I'm not describing it falsely, I'm taking the bill at face value. Whether or not the teachers are required by the bill itself to take more hours is irrelevant; part of crafting legislation is understanding how it will incentivize behavior beyond the stated wording of the legislation. The bill encourages administrators to lean on teachers to 'volunteer' for overtime that isn't paid as overtime so they can get more grant money (grant money that isn't even enough to adequately cover the costs of the programs).Two things:
1) I'm not really concerned about how this bill could be "twisted," because you could aim that concern at any bill proposed by any candidate. I'm addressing this bill on its merits. You described it falsely in multiple ways across several pages. I was merely highlighting that you were incorrect.
2) ...so now your problem with the bill is that it doesn't extend after school programs enough? Are there schools with programs that go into the late evening, yes. But that is far from the norm. I was raised in good ol' "Progressive" California, and most of the schools in my district were lucky to provide an hour of after school care.
Yes that is a significant part of my problem with the bill, and has been the entire time. It's not nearly enough money nor coverage. The way the money is being distributed is not the most effective manner for addressing the problem.