Fascinating read



@GovernorMarkell’s close personal friend, David Coleman, is the architect of CCSS

Check out what he thinks about expressing oneself.

Why would a governor, of any state, embrace this concept?

Is DE Chief for Change, Mark Murphy and his merry band of teacher destroyers enforcing DE code using extralegal interpretations?

From a reliable source: it looks like when the hammer comes down, it may not only be illegal, it may empower CSD to make the next move!

Here is the link for the regulations: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/100/103.pdf

In addition to the previous information—the only section of the regulations that I know of that provides for consequences of failing to reach an agreement is the failure of reaching an MOU with the DDOE (in 10.3.5): “The district or charter school shall immediately begin negotiating the MOU required by 7.6.1. If the parties to the MOU are unable to agree on the MOU within 120 days, the district or charter school shall select from the Restructuring models found in 7.5.1, 7.5.2, or 7.5.3.”

That section, read in conjunction with these sections:

7.6.1 Districts with a Partnership Zone school and Partnership Zone charter schools shall enter a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between the Department and the district or the charter school. The Partnership Zone MOU shall include the following provisions: Selection of one of the models outlined in section 7.6.2; Provisions for regular oversight of the Partnership Zone school by the Department or its designee; For schools at which a collective bargaining agreement governs its employees, a further agreement between and among the district or charter school, the collective bargaining unit, and the Department addressing those subjects, if any, that may inhibit the schools’ successful implementation of its model, including but not limited to: Limitations on hiring, reassigning and transferring covered employees into and out of the Partnership Zone school, such as seniority limitations; The methodology for determining which teachers will be transferred or reassigned as part of the model; Work rules relating to the educational calendar and scheduling of instructional time and noninstructional time, Instructional reform; Professional development requirements and other specialized training; Retention and employment incentives, including performance incentives for effective teachers and principals; and Any other subject required by these regulations to be addressed in the Partnership Zone school’s selected model. In the event the parties are not able to reach the agreement required by within seventy-five (75) days of notice as a Partnership Zone school, each party shall present its last best offer on the areas of disagreement along with a draft agreement, to the Secretary of the Department, who shall accept one of the last best offers, or reject all of them. Should the Secretary reject all offers, the parties shall have thirty (30) days to confer and present the Secretary revised offers for reconsideration
pursuant to this section.

I don’t fully understand how the 75 day requirement and the 120 day requirement square with each other, and I don’t really understand what the regulations allow the DDOE to do if the “revised offers for reconsideration” are rejected after the 30 day period. I certainly don’t see, though, how they could allow the DDOE to force the districts to choose a different “model,” especially if they mean the models outlined in 7.6.2, because that would presumably either force the school to close ( or convert to a charter ( or restart the whole process under the turnaround ( or transformational ( models, depending on the one they did not select. Nothing seems to be authorized in the regulations to be a consequence for the schools for failing to reach a new collective bargaining agreement until the MOU is agreed upon after 120 days, and even for failing to reach an MOU, the district (not DDOE) chooses which restructuring model: “If the parties to the MOU are unable to agree on the MOU within 120 days, the district or charter school shall select from the Restructuring models found in 7.5.1, 7.5.2, or 7.5.3.”

Also, a new collective bargaining agreement is not a requirement of being selected as a Partnership Zone school under the regulations. Unless the ESEA Flexibility Request contains other language, the regulations state that the collective bargaining agreement needs to be renegotiated only for “those subjects, if any, that may inhibit the schools’ successful implementation of its model.”
Here are the proposed regulations that put in all this language, in case it is useful at all: