earl Jacques 2nd Response:
I'm surprised by your tone. I spoke generally of charter reform and the longitudinal impact that necessitates thoughtful approach. I did not cite any bill by number, but did reference the slush fund. I'm pleased that you noted my absence from yesterday's hearing. As a legislator whose district encompasses parts of CSD, I am certain that you are reticent that you have missed all three comprehensive CSD graduations. While the hearing was being conducted in Dover, I was caring for my severely disabled daughter while preparing for my third graduation ceremony of the week - Christiana High School. Let me use this opportunity to invite you to the remaining graduations:
Delaware Autism Program today at 4 pm, Kirk Middle School
Delaware School for the Deaf today at 7 pm, DSD on Rt 4
Groves Adult High School Graduation, Friday at 7:30 pm at Glasgow High School
I will share that is relief to hear that this is new-found funding. I do wonder of course, how do we sustain one-time new-found funding in subsequent years? However, I am relieved to hear that you will be advocating across the board for the restoration of funds previously hi-jacked by our Gov and re-allocated to our General Fund by our legislators.
Specifically to HB 165, the well-vetted bill, the following clause concerns me greatly:
(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 non-State sources at a ratio to be determined by the Department. The Department of Education shall prioritize those applications from applicants that have (a) developed high-quality plans for start-up or expansion or (b) serve high-need students, as defined by the Department. The fund shall be subject to appropriation and shall not exceed $5 million annually.
The statement is a generality at best. It does not provide clarity around what can or cannot be funded, nor offer any precision of the eligibility of schools. If applicants must have a proven track record of success, then the bill precludes any new or young schools from eligibility. "Measures as defined by the Department" is very obscure, as is the "availability of supplemental funding from non-State sources." Nor does this bill define a "high quality plan for start-up or expansion."
I don't see the accountability or transparency pertaining to these funds. The fact is that plans are wonderful things, they provide direction. But, if the leadership is incompetent, and we often don't know that until the plans begin to fall apart, then the plan is just a piece a paper.
For me, this portion of the bill is simply too weak, too easy to take advantage of, and too susceptible to political persuasion.
And I no, I don't tend to listen to the nay-sayers. If anything, I'm in the political middle where charters are concerned. However, that does not mean that I will abdicate my responsibilities as an education advocate.
I'm just saddened that you don't seem to value my contributions.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
“If we had the funding level we had in 2008, these cuts would not be necessary. Period,” Ackerman said. “If I were sitting where you are, I’d be very angry about what the state is spending money on right now.”
