Kilroy’s School Board Audio Recording Bill Passes House With 40-0 Vote!

Kilroy’s School Board Audio Recording bill, sponsored by State Rep. Deb Hudson, passed the Delaware House of Representatives unanimously just now.  The final vote was 40 yes and 1 absent.  House Bill 61 is the second time this bill has been in the General Assembly.  House Bill 23, from the 147th General Assembly, never got a full House vote.

This is Kilroy’s legacy to Delaware.  He has fought hard for this bill for years.  The first time I ever went to Legislative Hall was for my failed attempt to get House Bill 23 up on the agenda.  This was my thanks to Kilroy for letting me write a very long story about my son on his blog before I started this one.  A lot has happened since then and the need for transparency from our school boards has never been greater.  It still has to go through the Senate, with the Senate Education Committee first.  But there is no reason why it shouldn’t pass there.

Congrats Kilroy!  I’m glad I got to hear it live!

State Rep. Earl Jaques said it was a great bill!

State Rep. Kim Williams thanked State Rep. Hudson for sponsoring the bill!

I emailed Kilroy a VERY BAD audio recording of the vote on the school board audio recording bill!

Kilroy Will Be Happy With House Bill 61 But Only If The Transparency Gods Allow It To Get To A Vote!

Delaware State Representative Deborah Hudson has once again introduced a bill which would demand ALL school boards in Delaware digitally record their board meetings and make them available to the public.  It was also introduced in the 147th General Assembly as House Bill 23, but was never put out for a vote.  So let’s do the time warp again and pray this bill gets a full vote by the House and Senate and passes!  With all of the shenanigans made public by various charter schools in the past year, this is needed and transparency needs to rule the day as Kilroy would say.  I think this bill has much stronger muscle in the House this time, but the Senate will need some work.

What is interesting is who sponsored it last time and who is doing so now. We have Hudson and Karen Peterson as a co-sponsor.  Dukes, Baumbach and Kim Williams from the House stayed on.  From the Senate we have just Greg Lavelle.  Gone as sponsors from the House in House Bill 23 are D. Short, Miro, Peterman, Mitchell, Bennett, and Wilson; and from the Senate, Hocker, Simpson and Townsend have left.  But House Bill 61 does have new sponsors from the House: Briggs King, Hensley, Yearick, Bolden, Jaques, Lynn, Matthews, Osienski and Paradee, and the Senate: Bonini.

The actual wording on the bill looks the same as House Bill 23.  The only additional language is the part about executive sessions, workshops and retreats not being included as their are no votes at these sessions.

What’s Up With The IEP Task Force? Are Parents No Longer The Focus? @KilroysDelaware @ed_in_de @Apl_Jax @RCEAPrez @ecpaige @nannyfat #netde #eduDE #edchat #Delaware

The IEP Task Force in Delaware has met five times.  The last session was very reminiscent of the second meeting.  Both of those meetings were very heavy on the side of the schools and not the parents.  The largest matter concern parents receiving a copy of the IEP draft prior to an IEP meeting.  There is also the matter of the group’s transparency.  Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn, the chair of the task force, always had the groups minutes and audio recordings up the next day.

The IEP draft was a hot topic the other night.  In prior meetings it had been discussed and most felt it was a good idea for parents to have a copy of the draft before a student’s IEP meeting.  But members were acting like it was a bad idea the other night.  Mary Ann Mieczkowski, the Director of the Exception Children Resources group at the Delaware Department of Education, said she worries about the legal implications of giving parents a copy of the draft.  Like parents don’t know what is a draft and what isn’t.  C’mon Mitch, I think parents can recognize what is and isn’t a draft.  I even overheard members, including a special education teacher, state parents get ten days after the IEP meeting to sign the document.  That is only if they choose to do so and aren’t pressured to sign the IEP right then and there.

There is also the matter of the group’s transparency.  Yes, the DOE pushed them out of their prior room and there were problems with the video conference “thingamajigger” as Denn put it, but Denn promised the public full transparency.  Here we are four days later, and nothing new is on the website.  Has anything happened between the fourth meeting and this one?  Something called an election?  Denn got the votes, and when asked if he would continue to chair the task force after his inauguration as attorney general, he didn’t answer.  Denn already suggested having the group continue after the report to Governor Markell.

The legislators come and go as they please.  Some arrive late, some leave early, some don’t even bother to show up.  In the beginning, most of them were very vocal during meetings, but now they barely say anything.

I had emailed Denn about including IEP denials as a topic in the next meeting.  I received a response from Kim Siegel indicating it would not happen, but the group does want to increase how the state audits IEPs and hold them more accountable.  To say I was disappointed is an understatement since I have been pushing for this since day one.  But yet things like vocational schools and services for the blind (mainly covered by the Department of Health and Social Services) are topics discussed at length during meetings.  What is the point of this task force anymore?

We will all know when the draft of the task force is released to the public what made the cut and what didn’t.  I sincerely hope the task force can bring it back yet again to the parents, but more importantly, the student with special needs.  They need to remember, as one task force member said, what got them there in the first place.  It wasn’t to discuss matters that did not put Delaware in hot water with the Feds and put the state on a “needs intervention” label.