tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post115793261458849232..comments2023-12-23T13:25:43.770-08:00Comments on Rob Kremer: Oregon Department of Education again tries to kill Connections AcademyRob Kremerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13842508120324878364noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-14324693638788026312008-09-22T01:30:00.000-07:002008-09-22T01:30:00.000-07:00I have an older teen first year in connections acc...I have an older teen first year in connections accademy that has I feel excelent classes. The teachers offer help when needed. The teaching program seems very exstensive to me. I feel the information and teaching is made to keep students interested. My teen didnt understand a algebra concept, I emailed the teacher to let her know I do not understand algebra and my child was stuck..five minutes later we received a phone call from the math teacher and they were on the phone for several minutes..and my teen was smiling because they now understood. We shall see further into the year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-84857884548594403542008-09-15T22:41:00.000-07:002008-09-15T22:41:00.000-07:00As a parent who choose Oregon Connections Academy ...As a parent who choose Oregon Connections Academy for my student last year I must say that I was sorely disappointed in the system. They provided no student support, their program was not up to par on level to our local public schools and now my child is playing catch-up going into her junior year after a whole year of sub-standard education. I wouldn't recommend ORCA to any parent who wants a quality education for their child!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158177843512692512006-09-13T13:04:00.000-07:002006-09-13T13:04:00.000-07:00My understanding is that whether new laws can retr...My understanding is that whether new laws can retroactively apply to existing charter school contracts is actually something the Attorney General's office is considerating as we "speak." <BR/><BR/>All other laws that pass become immediately applicable to charter schools, so why would SB 1071 be an exception?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158171413288819162006-09-13T11:16:00.000-07:002006-09-13T11:16:00.000-07:00You are simply repeating yourself. The legislative...You are simply repeating yourself. The legislative record matters in a court of law when the law itself is silent on a question before the court. <BR/><BR/>Are you telling me that the legislature can pass a law that retroactively voids a legal contract? <BR/><BR/>If 1071 were to apply to an existing charter school then that is your position.Rob Kremerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13842508120324878364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158165093320719912006-09-13T09:31:00.000-07:002006-09-13T09:31:00.000-07:00Yes, I'm familiar with the process (although I don...Yes, I'm familiar with the process (although I don't work for OSBA). Again, just because a Legislator voices their rationale or assumptions (during hearings or on the floor) does not mean that their assumptions are true (so, just because a few stated that they only voted hes on SB 1071 because they believed it wouldn't apply to ORCA doesn't mean the overall Legislative record supports this). Would SB 1071 have passed without the few votes of those who expressed their belief that ORCA would be exempt from SB 1071? Probably. Did ODE publicly or in writing agree to exempt ORCA? I'm fairly certain they didn't. Does ODE have the authority to exempt a school from a law? I don't believe so. The State Board does have that authority. Did they exempt ORCA from the 50% provision in SB 1071? I don't believe so.<BR/><BR/>I'm not against ORCA or online schools or charter schools. I just want to clarify the facts and issues involved. This school has been controversial from before the get-go because our law is fuzzy in some of the areas that directly relate to an online model. It's not as "cut and dried" as you make it sound.<BR/><BR/>Charters are responsible for transportation. What does that mean? It means that if some parent (who lives in the sponsoring district) decided to sue a charter school for not making sure their child got to school, the parents would probably win. Charters cannot require parents to drive kids. They have to make sure kids get there, either through existing district bus routes, coordinating car pools, etc. Of course, most charter school kids are driven by their parents, but that doesn't mean that charters can require them to do so. I do know charters that bus kids and coordinate car pools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158075832827671562006-09-12T08:43:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:43:00.000-07:00Anon:1) I never said that "Just because a Legislat...Anon:<BR/><BR/>1) I never said that "Just because a Legislator voices something on the floor to explain their rationale for voting doesn't mean that their wishes are granted."<BR/><BR/>Do you know how courts settle statutory disputes? They first go to the text of the measure. If there is plain language to settle the question, it ens there. If not, they try to figure out legislative intent. <BR/><BR/>They go to the legislative record, especially that of the testimony and statements by committee members and on the floor. <BR/><BR/>Direct expressions by legislators on the question at hand in those venues is one of the primary ways in which a court will decide what the intent was. <BR/><BR/>On this question - whether ORCA is grandfathered from the 50% requirement, or is the law retroactive - there is nothing in the bill that speaks to the question. So a court will have to go to the legislative record to see what the legislative intent was.<BR/><BR/>In the Budget Committee session on Aug 4th, Rep. Kropf and Rep. Richardson made the statement that they were only voting for the bill because they had been assured by the ODE that ORCA was grandfathered. <BR/><BR/>They and others said the same thing during the floor vote the next day. <BR/><BR/>Now, does that have the force of law? Of course not. <BR/><BR/>But when the unions fund a lawsuit to try and claim that ORCA must comply with 1071 (and we fully expect that they will. You seem to know something about this too, so I would guess you work at the OSBA) we feel pretty confident that a court will find plenty in the legislative record to prove the intent was to grandfather ORCA.<BR/><BR/>Since you are so savvy I am certain you know where on the legislature's website you can download and listen to both the 8/4 commiteee meeting and the 8/5 floor session to satisfy yourself that I am correct about this.<BR/><BR/>Don't mistake: we KNOW that at some point the unions will file the lawsuit. They cannot sit idly by and watch while ORCA grows into a 2000+ student school outside of their sphere of influence and control. They care not a whit about the kids or the schools. <BR/><BR/>We think we are on solid ground, because of what the legislative record will reflect. We couldn't stop the bill, but we made darn sure to make the record reflect what the ODE was saying about the gradfather issue. <BR/><BR/>2) Can you name a republican who wanted the 50% provision? You are just wrong. <BR/><BR/>3) Transportation - the law says Charters are "responsible" for transportation, not that they must provide it. I can't think of a single charter school that is providing transportation.Rob Kremerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13842508120324878364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158030126760646672006-09-11T20:02:00.000-07:002006-09-11T20:02:00.000-07:00Rob,1. Just because a Legislator voices something...Rob,<BR/><BR/>1. Just because a Legislator voices something on the floor to explain their rationale for voting doesn't mean that their wishes are granted. Again, I ask, please link to the "legislative record" you reference in your initial post.<BR/><BR/>2. The D's are not the only ones who wanted the 50% provision. <BR/><BR/>3. ORS 338.145 Responsibility for student transportation services; costs. (1) The public charter school shall be responsible for providing transportation to students who reside within the school district and who attend the public charter school. The public charter school may negotiate with a school district for the provision of transportation to students attending the public charter school.<BR/> (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the school district within which the public charter school is located shall be responsible for the transportation of students attending the public charter school pursuant to ORS 327.043 in the same manner as students attending nonchartered public schools if the student is a resident of the school district. However, a school district may not be required to add or extend existing bus routes or other transportation services pursuant to this subsection.<BR/> (3) Students who attend public charter schools and who reside outside of the school district may use existing bus routes and transportation services of the school district in which a public charter school is located.<BR/><BR/>http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/338.html <BR/><BR/>AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158023320924101222006-09-11T18:08:00.000-07:002006-09-11T18:08:00.000-07:00Anon 3:571) During the committee vote on 1071, and...Anon 3:57<BR/><BR/>1) During the committee vote on 1071, and during the floor vote, more than one legislator stated that they were only voting for 1071 because it was their understanding that ORCA would be grandfathered. <BR/><BR/>No, that is not the same as it being explicitly in the law, but lacking any language in the law, a court would look to the legislative record to see what the intent was. Check it out - it is there.<BR/><BR/><BR/>2)This is just wrong. The 50% provision was not a compromise. Who was it that wanted it? Both the $2 million and the 50% provision are things that Democrats wanted. <BR/><BR/>3) The same could be said of the requirement that parents transport their kids to charter schools. Some parents can't, therefore the school discriminates.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Anon 5:54 - <BR/>No, charters are NOT required to transport kids in the district.Rob Kremerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13842508120324878364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158022445079427802006-09-11T17:54:00.000-07:002006-09-11T17:54:00.000-07:00Charters actually ARE required to provide transpor...Charters actually ARE required to provide transportation for students who live in the district that sponsors them, but not for those who live outside the district.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158015443752143582006-09-11T15:57:00.000-07:002006-09-11T15:57:00.000-07:00Rob,I do not work for ODE or OEA and I do not thin...Rob,<BR/><BR/>I do not work for ODE or OEA and I do not think that ORCA should be "shut down." However, please allow me to challenge some of your information:<BR/><BR/>1. There is NO record that the Legislature "grandfathered" ORCA in or otherwise exempted it from the SB 1071 requirement that 50% of students in charter schools offering any online courses must reside within the sponsoring district's boundaries. No one has tried to enforce that law with ORCA, but it does apply. If you believe there IS such a record, please post the link to an official source.<BR/><BR/>2. The goal of SB 1071 was for ODE to get $2 (and the driver behind that has recently left ODE); the 50% provision was a compromise, meaning some Legislators would only vote for 1071 if it contained the 50% provision. <BR/><BR/>3. "Parental involvement" is one thing. No one objects that. "Parents as teachers" is another thing altogether, and something that families with two parents who work "9 to 5" jobs cannot do within ORCA's program. How does that set-up not discriminate?<BR/><BR/>Oregon's charter school law is very fuzzy in the areas that address the type of program ORCA is providing. Since the get-go, it has been controversial for a variety of reasons. You must have known this, so your apprent shock is, well, shocking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12596769.post-1158004982927521552006-09-11T13:03:00.000-07:002006-09-11T13:03:00.000-07:00The best example yet of what really matters to the...The best example yet of what <I>really</I> matters to the educrat class - threats to their monopoly on state funds for education.<BR/><BR/>Whatever may be the truth about unionized educators (their dedication, motivation, etc.) - their tacit support of the group of selfish thugs that run the <I>education establishment</I> in Oregon damns them all.<BR/><BR/>It's not enough to disagree quietly.rickyragghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06541867920127691919noreply@blogger.com