Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Amendments to the Rise Act UPDATED

The following is simply drawn from my notes on the amendments filed to the Rise Act, so I can following along during tomorrow's deliberation (which I plan to liveblog and tweet). I don't promise that they represent all the nuances that may be in each, but they at least hit the main point. The name indicates the main sponsor of the amendment.

  1. Moore: local approval for charters required for local funds to be used; no local approval=state must fund directly
  2. -withdrawn-
  3. Flanagan: charters must follow ch. 30B in purchasing
  4. Flanagan: district and charter must agree on start times, and district (always) only responsible for 50% of transportation costs
  5. Brady: no cap lift on charters
  6. Brady: no change in the Level 3 schools language
  7. Lewis: specifies ELL and special ed data as being part of subgroups to be considered in evaluation; also improvement plans must be compiled by district
  8. Rodrigues: charters eligible for MSBA funding
  9. L'Italien: tightens "at risk" language on charters that can exists as alternative over the cap; also drops "opt-out" from lottery language (the term, not the concept)
  10. L'Italien: "high risk" language only for high school (grades 9-12, not 7-12); insists on "early warning system" not a replacement
  11. L'Italien: like 3 in requiring ch 30B NOW WITHDRAWN
  12. O'Connor Ives: similar to 10 in tightening alternative ed language
  13. Chang-Diaz: calls on DESE to establish regs for lottery; provides for regional charters to be included in a lottery 
  14. Chang-Diaz: requires reporting on reasons for students who leave (both district schools and charters)
  15. Keenan: special commission on dyslexia
  16. Tarr (co-sponsored by L'Italien): report by DESE on innovations of charters
  17. Tarr (co-sponsored by L'Italien): plan for all students reading at grade level
  18. Tarr* (co-sponsored by L'Italien): no solicitation or gifts for families applying to charters
  19. Tarr (co-sponsored by L'Italien): Board of Ed can reconsider granted charter in 6 months if not meeting requirements 
  20. Tarr (co-sponsored by L'Italien): requires a 30 day confirmation that new charters are meeting their requirements
  21. Tarr (co-sponsored by L'Italien): provides for Board revoking charter if charter is not meeting requirements 
  22. Tarr: requires regs for Ch 71 Sec 89 (MGL on charter schools) and regs for waivers of charters not meeting suspension and attrition requirements
  23. Rodrigues: substitute bill (S.2208)
  24. Tarr: establishes a charter working group
  25. Chang-Diaz: adds date to requirement of charters to abide by Ch 222 (date discipline reg changes were implemented)
  26. Moore: requires state to fund charters directly; funds increases to charters on 100/50/25 basis
  27. Pacheco: no cap lift through Sept. 1, 2018
  28. Ross: foundation budget funding for special ed from prior five year ACTUAL average (both in-district and out-of-district)
  29. Chang-Diaz: calls for study of effective and efficient funding (per FBRC recommendation)
  30. Humason: charter regional transportation depends on full funding of regional transportation reimbursement
  31. Chang-Diaz: defines in-district and out-of-district rates for special education (per FBRC)
  32. O'Connor Ives: revamps innovation fund (from section 1) for innovation schools and Horace Mann charters
  33. Welch: adds end time to what must be agreed upon between charters and districts for transportation
  34. Barrett: advanced notice to charters if they aren't lining up with district attrition rates
  35. Barrett: advanced notice to charters if they aren't lining up with suspension rates
  36. Barrett: alternative education exempt from attrition quotas
  37. Barrett: provides for Board to waive attrition quota
  38. O'Connor Ives: covers collective bargaining within the Level 3 section
  39. Barrett: provides for Board to waive suspension quota
  40. Pacheco: requires retroactive approval locally of charter schools
  41. Barrett: provides for charters to remediate their suspension and/or suspension data
  42. Barrett: eliminates requirement for charters to meet with superintendent and have local hearing with school committee
  43. Barrett: requires DESE to do impact analysis (not district)
  44. Barrett: paraprofessionals
  45. Barrett: paraprofessionals
  46. Barrett: paraprofessionals in Levels 3, 4, 5, respectively (44-46)
  47. Dorcena Forry: deals with excessing of teachers (as is done in Boston)
  48. Chang-Diaz: drops the double of "regulation by Board" language (simple language edit)
  49. L'Italien: puts charter schools under school committee oversight; requires that school committee members not be part of charter school (teacher or the like)
  50. Spilka: cleans up the math of the foundation budget calculations (doesn't change anything of recommendation) AND SOME LATE ADDITIONS!
  51. Tarr: substitute bill (S.2210) does create a foundation budget commission; doesn't reform charters
  52. Chang-Diaz: adds "fully" to districts receiving mitigation.

* I should perhaps note that Senator Tarr represents Gloucester; it appears their experience with a charter school has stayed with him.

No comments: