Big Business vs. Parents on Education in The Capitol – Big Money and Big Lies Winning » Missouri Education Watchdog

Big Business vs. Parents on Education in The Capitol – Big Money and Big Lies Winning » Missouri Education Watchdog:

Big Business vs. Parents on Education in The Capitol – Big Money and Big Lies Winning

The conviction of the Senate that they HAD to pass SB1177 Every Child Achieves Act has been hard to understand. Grassroot groups like Eagle Forum and the American Principles Project have been lobbying them to remove the federally mandated testing, the sections that give the USDoED final approval of state education plans and the expanded collection of individual student data. Out of one side of his mouth, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Senator Alexander has agreed. “I trust the state much more than Washington,” he said. “The path to real accountability is not through Washington, D.C., it’s through the states.” But from the other side of his mouth come statements like this.

“These important measures of student achievement [assessments] need to be reported publicly so parents can know how their child is performing. It is important the results be disaggregated so we know if any particular group of students is being ignored or left behind. It can also help teachers support students who are struggling to meet State standards.”

Each one is its own contradiction and a contradiction to his earlier statement about who should control the process. If it is only parents who need to know how their child is doing, then there is no need to publicly report results, and certainly no need to send those individual student results to DC. For the people in DC to believe that they can tell from a set of semi aggregated scores on a test of reading ability whether some subgroup is being systematically “left behind” is an absurdity and again says that they don’t trust the state to look at those numbers and figure out what is going on.  The last statement is the most ludicrous of all. No teacher believes that standardized tests offer them unique insight  or support for the educational needs of any particular child. That statement is just a sprinkle Alexander threw in on top of his sundae of pablum to make him sound like he cares about teachers and little children.

In order to make sense of why the Senate and the House have been so in favor of the the ECAA (Senate) and Student Success Act (House) which promise local control in some sections and completely strip it out in others, you merely have to look at the statement of the US Chamber of Commerce covered in TheHill.com

In looking at the federal money allocated to education the USCOC said, “no taxpayer wants to see this investment wasted.  When federal dollars are being spent, it’s entirely appropriate to demand results for the investment.”

Its one thing to say we don’t want to see money spent on roads producing crappy roads because it was not spent well. That refers to macadam. But the results they are “demanding” from this money are specifically higher test scores which little children are expected to deliver. The COC also supported NCLB which believed that it was appropriate to demand that every single child perform at grade level.  Sometimes, gentlemen, Big Business vs. Parents on Education in The Capitol – Big Money and Big Lies Winning » Missouri Education Watchdog:

Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Claypool will run Rahm's Clark St. Operation. Otherwise known as CPS.

Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Claypool will run Rahm's Clark St. Operation. Otherwise known as CPS.:

Claypool will run Rahm's Clark St. Operation. Otherwise known as CPS.

At a news conference with Mayor Rahm Emanuel, CTA President Forrest Claypool talks about making the Red Line trains run on time.. (Sun-Times photo)

Okay, so it looks like the hated David Vitale is out and ComEd/Excelon nukes guy Frank Clark is in as Rahm's hand-picked school board chief. And Rahm's faithful sidekick Forrest Claypool replaces Byrd-Bennett and interim Jesse Ruiz as the 6th schools CEO in 6 years.



For those who don't know Clark, he was the head of the commission that managed the secret list of supposedly "underutilized" schools and made the recommendations leading to the closing of 49 neighborhood public schools, mainly in the city's black community. He also did the suspect deal  with the Civic Consulting Alliance—a politically connected group of private business consultants linked to the pro-charter group New Schools For Chicago  -- to run the work of the same school-closing commission.



He's so into privately-run charter schools, he even had a Noble charter named after him (a la Gov. Rauner). It stands as a monument to his and Excelon's stewardship over the privatization of public space.



I thought Fran Spielman's reference to Claypool, back in April, as Rahm's "wartime consigliere" was appropriate.

He's the Clark in Rowe/Clark Charter

Having had it up to here with Broad Academy careerist education types --  J.C. Brizard and Byrd-Bennett -- and apparently steering clear of the Tribune's recommended "Mussolini" type, the Mayor has moved his fixer Claypool over from City Hall to run his Clark Street operation, otherwise known Mike Klonsky's SmallTalk Blog: Claypool will run Rahm's Clark St. Operation. Otherwise known as CPS.:

2015 Teacher of the Year: How to fight the ‘simplistic slogans and manipulated data’ of critics - The Washington Post

2015 Teacher of the Year: How to fight the ‘simplistic slogans and manipulated data’ of critics - The Washington Post:

2015 Teacher of the Year: How to fight the ‘simplistic slogans and manipulated data’ of critics

Shanna Peeples is a high school English teacher in Amarillo, Texas,  who was named the 2015 National Teacher of the Year earlier this year by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Peeples teaches AP English at Palo Duro High School and serves as the English department chair as well as an instructional coach for other teachers. She is also a member of the National Education Association, the  largest teachers union (and largest labor union of any kind) in the United States, and she recently spoke to members at the organization’s  convention in Orlando, Florida.

In the first part of her speech, Peeples spoke about becoming an NEA member and about why she believes the union is important in empowering teachers. She also addressed what many teachers see as an ongoing war against them by school reformers who evaluate educators unfairly, give them insufficient resources to do their jobs and blame them for a lack of achievement by students who come to school unprepared to learn. Peeples offered teachers a way to counter critics. Here’s the part of her speech, as prepared for delivery, that addresses this issue:

To be in your company is an honor—and I mean that sincerely. Meeting you and knowing you has been the best part of this process because you are absolutely obsessed about teaching and relentless in your support of public education. When I think of you, I see warriors of kindness, warriors of hope, and warriors whose spines are absolute steel in their resolve to fight for what matters. You are the best kind of warriors because your mission is to save and serve the most vulnerable members of our society: children. You are their voice and their champions.

So my proposition to you, my fellow warriors, is that we do our best battle with stories. Our critics love clichés, and simplistic slogans and manipulated data. This is how they attack, and the good news is the utter banality of those attacks. Stories are different. There is no defense against a good story. Think about it, memes are nothing but micro-stories. I contend that we advocate best for our students and our profession when we are brave enough to tell our stories.

Stories, unlike almost anything else, simplify complexities. Complex answers are second nature to us because we know our jobs are incredibly complex. Instead of lapsing into technicality, 

2015 Teacher of the Year: How to fight the ‘simplistic slogans and manipulated data’ of critics - The Washington Post:

Why Unions for Teachers in Public Schools and Colleges? | janresseger

Why Unions for Teachers in Public Schools and Colleges? | janresseger:

Why Unions for Teachers in Public Schools and Colleges?

Why do educators need unions?  Aren’t teachers professionals and doesn’t it diminish their professionalism if they join unions?  These are questions underneath several of the big issues in education—charter schools as non-unionized competitors for public schools—the role of due-process rights for teachers—the cost of professional salaries for teachers and the cost of fringe benefits and pensions at a time when many politicians want to slash taxes and reduce the size of government.  It is sometimes instructive to look at an old issue from another angle, however, and the plight of adjunct faculty in colleges and universities is another context to examine the need for unions.

Adjunct faculty are the teachers who, these days, are likely to have earned a Ph.D. but have not found full time work.  It used to be that these part time college teachers were found teaching remedial classes or any of the many sections of freshman English, but increasingly they are picking up courses across the academic disciplines.  In an important piece in TheAmerican Prospect, Justin Miller explains:  “Part-time. Contingent. Non-tenure track. Casual. Adjunct. Non-standard. Peripheral. External. Ad hoc. Limited contract. New model. Occasional.  Sessional. Call them what you will, but these professors have now become the majority of college and university faculty.  Their jobs are defined by low pay, limited instructional resources, tenuous employment security, and a complete lack of institutional support for their own research and writing.  Contingent faculty has become a subset of the new working poor—the subset with Ph.D.s… Today, part-time adjunct instructors comprise more than half of all faculty (not including those at for-profit institutions); another 20 percent are full-time without tenure.”  Miller adds that of all college faculty, “Just 30 percent are traditional tenured or tenure-track appointments.”

The phenomenon of colleges hiring adjunct faculty is a subset of what is now called “just-in-time” employment.  Instead of staffing on a regular, full-time schedule, employers wait to see exactly their needs and then hire by the task—whether it is hiring a waitress on short notice for peak hours or finding guys to unload a truck right after it has come into town or hiring a college teacher for an extra section of freshman English during fall semester when most arriving students try to take that course.  Originally the idea was that contingent faculty would spend a few years gaining experience before joining a tenured faculty, but as colleges have been forced to cut spending, more and more adjuncts have become trapped in a system in which they earn between $2,700 and $3,500 per course and patch together employment from a number of colleges and universities across a region just to try to make ends meet.  Many find that no matter how hard they hustle, Why Unions for Teachers in Public Schools and Colleges? | janresseger:

7 Lessons from Race to the Top :: Frederick M. Hess

7 Lessons from Race to the Top :: Frederick M. Hess:

7 Lessons from Race to the Top

Over at Education Next, former Race to the Top honcho Joanne Weiss and I have a lively exchange on that program's legacy. Joanne is relatively upbeat; me, not as much. You can find my take here and Joanne'shere. I talk a bit about the lessons learned, but space constraints mean the focus is more on our competing perspectives on Race to the Top. So, let's take a moment to ask what lessons we can draw, five years on. At least seven come to mind.

First, Do No Harm. The pressure to pursue proposals like Common Core testing and test-based teacher evaluation on federally determined timetables wound up creating divisions and spurring blowback. For instance, the Common Core, which might have been a collaborative effort of 15 to 20 enthusiastic states absent federal "encouragement," became a quasi-federal initiative with lots of half-hearted participants. This fateful decision helped turn a potentially innocuous effort into a divisive battle. The result: the breakthrough wins touted so avidly by Race to the Top enthusiasts in 2010 and 2011 now look much more like pyrrhic victories—shot through with design flaws, tainted by federal compulsion, and compromised by half-hearted follow-through.

Execution, Not Action, Is the Goal. The right measure for a program like Race to the Top is not how many states promise to undertake an action, but how many do it well. This is especially important when the goals are admirable but ambiguous, like improving professional development, educator preparation, or turnaround efforts. Whether states change these things matters much less than how they do so. That caution was too often ignored at the time and has been too overlooked in the aftermath.

Reward Pioneers, Not Groupies. While its marketing suggested otherwise, in practice, Race to the Top used funds and public pressure to induce states to promise to adopt a slate of federal prescriptions. That is a poor strategy for prompting innovation or improvement. However, the kind of contest that the Obama administration initially promised has more to offer. Such a program would forego a broad slate of prescribed reforms, ask states to put forward their boldest plans, and focus unapologetically on pioneering states with a track record of accomplishment.

Build Reliable Infrastructure. It was no fault of the Obama administration, but the infrastructure to do Race to the Top well simply didn't exist. The need to create an ad hoc mechanism for administering and judging the contest made it hard to ensure that judging was thoughtful, fair, or credibly removed from political considerations. Meanwhile, concerns about appearing too "political" led Department of Education officials to operate the program at arm's length (making it tough to do anything about capricious judging). In the future, clear norms regarding reviewers, criteria, use of evidence, and institutional autonomy should be established before such programs are created.

Seek to Eliminate Impediments, Not to Secure New Promises. Race to the Top's emphasis on expansive promises rewarded grant-writing over action. A simpler, more fruitful course is to emphasize observable actions, particularly those that remove obsolete impediments or regulations (e.g., charter school caps or data firewalls). Such a course reflects a more humble vision of the federal role—one that believes Uncle Sam is better at helping states extricate themselves from yesterday than at telling them how to succeed tomorrow. In the case of Race to the Top, while much attention was paid to accomplishments like lifting charter caps or removing data firewalls, such measures accounted for well under one-quarter of the contest's points.

Beware of Opportunity Costs. The Obama administration dangled $4 billion in federal funds at the height of the Great Recession and linked them to states demonstrating that they'd "prioritize" education spending. At a time when states had a window to tackle structural challenges, they were preoccupied with dreaming up new spending proposals (in pursuit of prizes that typically amounted to less than one percent of a state's annual K-12 spending). It's hard to overstate how much even this relative pittance distracted state educational leaders from a rare chance to address entrenched programs or tackle underfunded pensions.

Paper Pledges Are Not "Buy-In." School improvement is invariably better off, in the long run, when reforms have committed in-state backers. Unfortunately, Race to the Top treated paper pledges as a proxy for buy-in. The contest rewarded states that collected lots of paper pledges from unions and school boards. The result was problematic on three counts: it made it easy to overestimate actual buy-in, punished states that were willing to move aggressively with a limited number of districts, and rewarded vague plans that finessed tough questions in order to get more sign-offs.

The public imagination is often captured by the fact of a federal program, but what matters in schooling is how programs actually work. Back in 2010, Race to the Top was celebrated as a singular triumph. Yet, five years on, even a sympathetic observer can judge things much more harshly. This mixed legacy holds many lessons, ones that can teach us much if we're willing to learn them.7 Lessons from Race to the Top :: Frederick M. Hess:

Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary

Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary:

Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary

For some years now, the term “The Village” has circulated throughout the Internet blogosphere as a shorthand description of the insular life of the Washington, D.C., policy makers and media mavens. As Heather “Digby” Parton explained in 2009, the term is a metaphor for how Beltway folks in policy circles and the press speak with great assurance about what is understood by “average Americans” without ever actually consulting anyone outside a tight circle of anointed “experts” or dipping their toes into the experiential waters of communities very different from their own.

Although thoughts attributed to The Village are most apt to be shared in discussions about economic policy, there is a form of Village narrowcasting in education policy discussions too.

That’s why, for instance, you almost always see news articles about education policy liberally salted with quotes by operatives from a very select few right-wing and politically centrist Beltway policy shops, such as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Education Trust, or Democrats for Education Reform.

When reporters want to “balance” that wonkery with another point of view, they might get a statement from a teachers’ union representative such as American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten. But what’s extremely rare is to encounter arguments being made by people of color in communities such as New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia, or New York City – you know, the people actually most affected by the kinds of policies being talked about.

Maybe journalists believe ordinary citizens with firsthand experiences can’t be regarded as “experts.” But even when they look for validated expertise, Why Arne Duncan Has Been A Monumental Flop As Education Secretary:

Education: The Next Corporate Frontier

Counterpunch

Kristen Steele, Associate Programs Director at Local Futures (International Society for Ecology and Culture) writes, “Over the last 30 years or so, private corporations have been steadily taking over school systems all around the world … In every country, the identical argument is used: public schools are failing, reform is needed and big business will do it best, providing choice and efficiency … Like in all sectors, resistance to these policies takes coordinated effort with a broad base of support. Yet, so far, the fight against privatization in education has been left mostly to teachers, parents, students, and other education activists … Those of us in the new economy and environmental movements need to join our voices to those of the education activists and resist further privatization.”
Read more …

The Great Common Core Textbook Swindle

The Daily Beast

“In response to the new standards, textbook publishers touted new editions they said were aligned to the Common Core. But nearly all of them were just repackaged versions of earlier books. And even 5 years later, the vast majority of textbooks say they’re aligned with the Common Core when they actually aren’t, creating a huge burden for teachers whose performance is often tied to their students’ test scores based on those standards … Publishing giant Pearson … had zero textbooks evaluated as being aligned with the Common Core … If a teacher is saddled with a textbook that doesn’t align with the Common Core, they need to spend time patching together materials that will … That is crucial but time-consuming work and … less time he or she has to plan the kind of deep, meaningful lessons.”
Read more …

Amid Cries Of Overtesting, A Crazy Quilt Of State Responses

Education Week

“After years of outcry and intensifying public debate about whether students are overtested, many states are attempting to definitively address the issue this year. But there’s no consistent strategy across the country … 39 states are examining how to reduce overtesting or cut redundant tests in some fashion … Although new tests tied to the Common Core State Standards have triggered much of the discussion about overtesting, many state chiefs and elected officials support how those tests will inform their policy decisions, or else can’t dramatically cut back their administration because of federal law … The burden of cutting tests is also falling on many district administrators, who have to tread carefully.”
Read more …

Why Are Some Teachers Being Evaluated Using The Test Scores Of Kids They Didn’t Teach?

Slate

“Forty-two states across the country have moved in recent years to evaluate all teachers at least in part on student test score growth … But tens of thousands of teachers work with students in grades that aren’t tested … Officials in Nevada are even considering how they might hold support staff – like school nurses and counselors – responsible for student test results … Are educators narrow-subject-area specialists? Or are they generalists who should all be held responsible for teaching foundational skills … As states fumble through policy changes that are very much trial and error, teachers and their students could ultimately pay the price.”
Read more …

Fix Public Education, End High Stakes Testing, Pass ESEA

The Hill

Rev. William J. Barber II writes, “Congress is preparing to vote on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) on its 50th anniversary. What they decide now can change the course of federal aid to education for decades to come … When Congress enacted the ESEA in 1965, everyone knew education opportunities for black children were radically unequal to the opportunities for white students. Now, 50 years later, these gaps persist and are widening – despite the law’s promise … The last time Congress reauthorized ESEA, they and President George W. Bush established high-stakes testing, labeling, and policies that punish schools if kids flunked the tests. Tests don’t teach … Congress has a chance to fix the high stakes testing regime that has failed.”
Read more …

Georgia charter schools: Uneven results and delays in closing failing ones | Get Schooled

Georgia charter schools: Uneven results and delays in closing failing ones | Get Schooled:

Georgia charter schools: Uneven results and delays in closing failing ones

The promise of charter schools was that they would outperform traditional public schools or close.

The AJC had a long front-page story this morning examining the state’s push for more charter schools despite their mixed record and the failure to close the ones that don’t live up to their contractual performance commitments.

Does Georgia need to increase charter school options for parents and kids? (AJC Photo)

In response to the complaint failing charters are not closed, posters on this blog often note failing traditional schools aren’t closed, either. But those failing schools are eligible for an escalating series of state sanctions, and, if the voters agree next year, will also be candidates for absorption into a new state-run school district.

My own view on charter schools has been simple: There are good and bad ones, and any state effort to expand charters should focus on how to replicate the good and prevent the bad. It does not make sense to expand school choice if there are only bad choices.

In covering charter school applicants over the years, I’ve found a precise mission statement, a focused curriculum and a veteran, visionary educator somewhere in the leadership make all the difference in a school’s success.

But even those elements cannot assure continued success in every case. Replication is not easy.

Since opening in Gwinnett in 2008, Ivy Prep Academy has been held out as a model charter school by the state Legislature. The all-girls school graduated its inaugural class of seniors in May.

Buoyed by its success, Ivy Prep expanded to offer two new campuses for boys and girls in DeKalb County in 2011. But the formula has not worked as well for boys. Ivy Prep Young Men’s Leadership Academy is among the Georgia public schools eligible for the proposed new state recovery school district due to its persistently failing scores.

The AJC’s education writer Ty Tagami reports: (This is an excerpt. The MyAJC.com story has a lot more great information.  Please read before commenting. )

From the start, the Intown Charter Academy in Atlanta proved a failure. It didn’t meet federal performance guidelines in 2011, its first year, and it remained a disappointment, with unacceptable scores on an annual state measure.

Despite the lackluster performance, it was allowed to continue, serving more than 300 students by the time it was shuttered this spring.

The promise of charter schools was that they would outperform traditional public schools or close. Schools like Intown do eventually get shuttered, but it can take half a decade, with students spending nearly half their school years in a subpar environment.

However, some studies, including one by the state entity that authorizes charter schools, suggests charters are about on par with traditional public schools. The Georgia State Charter Schools Commission recently issued a Georgia charter schools: Uneven results and delays in closing failing ones | Get Schooled:

Rafe Esquith: Have the Bullies Met Their Match? - Change The LAUSD

Have the Bullies Met Their Match? - Change The LAUSD:

Have the Bullies Met Their Match? 

“Exploiting justified anger...to pursue a war on teachers”

-Diane Ravitch

Too often, a teacher in the LAUSD’s Teacher Jail system is doomed to a career ending sentence if they cannot generate the publicity that will force the district’s hand. When district bullies removed Greg Schiller from the classroom because of a science project that they did not understand, students protested and the media noticed. Schiller’s suspension was ended after two months, but not before the fencing team he coached was forced to cancel their participation in a competition and AP students were deprived of study time. After leading class trips to France and the White House, choir teacher Iris Stevenson was placed in Teacher Jail. “Parents, students and community members rallied” and she was released back to the classroom, but only after students missed her instruction for an entire semester. Stuart Lutz was returned to the classroom with his only discipline being a “‘conference memo’, in which an administrator explained what Lutz did incorrectly and how to avoid such problems in the future.” Lutz was also the beneficiary of pressure on the district, including anonline petition,  from people who did not believe that improprieties in field trip paperwork and fundraisers are adequate reasons to remove an art teacher from the classroom for eight months.

Until last month it appeared that Rafe Esquith was headed down the same path. After being placed in teacher jail in March for “telling a joke about nudity in Mark Have the Bullies Met Their Match? - Change The LAUSD:

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote To amend the accountability provisions.Every Child Achieves Act of 2015

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 114^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Murphy Amdt. No. 2241 )
Vote Number:	241	Vote Date:	July 15, 2015, 04:29 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 2241 to S.Amdt. 2089 to S. 1177 (Every Child Achieves Act of 2015)
Statement of Purpose:	To amend the accountability provisions.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	43
	NAYs	54
	Not Voting	3

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Nay Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Baldwin (D-WI), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Bennet (D-CO), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Blunt (R-MO), Nay Booker (D-NJ), Yea Boozman (R-AR), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Burr (R-NC), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Capito (R-WV), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Cassidy (R-LA), Nay Coats (R-IN), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Coons (D-DE), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Cotton (R-AR), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay Cruz (R-TX), Not Voting Daines (R-MT), Nay Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Ernst (R-IA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Fischer (R-NE), Nay

Flake (R-AZ), Nay Franken (D-MN), Yea Gardner (R-CO), Nay Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Not Voting Grassley (R-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay Heinrich (D-NM), Yea Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea Heller (R-NV), Nay Hirono (D-HI), Yea Hoeven (R-ND), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kaine (D-VA), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Kirk (R-IL), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Lankford (R-OK), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Manchin (D-WV), Yea Markey (D-MA), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Moran (R-KS), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea

Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Paul (R-KY), Nay Perdue (R-GA), Nay Peters (D-MI), Yea Portman (R-OH), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rounds (R-SD), Nay Rubio (R-FL), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Yea Sasse (R-NE), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Scott (R-SC), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Sullivan (R-AK), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Nay Tillis (R-NC), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Nay Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Warren (D-MA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---43
Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Booker (D-NJ) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)	Gillibrand (D-NY) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Hirono (D-HI) Kaine (D-VA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Manchin (D-WV) Markey (D-MA) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA)	Peters (D-MI) Portman (R-OH) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---54
Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Cassidy (R-LA) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Cotton (R-AR) Crapo (R-ID) Daines (R-MT) Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA)	Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Gardner (R-CO) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (R-WI) King (I-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Lankford (R-OK) Lee (R-UT) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK)	Paul (R-KY) Perdue (R-GA) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rounds (R-SD) Rubio (R-FL) Sasse (R-NE) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Sullivan (R-AK) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 3
Cruz (R-TX)	Graham (R-SC)	Nelson (D-FL)

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Nay	Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:	Murkowski (R-AK), Nay	Sullivan (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:	Flake (R-AZ), Nay	McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:	Boozman (R-AR), Nay	Cotton (R-AR), Nay
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:	Bennet (D-CO), Yea	Gardner (R-CO), Nay
Connecticut:	Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea	Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Carper (D-DE), Yea	Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting	Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Georgia:	Isakson (R-GA), Nay	Perdue (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:	Hirono (D-HI), Yea	Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:	Crapo (R-ID), Nay	Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Yea	Kirk (R-IL), Nay
Indiana:	Coats (R-IN), Nay	Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Iowa:	Ernst (R-IA), Nay	Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Kansas:	Moran (R-KS), Nay	Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:	McConnell (R-KY), Nay	Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:	Cassidy (R-LA), Nay	Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Nay	King (I-ME), Nay
Maryland:	Cardin (D-MD), Yea	Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:	Markey (D-MA), Yea	Warren (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:	Peters (D-MI), Yea	Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:	Franken (D-MN), Yea	Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Nay	Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:	Blunt (R-MO), Nay	McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:	Daines (R-MT), Nay	Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska:	Fischer (R-NE), Nay	Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Nevada:	Heller (R-NV), Nay	Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:	Ayotte (R-NH), Nay	Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
New Jersey:	Booker (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Heinrich (D-NM), Yea	Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:	Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea	Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Nay	Tillis (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota:	Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea	Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Ohio:	Brown (D-OH), Yea	Portman (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma:	Inhofe (R-OK), Nay	Lankford (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:	Merkley (D-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:	Casey (D-PA), Yea	Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island:	Reed (D-RI), Yea	Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:	Graham (R-SC), Not Voting	Scott (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:	Rounds (R-SD), Nay	Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Nay	Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Nay	Cruz (R-TX), Not Voting
Utah:	Hatch (R-UT), Nay	Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:	Leahy (D-VT), Yea	Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:	Kaine (D-VA), Yea	Warner (D-VA), Yea
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Yea	Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:	Capito (R-WV), Nay	Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:	Baldwin (D-WI), Yea	Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Wyoming:	Barrasso (R-WY), Nay	Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote:

Senate ESEA Reauthorization Update for July 15, 2015 | deutsch29

Senate ESEA Reauthorization Update for July 15, 2015 | deutsch29:

Senate ESEA Reauthorization Update for July 15, 2015

On July 15, 2015, the Senate voted by roll call on five amendments related to the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015, the Senate’s version of the proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.

The first roll call vote concerned cloture, which was proposed on July 13, 2015, and which might be thought of as a proposal to move from green light to yellow. Filing for cloture sets a deadline for filing new amendments. Motions for cloture are generally voted on two days following filing, after the Senate has been in session for one hour on that second day. On July 15, 2015, the vote for cloture regarding the Senate’s ESEA reauth was taken. A three-fifths majority is needed for cloture to pass. The final vote was 86-12.

The passage of the cloture motion means that consideration of amendments will also proceed more quickly.

Four additional amendments were voted on in roll call on July 15, 2015. All were rejected:

Senator Murphy’s (D-CT) amendment 2241, which at this time is only generally described as “to amend accountability provisions.” However, pro-testing organizations like Education Trust, Stand for Children, Teach for America, and Democrats for Education Reform supported it.  Here is part of their promo:

States must be required to identify schools where all students or any group of students are not meeting goals and to intervene in ways that raise achievement for students not meeting state standards.  We need accountability for schools where groups of students are not making progress, for the lowest performing schools, and for schools with very low graduation rates.

Amendment 2241 was rejected by a vote of 43-54, with 41 Democrats, one Republican, and Sanders (Independent) voting in favor; 51 Republicans, two Democrats (Tester and Shaheen), and King (Independent) voted against.

Senator Kirk’s (R-IL) amendment 2161, “to ensure that States measure and report on indicators of student access to critical educational resources and identify disparities in such resources, and for other purposes,” was rejected 46-50. Democrats and Sanders wanted it; only two Republicans voted in favor, and one of those was Kirk, Senate ESEA Reauthorization Update for July 15, 2015 | deutsch29: