Kansas Schools, Educators, Taxpayers and Legislatures & Achievment

[Ross]

Kansas Schools, Educators
Taxpayers and Legislatures
&
Achievement

I think things are going to get busy on this subject so I thought I'd start this thread. I think we will be reading some interesting stuff about taxes and attitudes !

I think we may be nearing a lot mote about the attitude about schools achievements and I don't mean sports or other curricula activities, but actual education in the class room. It should be very interesting

Administrators brag about educational achievement as if the their schools are doing excellent, al the while the State Department of Education grades them at only average. Some even claim to be doing above average only because they are ONE point above average. Go figure ! Yeah, They will say we are doig above average with out disclosing what that means.

Every school has a few kids that excel in some areas, but that does not represent every child or the school as a whole for the State Grade they get.

A Mr. Trabert before the House Appropriations Committee had the following to say:
                  "This is unconscionable to continue to pretend we have high outcomes. This does not do students one wit of good to pretend we have these very high outcomes," Trabert said. "We don't have a funding crisis in Kansas, we have an achievement crisis in Kansas, and we need to start focusing on that and being honest about where achievement really is."

So, without further ado, I will get this thread rolling.

I hope to provide valuable information to you, our citizens and taxpayers and parents.

According to my property tax form from the County, West Elk USD-282 managed to raise our property taxes from 25.894 mill to 34.27 mill an increase of 24.63% per my county tax form, just for the year of 2015, without justification ! That is equal to an 8.63 mills increase. I'd like to know how they did that, when the law limits them to 4 mills a year with out coming to the taxpayer ? Somebody check my math for errors, please !

They wanted to raise our property taxes for 2016 by 12 mills, another 35% increase . That would have been 4 mill allowed by law and another 8 mills by a Resolution, also allowed by law. But, the resolution was blocked by an Opposition Petition that many of you voters signed and passed. Thank each and everyone that signed the petition.

Thanks for indulging me.

[Ross]

Topeka schools would see aid boost under
House equity fix measure
Legislation would revert state to
old finance formula for equity aid

Posted: March 15, 2016 - 11:39am

By Jonathan Shorman
jonathan.shorman@cjonline.com
Topeka public schools stand to receive nearly $2 million in additional state aid under legislation put forward to comply with a Kansas Supreme Court order that the Legislature enact an equitable school funding formula.

The House Appropriations Committee considered a bill Tuesday that would turn back the clock on school finance, restoring the equity formula that had been in place before lawmakers scrapped it last year when moving the state to a block grant funding system.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Ron Ryckman Jr., R-Olathe, said the legislation is the one sure method to satisfy the court's demand for greater equity between rich and poor districts, noting language from the court indicating the old equity formula was constitutional.

The state's high court earlier this year set a June 30 deadline for the Legislature to act, and suggested schools could be shut if a solution isn't in place in time.

The equity fix bill in the House, which would require upwards of $25 million in additional spending, boosts funding for some districts while lowering aid to others. Topeka Unified School District 501 appears to come out ahead under the legislation as currently written.

The district would gain a $1,032,306 in local option budget (LOB) state aid, according to figures from legislative researchers. Under the block grant bill, the district is receiving about $18 million, and that amount would jump to a little more than $19 million under the proposal.

The figures from researchers also estimate USD 501 would receive $829,524 in additional capital outlay state aid under the proposal. The amount would boost the district's current aid of about $1.4 million to $2.3 million.

Auburn-Washburn USD 437 also would gain under the bill. LOB aid would surge by $1,061,106, moving from about $3 million to $4.1 million.

The district would gain $776,699 in capital outlay state aid. Currently, the district doesn't receive any capital outlay state aid under the block grant.

"This action that we're looking at today is just basically answering the court's equalization charge — nothing to do with adequacy and the part of the old formula to be reinstated for those capital outlay and LOB," Ryckman said, attempting to persuade lawmakers of the limited scope of the bill.

Those who testified during a hearing were neutral. No one spoke explicitly in support or opposition.

As part of the block grant bill last year, lawmakers created a fund to aid districts that experience large increases in enrollment or steep declines in property valuations that translate into revenue. Districts can petition the state finance council, made up of the governor and lawmakers, for money from the fund.

The Kansas Association of School Boards said while it supports restoring the old equity formula, it is concerned a provision repealing the extraordinary needs fund could harm an ongoing court battle over whether funding to Kansas schools in adequate.

"Those were dollars set aside to allow the state finance council to respond to changing circumstances in districts, including enrollment, that that step will make it harder for the state to defend itself in the area of overall adequacy," said Mark Tallman, the group's associate executive director.

Dave Trabert, president of the Kansas Policy Institute, dismissed concerns over potential harm to the state's adequacy case. While the court has been looking to the Rose standards to help define adequacy, districts have said they have difficulty measuring progress on the standards.

The standards focus on preparing students for life outside of school, from personal and civic life to careers and mental and physical well-being. Trabert argued that if districts can't measure progress, they have no way of knowing whether they need additional funds to meet the standards.

Trabert also criticized the focus on funding rather than achievement.

"This is unconscionable to continue to pretend we have high outcomes. This does not do students one wit of good to pretend we have these very high outcomes," Trabert said. "We don't have a funding crisis in Kansas, we have an achievement crisis in Kansas, and we need to start focusing on that and being honest about where achievement really is."

The committee didn't take action on the legislation Tuesday. Another proposal to deal with the equity court ruling is set for a hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

The Senate bill, put forward by Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, would shift existing equalization aid to districts in an effort to comply with the court ruling, rather than reverting to the old formula.

http://cjonline.com/news/2016-03-15/topeka-schools-would-see-aid-boost-under-house-equity-fix-measure

[Ross]

KANSANS WANT EFFICIENCY,
NO NEW TAXES FOR SCHOOLS

Dave TrabertMarch 20, 2016Education

Results of our March 2016 SurveyUSA Market Research Study include some very clear messages for legislators on a number of education issues, which will force them to choose between citizens and the institutional demands of special interests.  Local school boards and unions vehemently oppose efforts to make school districts operate efficiently, with efficiency defined as providing the same or better quality service at a better price. They've testified that they should be allowed to spend more than necessary when they so choose and that legislators should increase taxes to give them more money.

Require efficient use of taxpayer money

But the people paying the bills – taxpayers – overwhelming disagree.  Kansans expect school districts to efficiently use their money by providing the same or better quality service at a better price, with 88 percent in agreement and only 9 percent disagreeing.  When a new school funding formula is designed, 73 percent say it should include some requirement that schools operate efficiently and only 20 percent say the formula should not require efficiency.  Citizens also say outside-the-classroom functions should be provided more efficiently on a regional basis, with savings put back into classrooms by a margin of 76 percent to 19 percent.

Don't raise taxes for school funding

Asked how legislators should respond if the Supreme Court orders a school funding increase, only 30 percent favor some form of tax increase while 67 percent said to take other action; 38 percent said to reallocate other state spending, 20 percent said to require more efficient school spending, 5 percent say the Legislature should fund what it deems to be adequate regardless of what the Court rules and 4 percent said to do something else.

Citizens don't want the Legislature to ignore the Court, but they also don't want a court-imposed tax increase, which underscores that school funding is inherently a political matter.  They expect school districts to make efficient use of their money but there is ample evidence that that is not the case; accordingly, allocating more money for equity or adequacy amounts to unnecessary taxation (what some might say is inequitable treatment of all taxpayers) or a reduction in funding for other government functions.  The political ramifications of reducing funding for any government services, even if all that is being asked is to operate more efficiently, are severe.

Legislators must often choose between being threatened with ejection from office by the school lobby, the highway construction lobby, the social service lobby, the government union lobby, etc.  And any choice other than to raise taxes (which is obviously opposed by citizens) is met with extreme ridicule by media, which often doesn't let facts get in the way of their news and editorial attacks.   Improving outcomes and what's necessary, adequate or equitable is often of no consequence in these political decisions; in fact, one does so at one's own peril.

Let school employees vote on unions

A bill pending in the Senate would allow school employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement to hold a secret ballot vote every three years to decide whether to retain the union.  Unions and school boards are opposed to this basic voting right but citizens favor it by a margin of 68 percent to 19 percent.  Among government employees participating in the survey, 76 percent approve and only 14 percent are opposed.

Once again, legislators will have to decide whether to act in accordance with the wishes of constituents or face the political wrath of special interests, some of whom are vocal opponents of voter suppression when it meets a different political need.

Other questions

The survey asked ten questions in total, including school choice matters relating to public charter schools and education savings accounts.  More citizens expressed support for charters and ESAs than opposed, although upwards of 20 percent of respondents had no opinion.  Results for each question, complete cross-tabs and methodology are available here under March 2016 Poll Results. ( https://kansaspolicy.org/polling/ )


Read the article at: https://kansaspolicy.org/kansans-want-efficiency-no-new-taxes-schools/

[Ross]

Bill debated to end business tax exemption

By Justin Wingerter The Topeka Capital-Journal  Mar 15, 2016


TOPEKA — The ghosts of tax debates past were reanimated Tuesday as the Kansas House Committee on Taxation reconsidered an exemption for limited liability corporations.

In 2012, the Legislature passed and Gov. Sam Brownback signed into law legislation removing taxes on pass-through business income, money that passes from a limited liability corporation to the LLC's owner.

The result, often touted by Brownback as a success, is that more than 300,000 individuals were exempt from taxes. For the state general fund, that has resulted in a $250 million annual drop in revenue.

Rep. Mark Hutton, a Republican from Wichita, wants to eliminate that provision. His legislation, House Bill 2444, would end the tax exemption and dramatically lower the state's food sales tax rate from 6.5 percent to 2.6 percent.

Nick Jordan, secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, opposes the Hutton bill and said he has heard similar opposition from business owners.

"Raising taxes now would limit businesses' cash flow," Jordan said.

Hutton would seem to be an unlikely advocate for ending the tax break. As the owner of a construction business, he directly benefits from the 2012 law but has argued he and other business owners are uneasy with the special treatment. Several LLC owners joined him Tuesday in calling for an end to the pass-through exception.

"With recurring revenue shortfalls creating a fiscal crisis for Kansas, we must close the loophole," said LeEtta Felter, an Olathe small-business owner of several LLCs. "If we ignore or postpone closing the loophole, the solutions become more expensive in the future."

Rep. Adam Lusker, D-Frontenac, owns a masonry LLC. He said the exemption has sent the state down a "backward path."

"In 2013, when our accountant told us that we no longer had to pay state income tax, I viewed it as a nice bonus," Lusker said. "Had I known then the devastating effects it would have on Kansas, I don't think I would have been so happy."

Troy Ritchie, owner of Ritchie Construction in Wichita, said he employs 750 people but has never hired someone because of a tax break. Trace Walker, a Salina business owner, said he worries the tax break has put increased pressure on property taxpayers and public services.

"I'm concerned about our roads and bridges, our reservoirs, our aquifer and our law enforcement," he said.

Hutton's bill is opposed by several business groups and free-market think tanks, including the Kansas Chamber, Kansas Policy Institute, Americans for Prosperity and National Federation of Independent Business.

"Taxing employer productivity, income, leads to less business investment, suppresses wages and can also lead to price increases for consumers that eat into savings on sales taxes," said Dave Trabert, president of KPI, in written testimony.

Eric Stafford, a vice president with the Kansas Chamber, urged lawmakers to grant the 2012 tax cuts more time to generate economic growth.

"We know the tax cuts have attracted businesses to Kansas and now we're looking to change the rules on them just a few short years later," he wrote.

Several child nutrition and health groups support the Hutton bill because of its cuts to the sales tax on food. Judith Storandt, president of Kids Need to Eat Inc., testified in favor of the bill's effect on nutrition. Ashley Wisner, from Kansas City Healthy Kids, said it would help low-income families in the state.

Michael Austin, with the Department of Revenue, said adverse effects from reinstating taxes on businesses would outweigh the benefits of lowering sales taxes, resulting in 1,000 fewer jobs in Kansas next year if Hutton's bill is passed.

Legislation similar to Hutton's in the Senate wouldn't change the sales tax rate for food, putting more money in state coffers instead. Senate Bill 508 would label 70 percent of business income as wages, making it taxable. Another 30 percent would remain tax-free investment income.

Discussion on the Hutton bill ended after several hours Tuesday evening, before most opponents could testify. The committee will continue hearings on the bill Wednesday.

Sen. Jim Denning, R-Overland Park, is a supporter of the Senate legislation. He said he and fellow lawmakers never intended to exempt LLC owners from wage taxes.

"I think the legislative intent was always to tax the owner's personal income," Denning said, calling the LLC exemption a "loophole."

Senate Vice President Jeff King, R-Independence, seconded Denning's remarks and called on the tax committee to fix what he also considers to be a loophole.

"It's not solid tax policy. It goes against the foundation of what we were trying to do," King said.

http://www.gctelegram.com/news/state/bill-debated-to-end-business-tax-exemption/article_a85ade3a-a629-5e20-be59-2b416a172831.html

[Ross]

2016 Dog and Pony Show

Posted on March 23, 2016 by kansansagainstcommoncoreii


On March 22 the Kansas House of Representatives heard HB2292. This is the bill where Representative Grosserode took a comprehensive and outstanding bill (the "old" 2292) and turned it into a "do nothing" bill. (The "new" 2292.) There were many amendments heard. One of them was our amendment to replace the "new" 2292 with HB2676 and add an amendment addressing textbooks and AP/IB. If you'll recall, the bill that we revised at the start of this session was 2676 and then it turned into 2292 ("old").

Representative Houser took up the cause on the floor for this amendment and presented it. His willingness and professionalism in doing so is something we will not soon forget and are quite grateful for. We thank him and hope you will too.

Other representatives who voted "yea" for the 2676 amendment are Barton, B. Carpenter, Corbet, Davis, DeGraff, Dove, Fronfelter, Garber, Huebert, Hutchins, K. Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kelly, Lunn, Macheers, Osterman, Pauls, Peck, Read, Rhoades, Rubin, Scapa, Sutton, Weber, and Whitmer. Don't be lulled or fooled here. Some of these people are the same people who voted to gut a good common core repeal five days earlier like Hutchins, Jones, Lunn, Machers, and Rhoades.

Despite Representative Houser's efforts, the amendment, like all the other amendments presented, failed.

It is worth noting that there are a number of so-called conservatives who either sponsored the "old" 2292 or who voted to pass it out of the House Ed committee, but who subsequently failed to support (either by a "nay" vote or by not voting at all) the 2676 amendment that Representative Houser offered on our behalf. Speaker Merrick, Speaker Pro Tem Mast, Chairman Highland, Representatives Bradford, Bruchman, Estes, Hedke, Vickrey, Kiergerl, Clays, D. Jones, O'Brien, Goico, R. Powell, Rahjes, Seiwert, and Grosserode all failed to support the 2676 amendment.

When it came time to vote on the "new" 2292, Grosserode's eleventh hour single paragraph "do nothing" bill, it too failed, despite the support of many of these same people as well as others.

From listening and watching the entire proceedings yesterday, it is clear that many of our elected representatives do not understand what is at stake. A number of democrats stepped up to oppose all parts of the repeal common core proceedings and offered their same, old, and flat out wrong ideas about common core and what is at stake. Very few so-called republicans stepped up to the podium to refute those claims or offer support of the 2676 amendment. For the most part, this caucus folded.

It is clear that leadership provided the grassroots, the parents, the people of Kansas, nothing more than a dog and pony show. They want it to appear that they "really tried hard" this time, but the truth is, there wasn't much more from them than deception and agenda in an election year. It was like watching D.C. unfold and descend upon Topeka. Despite the thousands and thousands of you who have sent emails, signed petitions, made calls, showed up at rallies, and much more, you were absolutely not heard yesterday. You were barely even represented. If that doesn't fire you up to replace representatives who act this way I don't know what will. All House seats are up this year...opportunity is brewing.

So, the questions are thus: What do you want to do? What are you prepared to do? How are you going to do it?

We know exactly what we are going to do. The first two things that we are going to are:
1. Seek out truly conservative candidates to run against incumbent KS BOE members and many of these so-called republican representatives who miserably failed you, me, and our kids yesterday.
2. Continue to speak out. We will continue to inform people–all people–who these elected officials are and what they have done or failed to do.

The only way this is going to get solved is if we grow our numbers and get even louder and we find people to represent us who actually LISTEN to what we want and then do as we ask of them.

Thank you for YOUR support this session!
KACC

https://kansansagainstcommoncore.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/2016-dog-and-pony-show/

[Ross]

Funding Facts For Teachers

As teachers, we need to be more activw in attaining information and questioning selective data provided to us. As teachers, we impart to our students how important it is to think critically. We should do the same with school funding,.

Don't take anything at face value.
Ask questions. Demand answers.
Knowledge is Power!
Isn't just for kids.

https://kansaspolicy.org/teachers-guide-education-funding/

Shouldn't the above information apply to tax payers as well?

The deeper I dig the worse it sounds, but there may be some relief for property owner taxpayers in the new HB 2741 if it passes.

***********************************************************************

Funding Per Pupil Database

Per-pupil funding from taxpayers at the state, federal and local levels.  State-mandated 20 mills of property tax for school support had been erroneously reflected as Local aid until it was corrected by the Legislature in 2015; on average, the 2015 transition increased State aid and decreased Local aid by roughly $1,200 per pupil.

Year       USD #   District Name   County      State              Federal        Local     Total
2015    282      West Elk                 Elk         $12,182         $5,271       $7,597   $25,049

Apparently the $17,565 I posted earlier did not include the $7,597 dollars per child from local property taxes.[/b]

Check it out at: http://www.kansasopengov.org/kog/databank#report_id=35&Year=2015&USDNumber=282&DistrictName=West%20Elk&County=Elk

******************************************************************************

KANSAS LEGISLATURE INTRODUCES TRANSFORMATIVE NEW SCHOOL FUNDING SYSTEM

Dave TrabertMarch 29, 2016Education

To the surprise of many legislative observers, a brand new school finance system was proposed last week in House Appropriations with an effective date of July 1, 2017.  The unique approach set forth in HB 2741 includes a new method of equalizing capital outlay aid and eliminates the need for Local Option Budget equalization by providing all funding needed to meet the adequacy test through the state budget.

The new system retains some elements from the old system but it is largely a new approach that seems reasonable calculated to give school districts the funding needed to meet expected outcomes while requiring more efficient use of taxpayers' money, which is the Supreme Court's constitutional test on adequacy.  It is not the Court's role to determine the actual amount of funding, but as they specified in Gannon, to determine whether the funding provided is "...reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed the standards set out in Rose and presently codified in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 72-1127."  The test is whether funding is reasonably calculated (how the Legislature arrived at the decision) rather than whether they selected a particular level of funding.

The plan is also much easier to understand than the old byzantine formula and should dramatically streamline the budgeting process as well as providing a great deal more predictability to local school boards.

Taxpayers should appreciate the first-ever efficiency requirements built in to the plan; our recent statewide market search study found that 88 percent of Kansans believe local school boards should make efficient use of taxpayer money and 73 percent believe there should be some efficiency requirements included in a school funding formula.  But there will also likely be considerable pushback on this plan since it's not the 'blank check' that some would like to see provided.

Read much more at:  https://kansaspolicy.org/kansas-legislature-introduces-transformative-new-school-funding-system/

[Ross]

Fury Over School Regulations:
It's the Department of
Education, Stupid!

BY ASHLEY NICOLE BAKER
05/27/2016

The new school regulations are so old school. Can we not just deregulate like it's 1999?

Yesterday's proposed rules on school accountability are yet another reminder that it's time for federal bureaucrats at the Department of Education to get their hands out of our education system. They have done enough damage already with their long record of failed reform efforts.

However, when it comes to regulating our children, the Department of Education will never back down. Nothing is over until they decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Heck no!

Okay, maybe that was John Belushi in Animal House, not the Department of Education. At the rate Common Core is diminishing the humanities, it's hard to tell. And, we all know what happened when Dean Wormer tried to regulate Delta fraternity: Toga! Toga!

Alright, back to the proposed education rule – we don't want to give the Department of Education the chance to hand over the dunce cap – let's take a look at the federal government's role in our education system.

Since the Common Core curriculum is unlikely to cover this topic, it's time for a brief history lesson in education policy. Don't worry, there will be no standardized test on this. Not yet, at least.

Education Department 101: No Child Left Behind with Common Core and Every Student Succeeds with School Choice

The Department of Education, acting as a federal board of education, has a long history of enacting top-down measures that grab power from the hands of teachers and schools. These standards and regulations, always a far cry from effective education reform, merit the department a failing report card.

In 2001, Congress passed highly lauded, bipartisan effort at education reform known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Despite the initial positivity surrounding NCLB, over time it proved to be a bureaucratic one-size-fits all uniform testing program that vastly expanded the reach of the Department of Education.

After years of amendments and alterations by administrative rules, this program was left behind and replaced in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA is a purported shift away from federal accountability provisions.

The success of this reform is yet to be determined, although recent events indicate that the expansive regulatory authority of the Department may limit its positive effects. The rule could be circumvented through legislation that takes power away from federal education regulators.

One instance of the federalization of education can be found in the Common Core fiasco. The Common Core curriculum provided an opportunity for exercise of federal authority.

Like NCLB, much of the Common Core debate centers around standardized testing. The debate intensified during this year's Education Department-mandated "Testing Season", a period that was transformed by the opt-out movement.

The opt-out movement led to some very heavy-handed Department of Education policies by penalizing schools for noncompliance and silencing teachers speaking out against Common Core.

School choice is the other recent Department of Education issue. School choice vouchers would allow student to escape poor policy decisions of educrats by allowing students the option to attend schools other than the school that was assigned.

Last week, parental choice in education was placed on the public radar as the Department of Education issued an absurd ruling that could require schools to allow transgender bathroom and shower facilities. In a Forbes op-ed, FreedomWorks' Stephen Moore argued that this decision makes a powerful case for "school choice now more than ever."

The Department of Education's new proposal, with its implication of federal overreach, makes a powerful case for taking back control over our schools now more than ever.

The Proposed Regulation: More Federal Oversight and More Testing Equals More Education

Here's a Common Core math problem:

1.) Federal control of education + more standardized tests =

A. more education
B. the most education
C. the best education
D. monkeys

The best guess is probably D, but we won't know for sure until the Education Department's accountability report tells us if we passed.

If you couldn't answer the question, you (or your school) may be in trouble. The new regulation would impose federally mandated accountability measures that give the federal government oversight over student and school achievement.

While states and local school boards are given some flexibility in their methods of rating school performance, they are help accountable by the Education Department for administering achievement exams and for intervening in under-performing schools.

The need for school accountability rules, according to the Department of Education, stems from academic underperformance.

What is the Department's solution to poor academic achievement? More testing, of course!

In a power grab that ignores the complaints of teachers and parents, the Department of Education is responding to the Common Core opt-out movement by making testing anything but optional. Under this regulation, school districts would be held accountable for ensuring that 95 percent of students take performance-indicating standardized tests.

The Education Department has recommended punitive measures for schools and students for opting not to participate in testing. Additionally, the new rule states that federal funds can be withheld from states that fail to test 95 percent of students.

Public outcry against the testing craze has criticized federally mandated standardized tests as a being poorly constructed, inaccurate indicators of performance used to unfairly evaluate teachers and students.

Rather than listen to teachers and students, the Department of Education has decided in favor of regulatory overreach.

The Initial Backlash: Sharp Criticism, Promised Hearings, and Congressional Review

Speaking out against the new regulations, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.) stated:

"I am deeply concerned the department is trying to take us back to the days when Washington dictated national education policy... Congress worked on a bipartisan basis to move the country away from the prescriptive federal mandates and requirements of No Child Left Behind. We replaced that failed law with a fundamentally different approach that empowers state and local leaders to determine what's best for their schools and students."

Rep. Kline, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, also indicated he will hold a hearing on the rule. Echoing Kline's opposition, Senate Education Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), promised to block the regulation through the Congressional Review Act:

"I will review this proposed regulation to make sure that it reflects the decision of Congress last year to reverse the trend toward a national school board and restore responsibility to states, school districts, and teachers to design their own accountability systems... If the final regulation does not implement the law the way Congress wrote it, I will introduce a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn it."

The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to repeal regulations that are overreaching, expensive, or unduly burdensome.

The Department of Education's proposed rule is open for public comment through August 1, 2016. Submit a comment to tell the Department of Education to leave education to the educators.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/fury-over-school-regulations-it%E2%80%99s-department-education-stupid