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 -withdrawn-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 L'Italien: like 3 in requiring ch 30B NOW WITHDRAWN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.