March 26, 2011. “Think about what is the true purpose of this legislation…It’s about silencing the unions. And silencing the middle class.”
Day 19 of the 2011 Legislative Session
(March 25, 2011)
Union Gag bill passed by House
“Think about what is the true purpose of this legislation…It’s about silencing the unions. And silencing the middle class. The middle class and citizens across this great state…When did individuals who want to participate in the process, middle-class citizens who want to participate in the process, when did they become public enemy number one? They are not.” —Rep. Perry Thurston (D-Plantation)
The House passed HB 1021 the union gag bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Dorworth (R-Heathrow) by a final vote count of 73 to 40 – wait! Make that 75 to 42! Why the changing numbers? The House allows legislators to continue to cast their vote after the fact, if they were absent at the time of final passage. We’re still watching to see who else votes today.
The Senate version, SB 830, has two more committees of reference (Budget and Rules) before it goes to the full Senate – at least that is what is supposed to happen. We have to keep a watchful eye since this Senate likes to work around the rules to surprise us.
Democrats voting NO: ( all of them) Abruzzo, Bembry, Berman, Bernard, Bullard, Campbell, Chestnut, Clare-Reed, Clemens, Cruz, Garcia, Gibbons, Jenne, Jones, Julien, Kiar, Kriseman, Pafford, Perman, Porth, Randolph, Reed, Rehwinkel-Vasilinda, Rogers, Rouson, Sands, Saunders, Slosberg, Soto, Stafford, Steinberg, Schwartz, Taylor, Thompson, Thurston, Waldman, Watson, A. Williams
Republicans voting NO: Coley, Hooper, Logan, Weinstein
Not voting at the time this report was prepared: Bileca, Fullwood, Renuart
Since this has been a moving target today you may wish to see how your Representative voted by clicking here: Vote count
Democrats did a great job of speaking for us on the floor – there were so many quotes we would like to use but space and time- here’s a couple of favorites:
Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando): “This is not just about unions, it’s about employees making eight and ten bucks an hour trying to make their lives a little better, trying to bargain and trying to come to agreement on their working conditions, and this legislation is putting hurdles in their way…There is nothing more sacred to a free market than a labor union…of people coming together trying to make their workplace better.”
Rep. Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed (D-Deerfield Beach): “I am a union member and I resent the arrogance in which this bill is presented.”
Rep. Jeff Clemens (D-Lake Worth): “Everyday, I walk in this building and ask, `Who are we sticking it to today? So far, we’re compiling quite a list. We’ve stuck it to the unemployed, to teachers, to public employees, women, and now we’re sticking it to unions.”
Class Size bill moving along
The Senate class size implementation revision bill — SB 1466 sponsored by Sen. David Simmons (R- Altamonte Springs) — passed unanimously out of the Senate PreK-12 Appropriations Sub-Committee this week. This bill appears to be driven their constitutional obligation to balance the budget and not the legitimate implementation of the goals of the 2002 Class Size Amendment (which were reaffirmed last November with the defeat of the “do-over” attempt to redefine the constitutionally class size reduction).
The proposal would change the definition of core courses. Currently, there were 849 courses defined as core courses. Under the proposed bill, there would be 288. The DOE said that the decrease would primarily be due to foreign languages, honors and advanced courses at the middle and secondary grade levels, courses without state assessments, and courses that are not required for graduation at the middle and high school level. The bill ignores the content that would be required for promotion from middle school to high school.
The core courses would be specified by grade levels and by subject subjects measured by state assessments or for promotion purposes at the high school level. These are:
· Language arts/reading, mathematics, and science courses in prekindergarten through grade 3;
· Courses in grades 4 through 8 in subjects that are measured by state assessment at any grade level;
· Courses in grades 9 through 12 in subjects that are measured by state assessment at any grade level;
· Courses that are specifically identified by name in statute as required for high school graduation and that are not measured by state assessments, excluding any extracurricular courses;
· Exceptional student education courses; and
· English for Speakers of Other Languages courses.
The maximum number of students for a core-curricula high school course in which a student in grades 4 through 8 is enrolled for high school graduation credit, would be 25. Also, the term “extracurricular courses” would be redefined to include courses that may result in college credit. Current law specifies that these courses include physical education, fine arts, performing fine arts, and career education.
Public School Vouchers?
There are several bills moving through the House and Senate which would allow students to move from ‘struggling’ public schools to higher-performing public schools in ANY school district as long as there is available space.
SB 1822– School Choice by Sen. Benacquisto and the House version, HB 1331 by Bileca would allow thousands of previously ineligible students to move from “struggling” public schools, as defined by Differentiated Accountability, to higher-performing ones in any school district – even if they don’t live there – as long as the district has available space. The students would be allowed to stay in their adopted districts until they graduated. However, districts would not have to transport students who use a voucher to attend a school in another county.
Unlike the Bush voucher plan, Opportunity Scholarship Program, the bill would not give students public dollars to attend private or parochial schools. But the bill, which moved through committees in both legislative chambers this week with party-line votes, would expand the public-school provisions of the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
At the heart of proposed expansion is the definition of a failing school.
Existing law says a student can leave a school that receives two “F” grades in a four-year period. That definition would change with the Senate version of the new bill: Students could opt to leave any school receiving a “D” or “F” and a low category rating on the Differentiated Accountability that provides extra funding and support for schools that need additional help.
Approximately, two hundred schools across the state would fall under the new definition, compared with the 24 currently defined
struggling schools. Nearly 110,000 students would become eligible to switch schools, up from around 17,000 now – a six-fold increase.
FEA opposes this measure for a number of reasons including that the Legislature already underfunds school transportation and many other programs. So much so that the same education committee on
Thank you to Kevin Watson and Michael Monroe for their contributions to this report!
Questions? Call FEA Public Policy Advocacy at 850.224.2078