You know I cannot trust that this outpouring of information is any different than what we saw with the “cockfighting” bill.

I tried to find the text of the bill, so that I could form my own opinion before weighing it against the commentors. But all that is available are a string of numbers and a few dead links.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone is capable of having an opinion on the bill based just on what is found at Richmond Sunlight.

I think it more likely that a professional organization (representing educators) has “translated” what the bill’s enacting would mean for them. I know in states with a strong teacher’s union that spends a large portion of their dues politically- that would be the case.

I would like to know what they’ve used to come to their determination that the bill is a bad one.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 31 January 2007 @ 12pm

You know I cannot trust that this outpouring of information is any different than what we saw with the “cockfighting” bill.

The difference is, I think, that these commenters are providing information that enhances the minimal data provided by the bill. I have learned something from reading their comments, which is far more than I can say about those opposing the cockfighting bill.

They have, however, failed to persuade me, but I think that’s only because I don’t know the opposing perspective.

I tried to find the text of the bill, so that I could form my own opinion before weighing it against the commentors. But all that is available are a string of numbers and a few dead links.

That’s it — that’s the text of the bill. :)

I think it more likely that a professional organization (representing educators) has “translated” what the bill’s enacting would mean for them

That’s exactly what’s happened — that’s what I’m pleased about, that they’ve provided information that is not currently available via the legislative process. I’d be equally pleased if some sort of a group of fiscal conservatives were to likewise discover this bill on Richmond Sunlight and post their explanation as to why these positions should be cut. In both cases the groups are providing information that is absent from the legislation, and I think that’s pretty valuable.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 2007 @ 1pm

Nobody could say that this bill is written in plain english. It takes a research staff to understand it. However, someone has obviously done the work to decode the references in the bill to actual text of existing law and have come up with what the bill actually does. When that research is available, it will make things a lot easier to understand.

I don’t know who has the patience to go through all that. Maybe a teacher’s organization such as the VEA or one of it’s member organzations. (agreeing with the previous commenter)

Vince Callahan has introduced a bill, which, I dare say, he does not know what it means. In my experience watching legislative bodies, it is more likey that Mr. Callahan has been handed the language for a bill, told what it does, and then has introduced it. It will be interesting to see and hear his defense and/or explanation of this bill in the GA.

I do agree, however, with the teachers who say that technology has revolutionized the way students are taught. One only need look at the fact that many school systems provide notebook computers to its high school students to know that this is true. This is only one example of the way technology influences education today.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 31 January 2007 @ 1pm

The difference is, I think, that these commenters are providing information that enhances the minimal data provided by the bill.

I agree. Their level of discourse is much more intelligent than the cockfighting commentors. And that we are able to have this conversation at all because of Richmond Sunlight is a good thing.

From reading the comments- I have learned what “They” think the bill is about, and about what they think about technology in education.

That said. I’m not ready to trust their lobbying group’s interpretation of the bill. In other states I’ve seen Teachers Unions prevent some seriously needed reforms to fix a broken system- because it would mean more accountability.

And honestly it’s too bad that all those citations (numbers) in the bill don’t link back to the specific part of the code they’re referencing. Otherwise I would’ve done my own reading been able to reach an informed opinion.

I think the “opposed” comment you reference makes some really excellent points.

When students cannot learn the core content because there is no funding for textbooks or papers for resources, it is absolutely mind-boggling when that very same year, we have 80 new computers, plasma TV’s, DVD players, new projectors, Quizdom, and other technology products being brought in by the truckload. How does this truly benefit the student? What is the point of all of this when they can’t read, write, or do math?

Additionally shame on the Delegate for introducing something so ridiculously cryptic.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 31 January 2007 @ 2pm

Full Text of SB 750 is a duplicate, in case others need to know this; Chichester is the patron. They are word-for-word with each other.

More information here: VSTE

Just thought someone would like to know. (H/T to Lisa)

Posted by Mark Brooks on 31 January 2007 @ 10pm

I left something out of that link Waldo; can you fix it for me?

TIA

Posted by Mark Brooks on 31 January 2007 @ 10pm

All set.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 January 2007 @ 11pm