And not a chip in sight.
Mar 27 // Mar 12 2017
H.R. 610: Choices in Education Act
Heads up: We have a feeling we're going to consult with John, Oliver and J.D. often.
Please, please, please. If everyone would stop shrieking about H.R. Bill 610 for a moment – the one that’s going to dismantle public education as we know it and bring an end to the school lunch program (if the headlines and screams of anguish are to be believed) – we have a question and then a recommendation.
Our question first: Do you know who John Nay, Oliver Goodenough and J.B Ruhl are? (Before we go further, let’s just stipulate to the fact that Oliver Goodenough is one of the most spectacular names of all time, especially given who this guy is and what he does for a living.)
Give up? They founded and are the leadership team behind Predict.gov, a product of Skopos Labs, Inc., and our new favorite site here at Two Weeks Ago News. Brief bios first, and then a little later, we’ll get to their work and why it’s relevant to the very specific outrage about H.R. Bill 610.
John Nay, Ph.D. graduated with High Distinction from the University of Virginia, was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and turned it down to start graduate school at Vanderbilt University, where he completed his Ph.D. in Computational Decision Science at the School of Engineering. His research focuses on machine learning, natural language processing, and forecasting.
Oliver Goodenough, J.D., is an authority in the application of technology to legal processes. In addition to his work at Skopos, Oliver is a Professor of Law at Vermont Law School, where he directs the Center for Legal Innovation, an Adjunct at Dartmouth’s Thayer School of Engineering, and Affiliated Faculty at Stanford’s Center for Legal Informatics. Previously a partner at a firm that practiced finance law in New York City.
J.B. Ruhl, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D., is a legal expert with extensive legislative and regulatory insight. A Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University and Director of the law school’s Program on Law & Innovation. Prior to becoming a professor, Ruhl was a partner at an AmLaw 20 law firm where his work included litigation and legislative matters. (We didn’t know either. AmLaw 20 identifies the best 20 law firms in America.)
So we have these guys: John, Oliver and J.B. behind the Artificial Intelligence that’s driving the content and research at Predict.gov. Not sure how you feel about them so far but we’re profoundly intimidated and impressed. Let's just say they seem to be about as far from the vapid talking heads that make a living speculating about the end of days and making sure they drive ratings every night as you can get.
Onto the outrage. If you’re an adult in America on facebook or on twitter and you aren’t in a coma, you’ve heard about - perhaps even shared - the outrage regarding H.R. 610:
A BILL
To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools.
AKA: Choices in Education Act
To distill it down to the basics, the bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, ending federal funding for public schools by diverting those funds to the states for distribution, including distribution in the form of vouchers for parents who want to opt out of the public school system into either private or charter schools or choose to home school their children. The rules regarding how the funds would be distributed are outlined in the bill, and if you’d like to read it, just hop over here and take a look. As these things go, it looks pretty straightforward and depending on your outlook about the state of education in our country, you’ll support it or you won’t.
Part Two of the bill caused as much – or more – anxiety. Here’s what it’s called:
No Hungry Kids Act
Sounds reasonable enough but it’s far from it. Apparently, the rule regarding nutrition standards in the national school lunch program that was established in 2012 would have “no force or effect” should H.R 610 become law.
Just so we all know, here’s the link to that original rule (all 80+ pages of it); and below is the section regarding Limits on certain nutritional requirements being changed by H.R 610:
NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 9. [42 U.S.C. 1758] (a)(1)(A)
Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional requirements--
Here’s how the bill changes that section(read carefully!):
SEC. 9. [42 U.S.C. 1758] (a)(1)(A)
Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional requirements--
Now. Let’s all take a breath. We’re not entirely sure what all of that means (a calorie maximum?) but we do know this. We did not have to send our children to school in an impoverished or particularly challenged school district, nor did they participate in a school breakfast or lunch program. We are certain that some parents who are living in such an environment would celebrate the idea of having options when it comes to sending their children to school, and many of these same parents rely on the schools providing nutritious meals to their children.
We’re also certain that moving funds from a federal agency to each state will result in new processes and procedures for everyone. That could go any number of ways, from disastrous to phenomenally successful.
But let’s hold it right there. It’s time to go back to our friends, John, Oliver and J.D. You know what they do with their time, there at Predict.gov? You can probably guess. They run their scary smart program and predict the likelihood of a bill being passed. From their site:
Based on our deep learning A.I. system, we provide updated predictions for the bills currently under consideration, assigning each a chance of being enacted. This freely available resource allows you to focus on legislation that is likely to matter (TWAN cheering - Hurrah, John, Oliver and J.D.!!) and offers a glimpse into the power of our more advanced subscription-based tools.
In other words, they do with brains what we’re trying to do with snark here at TWAN.
So here we are. What about H.R. 610, John, Oliver and J.D.? This thing has us all worked up. It’s the end of public education in this country. It’s going to leave millions of children without resources and put an end to programs that serve a variety of learning disabilities and learning challenges. It’s going to leave children with few if any resources at home now without a necessary and reliable school lunch program. What do we do now?
We may be okay. The bill has a 2% chance of being enacted according Predict.gov. Let’s see how they do.
H.R. 610: Choices in Education Act
Heads up: We have a feeling we're going to consult with John, Oliver and J.D. often.
Please, please, please. If everyone would stop shrieking about H.R. Bill 610 for a moment – the one that’s going to dismantle public education as we know it and bring an end to the school lunch program (if the headlines and screams of anguish are to be believed) – we have a question and then a recommendation.
Our question first: Do you know who John Nay, Oliver Goodenough and J.B Ruhl are? (Before we go further, let’s just stipulate to the fact that Oliver Goodenough is one of the most spectacular names of all time, especially given who this guy is and what he does for a living.)
Give up? They founded and are the leadership team behind Predict.gov, a product of Skopos Labs, Inc., and our new favorite site here at Two Weeks Ago News. Brief bios first, and then a little later, we’ll get to their work and why it’s relevant to the very specific outrage about H.R. Bill 610.
John Nay, Ph.D. graduated with High Distinction from the University of Virginia, was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and turned it down to start graduate school at Vanderbilt University, where he completed his Ph.D. in Computational Decision Science at the School of Engineering. His research focuses on machine learning, natural language processing, and forecasting.
Oliver Goodenough, J.D., is an authority in the application of technology to legal processes. In addition to his work at Skopos, Oliver is a Professor of Law at Vermont Law School, where he directs the Center for Legal Innovation, an Adjunct at Dartmouth’s Thayer School of Engineering, and Affiliated Faculty at Stanford’s Center for Legal Informatics. Previously a partner at a firm that practiced finance law in New York City.
J.B. Ruhl, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D., is a legal expert with extensive legislative and regulatory insight. A Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University and Director of the law school’s Program on Law & Innovation. Prior to becoming a professor, Ruhl was a partner at an AmLaw 20 law firm where his work included litigation and legislative matters. (We didn’t know either. AmLaw 20 identifies the best 20 law firms in America.)
So we have these guys: John, Oliver and J.B. behind the Artificial Intelligence that’s driving the content and research at Predict.gov. Not sure how you feel about them so far but we’re profoundly intimidated and impressed. Let's just say they seem to be about as far from the vapid talking heads that make a living speculating about the end of days and making sure they drive ratings every night as you can get.
Onto the outrage. If you’re an adult in America on facebook or on twitter and you aren’t in a coma, you’ve heard about - perhaps even shared - the outrage regarding H.R. 610:
A BILL
To distribute Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools.
AKA: Choices in Education Act
To distill it down to the basics, the bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, ending federal funding for public schools by diverting those funds to the states for distribution, including distribution in the form of vouchers for parents who want to opt out of the public school system into either private or charter schools or choose to home school their children. The rules regarding how the funds would be distributed are outlined in the bill, and if you’d like to read it, just hop over here and take a look. As these things go, it looks pretty straightforward and depending on your outlook about the state of education in our country, you’ll support it or you won’t.
Part Two of the bill caused as much – or more – anxiety. Here’s what it’s called:
No Hungry Kids Act
Sounds reasonable enough but it’s far from it. Apparently, the rule regarding nutrition standards in the national school lunch program that was established in 2012 would have “no force or effect” should H.R 610 become law.
Just so we all know, here’s the link to that original rule (all 80+ pages of it); and below is the section regarding Limits on certain nutritional requirements being changed by H.R 610:
NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
SEC. 9. [42 U.S.C. 1758] (a)(1)(A)
Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional requirements--
- shall not be construed to prohibit the substitution of foods to accommodate the medical or other special dietary needs of individual students;
Here’s how the bill changes that section(read carefully!):
SEC. 9. [42 U.S.C. 1758] (a)(1)(A)
Lunches served by schools participating in the school lunch program under this Act shall meet minimum nutritional requirements prescribed by the Secretary on the basis of tested nutritional research, except that the minimum nutritional requirements--
- shall not be construed to prohibit the substitution of foods to accommodate the medical or other special dietary needs of individual students, to establish a calorie maximum for individual school lunches, or to prohibit a child from eating a lunch provided by the child’s parent or legal guardian;
Now. Let’s all take a breath. We’re not entirely sure what all of that means (a calorie maximum?) but we do know this. We did not have to send our children to school in an impoverished or particularly challenged school district, nor did they participate in a school breakfast or lunch program. We are certain that some parents who are living in such an environment would celebrate the idea of having options when it comes to sending their children to school, and many of these same parents rely on the schools providing nutritious meals to their children.
We’re also certain that moving funds from a federal agency to each state will result in new processes and procedures for everyone. That could go any number of ways, from disastrous to phenomenally successful.
But let’s hold it right there. It’s time to go back to our friends, John, Oliver and J.D. You know what they do with their time, there at Predict.gov? You can probably guess. They run their scary smart program and predict the likelihood of a bill being passed. From their site:
Based on our deep learning A.I. system, we provide updated predictions for the bills currently under consideration, assigning each a chance of being enacted. This freely available resource allows you to focus on legislation that is likely to matter (TWAN cheering - Hurrah, John, Oliver and J.D.!!) and offers a glimpse into the power of our more advanced subscription-based tools.
In other words, they do with brains what we’re trying to do with snark here at TWAN.
So here we are. What about H.R. 610, John, Oliver and J.D.? This thing has us all worked up. It’s the end of public education in this country. It’s going to leave millions of children without resources and put an end to programs that serve a variety of learning disabilities and learning challenges. It’s going to leave children with few if any resources at home now without a necessary and reliable school lunch program. What do we do now?
We may be okay. The bill has a 2% chance of being enacted according Predict.gov. Let’s see how they do.