2020 Education Legislation that Must be Opposed: Feb. 25, 2020

Lots of really lousy education bills are on the docket for tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 25.  First, in the Senate Ed Committee at 8am, and then in the House Ed Committee at 4pm.  If you are able to attend and comment on any of them, that would be great!  Please pick at least one bill (if you can’t do all of them) and email the appropriate group, as listed below.

Quick info: How to read a bill.

If something is underlined, it will be added to the law, if the bill passes.  If something is crossed out, then that will be removed from the law, if the bill passes.  Everything else is existing law.

Quick Info: How to email committee members.

See the list of Senate and House Ed committee emails listed below.  It’s best to put in the subject line something like: Vote NO on HB114Sub2 ((that means House Bill 114 Substitute 2).

Then address your email to each individual Rep or Senator.  You can certainly copy and paste the body of the email.  Make it short, sweet and to the point.  If you want to add more information, you can finish the email, and then say, for more information on this…and basically add a PS, so they can go as long or as short as they’d like.  They need to get these emails ASAP, as the Senate will probably not read emails once the committee hearing starts at 8am.  If you are a constituent of one of the committee members, please let them know that.

*Senate Ed Committee: 8am Write the Senators and ask them to VOTE NO!

HB114Sub2: You can read it here.  https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0114.html : Early Learning Training and Assessment

This bill allocates $17.55 Million to establish additional testing and support coaches and early learning plans for math and reading.  It’s important to know that our current Math and English standards (which, sadly, are still Common Core) were declared to be developmentally inappropriate for grades K-3 by 500 Early Childhood Experts in 2010.  I would argue if we fixed our current math and English standards, we wouldn’t need to waste $17.5 Million in trying to assess and coach our teachers to teach our kids stuff that isn’t helping them read and do math.

SB136: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0136.html Healthy Lifestyles Revisions

For those of you who are wary of CSE (Comprehensive S3xuality Education—typo intentional to avoid spam filters), this is the bill to change our school health requirements to be broadened.  Incidentally, if you go to the CDC website, you will find that Utah has one of the lowest rates of STIs of any of the states.  The states with higher rates, many of them, have implemented CSE programs.  But because we have such a low rate, the health department touts the fact that we have a huge increase.  Yes, but that’s a percentage increase from a very, very low number to a higher number, that is still low.  It’s important to understand that Public Education used to be about those things that we could all agree on (2+2=4).  Once you start down this road, there will be very little agreement, and that is problematic. 

Some concerns:

Changes communicable disease to infectious disease.  While there is obvious overlap, infectious disease is, by definition, a disease that is transmitted via bacteria, or virus, etc.  The focus of infectious disease is the “infecting agent”.  Communicable disease is a disease that is spread via human to human contact in some form.  The focus of communicable disease is the human transmission to others.  In light of this being a health course and not an immunology course, the current wording “communicable” is probably more relevant.  See lines 60-62 and lines 68-70.  Current law allows emphasizes the importance of abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods of preventing communicable diseases.  The references to marriage are removed, and abstinence is listed as a method for preventing certain infectious diseases.  Also, current law prohibits advocacy or encouragement of contraceptive devices.  This would be removed if this bill passes.  Line 187 includes a requirement that the course include “healthy relationships”, but there is no definition of what a healthy relationship is.  207-209 requires the local district  or charter (LEA) to report to the State Board the percentage of children who are not opted out of the course.  This will allow the state to know how many kids are not taking the courses, and will, in the future, no doubt lead to greater pressure on parents to have their kids take the courses.

**House Ed Committee: 4pm Write the House Reps and ask them to Vote No!

There are 3 bills that are extremely problematic.  1 that is mostly a waste of time and money.  I will list them in the order they are on the agenda, but the most egregious one is listed 3^rd (HB323).

SB0093Sub1: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0093.html Math and Science Opportunities for Students and Teachers

This bill will cost $4.8M.  The idea that the state decides to use this money up front for this purpose undermines local control.  That’s $4.8M that doesn’t go directly to the schools that choose not to participate in this program.  The real issue with students not learning math has nothing to do with not having the Opportunity provided in this bill (that’s mostly just money) and everything to do with the adoption of sub-par math standards (Common Core).  This bill is mostly just a waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, especially at the local level in reducing class sizes.

SB0099: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0099.html School Leadership Development Amendments

This bill will create a mentor program for principals to the tune of $15.2 Million.  Similar to others, this takes $15.2 M off the table to be spent in any other way at the local level.  So, if you are sure principals being mentored is a higher priority than anything else your local district would spend that money on, then this is the bill for you.  But if you think maybe that’s a waste of money or that the local school district might prefer to use the money differently, then you should encourage your Reps to vote NO!  In Alpine School District, we already pay an annual fee to participate in the BYU Public School Partnership, along with 4 other districts.  As part of this partnership, we have a Principals/Leadership Academy that employees who are interested in becoming principals can take.  Also, ASD usually appoints principals from among applicants who have already spent a few years as assistant principals.  So, there is already a formal structure for mentoring.  Finally, in my years of knocking doors and talking to people, I have never received a single comment from the people that said we needed to spend more money on mentoring principals.

HB323: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0323.html School Mental Health Amendments (THIS IS THE REALLY  REALLY REALLY  BAD ONE!!!)

Because schools and teachers, especially are already overwhelmed, we are going to require the State Board to create a Mental Health screening tool that can be administered to every student in our public school setting.  We will either be creating a greater need to have mental health counselors in our schools to assist with this (instead of spending the money on actual reading, writing, and arithmetic) or we will delegate this to teachers.  It also opens up the possibility of parents being bullied into allowing their kids to be tested, and once tested, if a parent disagrees, then there is evidence that they went against the “state”.  Could Child Protective be called on parents who refuse?  It wouldn’t be out of the question.  Whenever we have societal problems, we tend to put all the focus on our public schools to “solve” the problem for us.  This is not the place to do mental health screenings.  Your pediatrician or a mental health counselor of the parent’s choosing would be the appropriate place for it.  Schools should focus on academics, art, etc.  They are to be supportive of parents.  They are not to replace parents. 

HB241: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0241.html Kindergarten Attendance Amendments

This make Kindergarten a required grade.  Currently, children are only required to attend school from ages 6-18.  This bill will require school from age 5.  Some problems (besides the obvious increased cost that will occur if more people put their kids in Kindergarten): Many students are not developmentally ready for Kindergarten at age 5.  Many parents choose to keep their kids home an extra year and then enroll them in Kindergarten at age 6.  You would be able to do this still, but you’d have to fill out a homeschooling affidavit, and then, see lines 131-134, the school board is required to give you information about the knowledge, skills, and competencies required before Grade 1. This is only required for homeschool Kindergarten.  Currently, there is no requirement other than if a parent requests this information for the other grades.  It is not a requirement for those who choose a private option.  Additionally, if children are not, yet, developmentally ready for school, it could create more students who are identified with learning disabilities or special needs.  Those students so identified would require more state (and federal) funding, as well as administration of IEPs (individual education plans), etc.  And as mentioned above, our current set of K-3 standards are developmentally inappropriate for K-3 children anyway. So, we’ll put more kids into a no-win situation.  All in all, there is no compelling reason to require Kindergarten attendance.

*Senators on the Senate Ed Committee:

Senator Henderson - dhenderson@le.utah.gov

Senator Davis - gdavis@le.utah.gov

Senator Fillmore - lfillmore@le.utah.gov

Senator Grover - keithgrover@le.utah.gov

Senator Hillyard - lhillyard@le.utah.gov

Senator Millner - amillner@le.utah.gov

Senator Reibe - kriebe@le.utah.gov

Senator Stevenson - jwstevenson@le.utah.gov

**Representatives on the House Ed Committee:

vlsnow@le.utah.gov

susanpulsipher@le.utah.gov

mballard@le.utah.gov

dnjohnson@le.utah.gov

blast@le.utah.gov

csmoss@le.utah.gov

jeffersonmoss@le.utah.gov

leeperry@le.utah.gov

vpeterson@le.utah.gov

mariepoulson@le.utah.gov

adamrobertson@le.utah.gov

swaldrip@le.utah.gov

christinewatkins@le.utah.gov

Rep. V. Lowry Snow (R), Chair 

Rep. Susan Pulsipher (R), Vice Chair 

Rep. Melissa G. Ballard (R) 

Rep. Dan N. Johnson (R) 

Rep. Bradley G. Last (R) 

Rep. Carol Spackman Moss (D) 

Rep. Jefferson Moss (R) 

Rep. Lee B. Perry (R) 

Rep. Val L. Peterson (R) 

Rep. Marie H. Poulson (D) 

Rep. Adam Robertson (R) 

Rep. Steve Waldrip (R) 

Rep. Christine F. Watkins (R) 

No on HB118: Just Say No to Legal Bullying Incentives

Contact the Utah Senate Education Committee Members TODAY (Monday, Feb. 18) and ask them to VOTE NO ON HB118.  Please be courteous, put NO on HB118 in the subject line, and write your own letter.  Please do not copy and paste.  They meet at 8am on Tuesday. 

Senator Henderson - dhenderson@le.utah.gov
Senator Davis - gdavis@le.utah.gov
Senator Fillmore - lfillmore@le.utah.gov
Senator Grover - keithgrover@le.utah.gov
Senator Hillyard - lhillyard@le.utah.gov
Senator Millner - amillner@le.utah.gov
Senator Reibe - kriebe@le.utah.gov
Senator Stevenson - jwstevenson@le.utah.gov


#UTPOL #NOHB118

HB118: Incentives for Statewide Assessment Performance is sailing through the state legislature.  The federal government wants 95% of Utah students (and their subgroups: ELL, Special Ed, etc) to take the former SAGE, now RISE/ASPIRE tests as part of compliance with ESSA (remember that federal legislation that everyone said would RETURN power to the states.  Ha!).  

So, in order to help with that federal compliance piece, we want to "help" Utah parents make the "correct" decision, and give them all kinds of reasons to have their kids submit to the federal requirement.  In order to "incentivize" (aka make you comply "voluntarily"), the Utah legislature would like to allow teachers to give course credit for a student taking the state test. A test with no validity, reliability or predictability, that only 15 people have been allowed to see some portion of, but hey, the feds want it, why wouldn't parents want to go along?  

The reason for this is, in part, to not lose federal dollars under ESSA.  However, there is NO RISK of losing federal dollars, and ESSA specifically states that it protect parent rights to opt out:

1111(b)(2)(K): “RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARENT RIGHTS.—

“Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.”

Some concerns with HB118:

1. Every year, I receive many letters, private messages, texts, and tags on facebook posts from parents who have seen their children bullied for being opted out of state testing.  One young lady, who was quite shy, was told that instead of taking the SAGE test, she would be required to present an oral report in class about why she was opted out of SAGE.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Children are having their parents' ideas and opinions on this subject denigrated in class in front of other students.  Without exception, my children have been told, every year, by different teachers in different classes, that their parents do not understand and are uninformed as to the value and benefit of the state tests.  Do we really believe it is correct to undermine parental authority and to alienate child from parent all so a student will contest their parent's decision about a state test?  Is state testing really that important on any level that it demands the mockery of a parent's decision about the best interest's of their child?  Agree or disagree with opting out, mocking a child's parent is completely inappropriate, especially in a state that states a parent is legally the primary person responsible for a child's education and that the state should be "secondary and supportive."  It is currently illegal to incentivize this behavior, as well as to give rewards for testing.  Why would we want to make it legal?

2. Special Ed students (other than the 1% most cognitively disabled) are required to take the state test for their age and not for their developmental level. For example, an 8-year-old who reads on a 1st grade level would take the 3rd grade test.  Because these are "computer -adaptive" tests, some people, mistakenly, believe that they will "adapt" to present First Grade material to the 3rd grader taking the test.  This is not correct.  The 3rd grade test contains only variations on 3rd grade material. So, the child reading at a 1st-grade level, will either just hit submit through the entire test (best case) or will struggle (no time limit) to try to understand things far above her ability.  This will be demoralizing and serve absolutely no purpose. The teacher, parent and everyone else already knows the child doesn't read or do math on a 3rd grade level.  What other information would be gleaned from subjecting this child to that test?  Additionally, I have received reports from Special Ed teachers who have been told they are not to let parents know their children can be opted out. There is great pressure placed on Special Ed to get that 95% participation rate, since they are one of the groups mentioned specifically in the federal law.  Many parents and teachers of students with special needs are greatly relieved when they realize their child can be opted out, under state law, without (currently) any negative consequences to their child or their school.

3. No money at stake.  Utah, originally, requested a waiver from the feds for the 95% participation rate, due to our state law.  Since the feds rejected this waiver, HB118 was introduced to up our participation rate from 94% to 95%, proving that Utah is only a vassal state to the master that is the US Department of Education.  However, in an October State Board of Education meeting, the Board Members were told no money was at stake, and we only need create another line item in our reporting (posted on our website, not sent to the feds) to show the federal calculation along with the state calculation.  Additionally, for those (estimated at 5) schools who fall into the bottom 5% of Title 1 schools due to lower participation rates, the State Board can decide what "remediation" if any is necessary. This way, the state doesn't spend money to "remediate" schools that don't need remediation because their only "flaw" was having more kids opting out than what the feds like.  Here is information from the October State Board meeting on this subject, from Board Member Alisa Ellis: https://youtu.be/nSdQ0jkhiqc

It would be well worth your time to watch the entire segment but if you don't have time here are a couple of places that are critical.Beginning at 6:25-As our opt-out rate increases above the 95% participation threshold, the federal government requires that we change our calculation. In our board meeting the Superintendent estimates about 5 schools would be affected in the state.We would look at the lowest 5% performing schools in the state and then the change in calculation would only occur if any of those schools had more than 5% opt out.It's also important to note that we aren't even required to send the calculations to the Federal government. We simply have to run a report and post it for public consumption.Beginning at 17:50 -I asked if our opt out numbers continue to climb if we are at risk for losing federal $$$. The answer was no.
More information on opting out, nationally, can be found here: http://www.fairtest.org/federal-law-and-regulations-opting-out-under-essa

Write the Senate ed committee members and your senator, as well.  Then share this with every friend and neighbor who wants to maintain parents as primarily responsible for their child's education and to keep bullying of kids who opt out illegal.

No on Question1 and School Board Races| A Philosophy

Please vote NO on Question 1!  There are so many reasons why, but the most important is that it sets a very dangerous precedent.  I'll also discuss the school board candidates below [Spoiler: State Board 9: Avalie Muhlestein and Julie King in ASD 1 (Westlake HS area)].  Please study and be informed before casting your ballot.

NO ON QUESTION 1: A Dangerous Precedent
Question 1 is a polling question.  To my knowledge, we have never had an opinion poll on our ballots.  So, instead of paying lobbyists to lobby the legislature or to get signatures for a ballot initiative, you are being used by an organization that was unable to accomplish their objectives by either of those options.  If you can't change laws the regular way, and you're rich and famous, you try to find a way around the normal lawmaking process. Co-opting citizens to pressure lawmakers is now a thing.  

Question 1 doesn't change A SINGLE THING. But the proponents HOPE the legislature will increase gas taxes, and then play a shell game to get SOME of that money into K-12, (as well as Higher Ed and Roads and money for UDOT. Shhh!  Don't tell anyone that part.  It isn't as emotionally appealing as grade-school kids.)  Legislators also know that GAS TAX CANNOT be used for Education under our Utah Constitution (hence the shell game).   If lots of people vote yes on Question 1, then the Question 1 proponents can browbeat legislators into passing, supposedly, their version of legislation that they were unable to get signatures for to get on the ballot. (Of course, politics being what it is, there is no guarantee that what we end up with will look anything like what the proponents are selling.)

But we want more money in K-12 education!  Do the ends justify the means?  Never!  Why are legislators wary of raising taxes? Because the legislators must represent their constituents and run for re-election.  Gas taxes negatively impact those who are struggling, working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and those who live farther away in rural areas than those on the Wasatch Front.  Legislators in those areas would be motivated to discuss and debate ways in which their constituents will be less impacted.  However, the majority of people in Utah live on the Wasatch Front.  So, Question 1 Proponents assume the majority of Utahns will support Question 1.  If you and your neighbors can feel good about "helping kids" (and college students and roads), then who cares if we make those who can least afford the gas tax increase suffer?  Majority rules.  And tyranny by the majority is becoming the way to get your pet policies passed into law, especially if you're rich and can spend tons of money to influence an election.

The solution: Donate RIGHT NOW to our Alpine District Foundation.  Don't wait for the legislature or Our Schools Now or a ballot initiative.  You can donate to:

•  the district as a whole, 
• an entire school (look to donate to our specialty schools like Summit, Polaris, Horizon, or Dan Peterson), 
• a program: band, drama, history, or 
• directly to a classroom at a given school.  

Your donation is tax-deductible and will go exactly where you want it to go.  You can also donate supplies or other materials as well.  Want to donate a set of trombones to the band?  You can do that.  And what's better than just donating directly to our schools?  You don't force others to spend more money on a gas tax that will help pay for roads and college students.  Imagine if those who have spent MILLIONS to finance the Question 1 ads had, instead, donated that money to their local schools!  (P.S.  For those in other districts, you have a foundation too!)

For more information on my concerns with Question 1, click here to see my video.  (Side note: did you know Utah spends the largest percentage (40%) of its budget on education, more than any other state in the country?)

In the future, if Question 1 succeeds in changing state law, mark my words, it will become the method of choice for those with time and money to circumvent the average person's voice. Just a reminder that checks and balances and separation of powers are the bedrocks of our freedom.  Direct democracy: going to the majority of the people and using them as the big stick to beat the legislators up with, violates those principles and disenfranchises those who don't have the time, money or power to object. This is an unraveling of the checks and balances that prevent that other "golden rule"--the person with the gold, makes the rules--from destroying freedom.  Success on Question 1 doesn't bode well for freedom in the future.  Please VOTE NO on QUESTION 1, and I promise you it doesn't mean you hate children.

School Board Races

State Board:
I, personally, like both District 9 candidates for State Board.  However, if you voted for me because of my support for traditional math and my opposition to Common Core, you will want to support Avalie Muhlestein.  I appreciate her outside-the-box vision for education, and her desire to get rid of so much state-level accountability that sucks up time, money, and other resources that could be returned to the local level to pay more for teachers.  At the end of the day, we have state-level accountability because we don't trust our local people and our local teachers.  I want to trust our local people and get the state out of the accountability and data collection business.  I recommend you read through her platform and her issues, and consider a donation to Avalie's campaign.

Alpine School District:
The West area is the only race for ASD where there is much discussion and debate (see below).  For the other 3 races, I predict Amber Bonner (my area--ASD2), Sarah Beeson (AF--ASD3), and Ada Wilson (W. Orem--ASD5).  I had actually hoped there would be more debate, discussion and involvement in these races.  But, unfortunately, very few people are willing to run for school board. (3 seats are up in 2 more years, so start thinking about public service.)  While it is often a thankless job, our society is stronger when people are willing to step up to the plate and serve their community in elective office.  I'm grateful for all those who have thrown their hats into this ring.

For those in my area, I will be voting for Amber Bonner. Amber is very active and involved, has kids still in the schools, and asks questions.  She thinks things through, and wants, more than anything, to have smaller class sizes.  And she find ways to support teachers.  I think Amber will do an excellent job as our representative.  And most importantly (to me, at least), Amber listens to different perspectives.  And even if you see things differently, Amber knows you can still "care about kids." (Our inside joke.)

In ASD 1 (Westlake area), again, I, personally, like both the candidates.  But, my endorsement goes 110% to Julie King (see here and here).  Julie is a tireless advocate for parents and for finding ways to make things work for those kids who just don't fit neatly in the "box".  Instead of trying to find ways to make everyone the same, Julie is actively facilitating parents finding the perfect match for their individual kids in our system.  Julie is a "doer".  She has been a District Community Council rep at our special needs school out west, Horizon.  On one of her first visits, she realized they had serious problems with the entry doors.  She took it upon herself to find a way to get those doors fixed. Julie is supportive of fixing math, getting better standards (not CC or NGSS), expanding Gifted and Talented options, securing Data Privacy, and PARENTAL RIGHTS.  My only regret about not running again is not being able to serve with Julie on the board.  We have served together on the State Board's Data Privacy Commission, and she always has such interesting insights from her experience in Social Work, with the Juvenile Justice system, and as a Foster Parent.  Whether you are in her voting area or not, please consider donating to her campaign.

Tax-rate increase hearing: August 14, 2018

This Tuesday, August 14, at 6pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E., American Fork) the Alpine School Board will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing.  This is where you, the taxpayer, can have an opportunity to be heard about a tax-rate increase for this year's budget.

The perspective of most everyone in education is that if the amount isn't all that big, then it shouldn't be an issue.  In fact, bond votes and tax increases are proclaimed, nationwide in school board conferences and publications, as evidence that taxpayers are "supportive of public education."  If you oppose a bond or any other sort of tax increase, you don't care about kids and certainly you don't want them educated.  (In fact, some of the conferences have "how to" courses on increasing funding in education.  There is no discussion about what to spend that money on.)  In fairness, for the most part, I think Alpine School District does a decent job with our funding and budgeting. And the intentions of everyone involved, I think, are good.

Here's what you need to know.  Feel free to skim the non-italicized parts for the main points.

1. Utah Law requires the amount of money the districts (or cities or counties) receive from year to year to remain the same, excluding growth. 

So, if we received $100M one year from all the property in ASD's boundaries, then we should receive $100M the next year from those same properties PLUS any additional property taxes from any new developments that came into being that next year.  

How this works: If the total amount of all the property in ASD increases in value, then the tax rate decreases automatically to generate the same amount going to the district.  If the total amount of all the property decreases in value, then the tax rate increases automatically. 

An example.  Numbers used are for explanation purposes but are not accurate.  The tax rate is much, much lower.  And the examples are, admittedly, very simplified.
Year 1: Total property value : $100M. Tax rate: 1%. Taxes generated: $100M x 1% =  $1M.
Year 2: Total property value: $90M. Tax rate:1.1%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $90M x 1.1% = $1M.
Year 3: Total property value: $110M. Tax rate: 0.9%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $110M x 0.9% = $1M.


Truth in Taxation: If in Year 3, the district would like to keep the tax rate at 1.1% or even increase it, so as to generate more than the $1M, then a Truth in Taxation hearing would need to occur.  At the 1.1% rate, this would generate $1.21M instead.  

Rather than following the economy like most other states, that when values increase, the taxes go up and vice versa, ours is the opposite. When the economy is struggling and values are down, the tax rate automatically increases and you are paying a larger percentage in property taxes than you were.  But there is no hearing on this.  It just happens.  When the economy is good, you pay a smaller percentage in taxes.

2. If the tax rate goes down, the district can hold a public Truth in Taxation hearing to increase that rate.  This is what we are doing on Tuesday.  The interesting part of this is that we only have these hearings, arguably, when the economy is strong.  When the economy is weak and values are down, the rate increases but without a public hearing.  So the vast majority of the population is less concerned about a rate increase because they are doing well.

Sadly, under our current tax system, the people who are most harmed by this are those whose particular circumstances make them struggle economically while prosperity reigns around them.  They might be those on a fixed-income (who, if elderly or disabled, do get partial waivers for property taxes), young people and young families, just starting off in life, and military families, for example.

3. The legislature has created an incentive for districts to increase property taxes. The state matches local property tax with state funds, up to a certain amount.  If the tax rate goes down, the state continues to match at the higher rate for up to 5 years.  This creates an incentive for the district to increase the rate at least once every 5 years.  The legislature may claim that they don't raise taxes, but they incentivize the local school districts to do it for them.  It's a win-win for the legislature.  More money in education; no accountability for raising taxes or creating a tax system where in hard times your tax rate just happens to go up without anyone commenting or caring.

Going forward, it would be even easier for the district to just regularly increase the rate every year, that way the increase is much, much smaller, and fewer people will complain.  Doing this yearly, the perception will be that we aren't increasing the taxes very much, and the side-benefit is that people get used to having a Truth in Taxation hearing every year. It becomes as big of a deal as watching paint dry.   

4. We support tax-incentives over multiple decades for big, well-connected companies, like Facebook.  Currently, those range in the area of $18,000,000 per year. (See pg. 181: here.)

Yes, the argument is that without these tax incentives, nothing would ever develop.  But, giving the tax incentives over more than 5 -10 years enters into the realm of predicting the future.  It is difficult for the average person to justify a tax incentive for a big, well-connected corporation, but then come back to taxpayers and ask for a few dollars more.  What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  If we need more money today, then we probably shouldn't have approved those tax incentives all those years ago.  With a growing community like Utah County, I think we would be hard-pressed to assume that all the development in our communities wouldn't have occurred without these tax incentives.  In the short-term, that may be true.  In the long-term? I seriously doubt it.  Tax-incentives, if you think such a thing should be done, should be limited to 5 or 10 years.  Anything more than that is just robbing future generations of school kids in order to appease the power-brokers of today.  Facebook gets to live here tax-free for 35 years.  You and I aren't so lucky.

5. Increased Tech and Coaching Funding vs More Teachers and Smaller Class Sizes.  Our district/board's priorities don't seem to match those priorities of the people.  Repeatedly, when talking with parents and taxpayers, their biggest concerns are wanting smaller class sizes, traditional math (not Common Core/Investigations/Inquiry-based math), and limits on screen time.

Instead, partly due to legislative incentives and partly due to education conferences, everyone (it seems) in the state and the nation is accepting the narrative that without technology, kids will not be able to function appropriately "in the 21st Century."  So, in addition to the millions that ed tech companies stand to make, everyone thinks that educational technology is the Silver Bullet of education--probably a lot like Baby Einstein videos from a decade or so ago.  (Side note: Silicon Valley execs are the exception. ) Have you seen your kids on tech?  Are you worried they won't pick it up without explicit training and exposure to it?

Also, there is a huge push toward Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)/21st Century Skills, nationally, as opposed to academic content. What that means is participation and attitudes can be seen as more important than whether you know history or math facts.  To our credit, our teachers are being trained to make SEL as important, not more important, than academic content. But, while teachers have always, naturally, included things like participation, honesty, and a can-do attitude as a by-product of their teaching, to focus on those things necessarily removes the focus from reading, writing, and math.

Our current budget includes expenses for hiring more Technology and Instructional Coaches to train teachers to use tech and these other methods (Project-based, Inquiry-based, etc), as opposed to using those same funds to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  The argument is that if the Coaches make our existing teachers better, then it's a more efficient use of our time.  One school has had great success with an Instructional Coach.  So, if that model holds, then similar improvements should be seen when expanded across the district's nearly 90 schools. 

Our budget also includes funding for more technology.  As our schools go through our 21st Century implementation, iPads and ChromeBooks are included at the ratio of 1 device for every 2 students.  Sadly, parents don't really have an option for a tech-less school system. And in light of all the negative results of too much screen time, I think we are setting our kids up for lots of problems (sleep issues, moodiness, depression, etc.  See here, here, and here.) by adding to the already ubiquitous screen exposure.  Not to mention, the increased difficulty parents now have in making sure kids do their homework (and don't get distracted), limiting screen time, and knowing what their kids are studying and how they're doing, if everything is online.  

Many people think a small increase in funding is appropriate.  The real question is what do you think? How should that increase be used? Will you be willing to stand up and state what your priorities are for our school district?  Hope to see you at the hearing on Tuesday!

Survey: School Grading

Create your own user feedback survey

HB215--CSE: No One's Child is Safe While the Legislature is in Session

Disclaimer: the topic of this blog post is mature but it is necessary for parents to be properly informed about their children's education.  Comments will not be accepted for this post.

Mark Twain famously said, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session."  He should have added children to the mix.

The most pressing issue, in my opinion, is HB215.  This modifies state law to allow for greater latitude in teaching children sexuality education (also known as Comprehensive Sexuality Education or CSE) which, as it has been implemented in other states, goes far beyond biology and medical facts. HB215:

 1) decriminalizes providing IUD's and abortion services to minor children without parental consent and
2) REMOVES some common-sense prohibitions from school curriculum guidelines in K-12.

For example, current law includes the following that will be removed should this law pass.

1. Stressing the importance of abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases. *
2. Instruction is not allowed to facilitate or encourage the violation of any state or federal criminal law.*
3. Local school district material is not currently allowed to go into "how to", including erotic behavior, etc.**

Our current state law allows for abstinence-based instruction, not abstinence-only.  It is also Opt-in, meaning parents have to agree to let their children participate.  Parents also are able to review the contents and in many cases are invited to attend.  To see the current FAQs from the State Board website, click here.  These FAQs indicate what is CURRENTLY being taught.  Everything proponents of CSE and this bill state, are already being taught and discussed.

The media is trying to portray our current instruction as being too prudish and not providing students with accurate information.  A poll asked Utahns if they preferred an ***abstinence-ONLY approach versus a comprehensive approach.  No definition of what these two terms meant was provided. Most people approved of the 'comprehensive' approach.  But it most decidedly didn't ask if instruction in erotic behavior should be included in K-12 school curricula.

For information on how CSE is being marketed here and used in other states, please download this PowerPoint.  If you look at lines 136-144, lines 191-197, lines 220-240 and lines 260-26 in HB215, you will see what state law is being changed that will now allow CSE curricula as outlined in the PowerPoint.  The worst part is that CSE downplays the risk factors that lead to unwanted pregnancies and STIs.  In the interest of providing a 'more comprehensive' sexual instruction to our children, we are doing them a grave disservice by downplaying the risks (both physical and emotional) that accompany sexual activity.

The job of the schools is not to promote a view of society absent reality.  Our job should be to present the facts that our children will need about this important topic.  Everything else, parents can choose to present at home.

Additional resources:
Talking Points on HB215: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzUjUSlTes-4XzNOTzVHZnZiQjg

War on Children video (10 min or 35 min documentary):  http://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/

1 hour presentation by Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D. on a CSE curricula being implemented in Ontario, Canada.  About 19 minutes in she compares the instruction on smoking and alcohol to CSE and then provides medical information that most people didn't learn in school either.  Note: This is what CSE should actually mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YvYPD56-U


* [(b) (i) That instruction shall stress:]
137          [(A) the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity
138     after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases; and]
139          [(B) personal skills that encourage individual choice of abstinence and fidelity.]
140          [(ii) (A) At no time may instruction be provided, including responses to spontaneous
141     questions raised by students, regarding any means or methods that facilitate or encourage the
142     violation of any state or federal criminal law by a minor or an adult.]
143          [(B) Subsection (1)(b)(ii)(A) does not preclude an instructor from responding to a
144     spontaneous question as long as the response is consistent with the provisions of this section.]

** [emphasizing abstinence
192     before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibiting instruction in:];
193          [(I) the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior;]
194          [(II) the advocacy of homosexuality;]
195          [(III) the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices;
196     or]
197          [(IV) the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage;]

***Utah law allows for an abstinence-based approach, not abstinence-only.  So, the poll was disingenuous to begin with.

Mission Statement and Murdock Canal: Jan 3, 10, 17 Meetings

The two top issues for Board meetings this month are the Mission Statement will be addressed at the Board Retreat on Tuesday, Jan. 17.  And a resolution supporting the Murdock Canal road construction from 4800 West (Highland/Cedar Hills by Harvey Blvd) to 100 East (Alpine Hwy in Highland) will be voted on.  Board Agenda for Jan. 10 is here.

Mission Statement

The mission statement is "Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy."  Seven years ago (yes, time flies) there were concerns about the mission statement.  The first concern is that our country is a republic, not a democracy.  (For a good video on the difference, go here or see the embedded video above.)  Democracy is a concern because it implies that the common good, as determined by the majority, outweighs the rights of the individual.  Other concerns had to do with John Goodlad, whose Moral Dimensions of Teaching, formed the basis of the mission statement in Alpine School District.  In reading Dr. Goodlad's books (The Moral Dimensions of Teaching and Developing Democratic Character in the Young), I found quite a few ideas that didn't square with my understanding of individual, unalienable rights discussed in the Constitution.  I think it is safe to say that Dr. Goodlad is focused on creating a more socialistic society in America than currently exists, and he hopes to do so through education in the youth.  I'll admit this is a very controversial situation.  But that's the point.  Our previous board had discussed finding a mission statement that would be less controversial and would appeal the the vast majority of our taxpayers and patrons.  If you have suggestions for the mission statement, you are welcome to email the board members or make public comment at any of the Board meetings.  The next meeting is tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 10 @ 6pm.  (You will want want to come a few minutes early to sign up.)

Murdock Canal Road

For years, a proposed East-West road has been proposed near the Murdock Canal in Highland.  Highland City is planning on building this road.  However, due to certain legal requirements and the proximity to the Utah State Developmental Center, the State Legislature must give its approval for this new development.  The City Councils of Highland City and American Fork have passed formal resolutions in support of this construction.  Cedar Hills has voiced its support for this construction project as well.  On Tuesday, Jan. 10, @ 6pm, the Alpine School Board will consider a resolution in support of this project, as well.  I, personally, am in support of this project.  Those involved want to make sure that all parties are taken care of, while allowing an East-West corridor that facilitates quicker times to AF Hospital without using SR-92.

Non-Discrimination Policy and Property Purchases

Also, a discussion about possible changes to our non-discrimination policy will be addressed, and several property purchase resolutions. To read the policy proposal and the resolutions, download the "Meeting Documents" found here.)

Summit Energy Proposal
A proposal to obtain Natural Gas through Summit Energy instead of Questar for our secondary schools is also on the agenda.  The proposal shows a significant cost savings on an annual basis.  Summit Energy presented to the Board on Jan. 3, 2017.  You can listen to the audio here.  (Additional Media->Board Meeting start around 8min in: http://board.alpineschools.org/2016/12/21/january-3-2017-board-meeting/)

A Thankful Heart Is the Greatest Virtue: Informed and Involved

'A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues.' --Cicero

I want to start by thanking all of you for your support throughout these past 6 years for the principles that I have tried to stand for.  It was especially felt during this past legislative session with the numbers of calls, texts, and emails that were sent to our legislators.  I am grateful to all of our legislators, even those I vehemently disagree with, for taking the many hours of time and energy and the mocks and scorns of the populace that they are oath-bound to represent.  But I am even more grateful to you, the many moms and dads, everyday people, who are willing to take a little time out of your day to defend the family, protect parents' rights, and demand that parents and teacher decide what knowledge is of most worth.

I am writing to once again enlist your aid: To Run for Public Office or to Support Another Who Shares Your Principles.  You can FILE to run up to THIS THURSDAY, March 17, at the County Elections Office (in Utah County, that's in Provo).

The point of running for office is about the principles that you are willing to stand up and defend. Do you want to defend the family?  Do you want to defend individual freedom?  Do you want to support parents and teachers deciding what knowledge is of most worth to pass along to our children?  If so, you qualify.  The goal of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' is that the people are the ones who are involved, overseeing it and running it.  If you haven't served as a state or county delegate, if you haven't attended a caucus meeting, if you haven't filed to run for office, think seriously about doing so.  You are who we need in the country, not those who seek office for power or glory, but who seek it to maintain freedom and liberty.  

FIRST, for school board.  Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next."  I would argue that who is elected to Local and State School Board positions could have a greater impact on the direction of our country than the president.  (And as the Founders understood it, it really should.)

Alpine School District, ASD4 (PG/Lindon), ASD6 (Lehi), ASD7 (East Orem).  The only incumbent seeking re-election is Scott Carlson in ASD6.  I do not believe that any office should go uncontested, and certainly, any office where those running do not share the vast majority of your principles.  If you have ever thought, "Why don't we have anyone I like running for office", that is a call to arms.  You should be running.

In our predominantly LDS culture, we are used to taking upon ourselves leadership responsibilities and rotating that responsibility around to different members of the ward family.  In a similar manner, our Founders felt that public office should be rotated around to the different community members as a sense of civic obligation and personal duty.  It was assumed that most people would be willing and able to serve 2 - 4 year terms, and then return home to their families, their farms, and their livelihoods. Politics was never supposed to be a professional occupation.  And if you've ever wondered about why we are headed in the direction that we are, I would emphatically argue it is BECAUSE average people don't run for public office.  Many years ago, William F. Buckley, paraphrasing, said that he'd rather be governed by the first 535 names in the New York Phonebook than by the members of Congress. And yet, THAT is exactly what our Founders envisioned: everday people, representing their neighbors, their families, and their friends.

Opportunities for public service are just that, opportunities for service.  Here are several that I would ask you to seriously consider.

1. Attend your party's caucus meeting on March 22.  (An excellent article on the caucus is here.)

2.Vote in the Presidential Preference Poll (this IS the presidential primary for Utah).
3. Run for State or County delegate at your precinct or support someone who shares your principles.
4. Run for Public Office yourself, unless you find someone who shares your principles.  Then campaign on their behalf.  (Money is good, but time is better.)

Some Public Offices that are up for election this year. For more information, go here.

Local:
ASD 4, 6, and 7: If you are in one of those areas, think seriously about running for office.

County:
State Senator
State House
Utah County Commission, Seat C


State:
State School Board (My specific area is not up, but half the State Board seats are.  In UT County: 11, 12, and 13)
State Attorney General
State Auditor
State Treasurer
Governor/Lt. Governor

Federal:
US House of Representatives (all seats)
US Senate (1 seat)
President/Vice-President

Most people are unaware that every two years 100% of the US House of Representatives and 33% of the US Senate are up for election.

In Utah, 100% of the State House of Representatives and 50% of the State Senate are up for election.

We, the People, have the opportunity to completely change the direction things are going every two years, or to reinforce what is being done.  And sometimes we reinforce it by our apathy.

Informed and Involved is the only way to maintain freedom.  And it isn't once every four years by voting for president.  The most important elections are those closest to you!  It is our responsibility to be informed and then to be involved.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,.. it expects what never was and never will be.  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

More Possible State Laws: Parental Rights Under Attack

Update: Feb. 16, 2016: The House Ed Committee voted against passing HB164 out of committee and on to the rest of the House.  Please thank Reps Fawson, Coleman, Lifferth, Christensen, Noel, Gibson, and McCay for their Nay votes!  And thanks to all of you who wrote letters and to those who commented during the committee hearing!

Our parental rights are being challenged as our legislature is in the midst of its 45-day session.  What there is no dearth of is possible laws regarding education, and some of them directly impacting your responsibilities and rights as a parent.

It's important to remember that the role of government is to protect rights, to not to 'create common good' or to 'facilitate good outcomes and the best of intentions.'  Please remember what Road is paved with good intentions.  A quote usually misattributed to Voltaire reads, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'  In making laws, it is important to put yourself on the receiving end of the penalties of the law.  If you are supportive of SAGE testing, please imagine if the tests were changed and you were not supportive.  How does someone else not having their child take the test impact your ability to raise your child as you see fit?  It doesn't.  This is what freedom looks like.  It isn't all of us agreeing all the time on what is 'good' or 'right' or 'best.'  It is allowing others 'maximum latitude' to live their lives in such a way that you don't interfere with them and they don't interfere with you.

HB164: Opt Out of Testing is being limited
Please email and, if possible, attend the committee hearing, tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016 at 2 pm in House Building, Room 30.

This legislation does three things, all of them wrong.

1. Allows the end-of-year testing (aka SAGE summative) to be used for student grades and grade promotion (going from 3rd to 4th grade?  Not if you fail this test.)

2. Limits parents' ability to opt out of all software/testing packages purchased by the state, like everything on SAGE (summative, formative, and interim), as well as things like Utah Compose.  Anything where the state contracted directly with a vendor, then state is directly responsible for data privacy, terms of use, and so forth.  Since there are no state privacy directives, the current law allows parents the ability to just avoid any 'questionable' data-mining programs provided by the state.  HB164 will still allow you to opt out of end-of-year tests, but all the others will result in possible negative consequences for your child.

3. Allows the State Board to create incentives for students who take the test.  Imagine, for a moment, that you have decided to opt your child out of SAGE testing.  Your child's best friend takes the test and gets a reward.  Your child, of course, KNOWS that his/her friend got this reward for taking the test.  This creates a positive home environment that supports you as a parent in what way?  I'll just leave it at that.

Here's a link to the bill.  http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0164.html

(One note: underlined words are what the bill is adding.  Strike-out words are those being removed by the bill.  All the other words are what is currently in the law and will be left alone.)

Email addresses for the House Education Committee:
blast@le.utah.gov; vlsnow@le.utah.gov; lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov; kimcoleman@le.utah.gov;
brucecutler@le.utah.gov; seliason@le.utah.gov; justinfawson@le.utah.gov; fgibson@le.utah.gov;
ehutchings@le.utah.gov; dlifferth@le.utah.gov; dmccay@le.utah.gov; csmoss@le.utah.gov; mnoel@kanab.net; mariepoulson@le.utah.gov;

Please keep your remarks respectful and to the point.  My letter is listed below.

Additionally, Alpine's Board has asked our Assistant Superintendent, Rob Smith, to assist us at the legislature with bills that we all support or oppose unanimously, as well as, to articulate the principles upon which we have unanimity.  You can keep abreast of things that the Board supports, as a whole, at this link on our district's website.  http://alpineschools.org/legislature/  Since our board is quite diverse, I believe it is very important and impactful when we all agree on an issue.  We have, a few times in the past, weighed in on legislation, but are trying to do more.  Mr. Smith has an excellent rapport with our legislators, and I am pleased that he was willing to assist us in this manner.  It has been determined that Mr. Smith will discuss the board priorities and principles, but will not state that the board is supportive or opposed to any legislation in which we are not 100% agreed.  I believe this is an excellent position for us to take. 

SB38: Unanimous opposition by Alpine School Board
One of the bills that our board unanimously opposes is SB38, school funding amendments.  While many of us are supportive of charter schools, SB38 creates a scenario where the legislature decides charters need more money, and then takes it from the district schools.  As a result, the board will raise property taxes to compensate.  I expect to give a much broader description in the near future.  But, suffice it to say that I find it wrong for one entity to essentially delegate the consequences of their actions to another, e.g. make the local boards raise property taxes while the legislature washes its hands of it.  There are many more transparent options, if you find that charters need more money.  (On that, not everyone is agreed, including me.  From what I can tell, Alpine gets less money per student than the charters we would be giving our money to  Again, that's wrong.  While the charters in our area may get less money than the districts statewide, they will not be getting money from those districts, just Alpine.)


The following bills are ones I oppose that are generally not supported by the full board, but probably not as heavily opposed for their content as just for the idea of why should we have more programs with more strings instead of giving the money to the local districts and charters and letting us decide, based on your input.

SB67: More Family Replacement/Data Gathering Infrastructure
This bill creates an infrastructure for data gathering, and a three-way partnership for funding between private entities, the state, and the feds.  I'm sure there will be no problem with determining who is to blame for any failures when there is no real consistent overseer. (Sorry, for my sarcasm.)  I will go into more detail on this one, as well.  But the data collected, that includes physical and mental health information, can be shared with pretty much anyone who can claim to be part of an educational program.  Additionally, some of the 'pilot' schools and United Way are already asking parents to sign away their privacy rights under the Federal privacy act (from 1974) FERPA (which is mostly meaningless to begin with).  Health data is usually protected by a much broader law, called HIPAA.  At the very least, even if you believe that this program will be awesome (it sounds very nice and will help), student medical information should be protected at the higher HIPAA level.  The bill should be amended to require this level of protection. 

HB277: More technology grants
This bill 'allows' local districts and charters to apply for state grants for technology. More strings because the state can't trust us at the local level: board members, parents, and teachers, to do what they want.  So, they will call it locally-led, since we can propose what we want to be in the grant, but it does limit what we can do with it.  We have to apply for the grant (more paperwork and administrative overhead), administer it with the appropriate 'accountability' to the state, and next year, it might all go away, so it can't be anything very long term.  On the flip side, they could just take that money and put it on the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit), which is how the state pays each school per student that they educate.  The money on the WPU, the more flexibility we have as a board to spend the way you would want.  The biggest issue in our district seems to be class sizes and building new schools for growing areas.  In short, it is possible that the best use of that money in Alpine would be for reducing class sizes, not giving everyone a Chromebook to be used in a class of 35.  But if HB277 passes, then the state has decided that there is no circumstance where this money should be used for anything other than what they think it should be used for.  The sad thing is that chances are we would use it the way they want, for the most part.  But it is NOT local control (despite what was said in the committee meeting).  It's the same as allowing you the ability to walk anywhere you choose...within the 9x9 confines of a prison cell.  And even if you never would want to walk outside those 81 sq.ft., there is no freedom in not being able to. 

Oh, and there is some evidence that this program nicely matches the technology initiative that is being pushed by the White House.  One parent's well-documented concerns to this affect were dismissed with a question about whether or not President Obama had helped write the bill.  You don't have to have the feds write something for your "plan" wherever it came from to 'fit' what they are proposing (good or bad).  A substitute motion to prohibit the use of federal funds or incentives in funding this program was rejected in the committee. 

Following legislation during this period is very important for maintaining our freedom and our liberties.  The best place to go is: www.le.utah.gov.  You can search bills by number, sponsor, or topic.  Every bill will go before a committee.  If passed out of the committee, it goes before the full body (either House or Senate, wherever the bill originated).  If it passes, then it goes to the other chamber's committee.  If it passes, then to the full body of that chamber.  If it passes, then on to the Governor for his signature.  So, there are many steps along the way in which we can weigh in, and help support or prevent legislation.  You voice can make a BIG DIFFERENCE with our legislators.  And be aware that so many other organizations have lobbying arms, including the Utah School Boards Association, Tech Firms, etc.  There is no lobbying organization for you.  So, be involved and make your voice heard.

And when it comes to your rights as parents, I leave you with the wise words of our Former Supreme Court Justice, Dallin H. Oaks, ruling in Re: JP in 1982.

The rights inherent in family relationships—husband-wife, parent-child, and sibling—are the most obvious examples of rights retained by the people. They are “natural,” “intrinsic,” or “prior” in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them, as they presuppose the right to own and dispose of property....

The integrity of the family and the parents' inherent right and authority to rear their own children have been recognized as fundamental axioms of Anglo-American culture, presupposed by all our social, political, and legal institutions. “To protect the [individual] in his constitutionally guaranteed right to form and preserve the family is one of the basic principles for which organized government is established."... This parental right transcends all property and economic rights. It is rooted not in state or federal statutory or constitutional law, to which it is logically and chronologically prior, but in nature and human instinct....

We conclude that the right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect is so fundamental to our society and so basic to our constitutional order that it ranks among those rights referred to in Article I, Section 25 of the Utah Constitution and the Ninth Amendment of the United State Constitution as being retained by the people... 

Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society. There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children. Much of the rich variety in American culture has been transmitted from generation to generation by determined parents who were acting against the best interest of their children, as defined by official dogma. Conversely, there is no surer way to threaten pluralism than to terminate the rights of parents who contradict officially approved values imposed by reformers empowered to determine what is in the “best interest” of someone else's child.

******************************************************
My letter to our House Reps on the Education Committee asking them to OPPOSE HB164.

Please vote no on HB164 for the following reasons.

 

1. It allows end-of-year state tests to be used for individual student grades or grade promotion with no proof that the tests are valid or reliable or should even be used in such a fashion. 

 

2. It creates possible incentives for test takers, so the child who is opted out can watch those who did take the test (like the state told them to) get rewarded.  Does this not create a situation where a child is to be shown how 'wrong' their parent's decision was?  Furthermore, the child becomes the pawn between the schools and the parents.  It's really 'blackmailing' parents to 'encourage' them to allow the testing, so their child doesn't think they are mean and won't let them have the reward for test taking.  Since state law says that parents are primary and the state is secondary and supportive, I fail to see how this is supportive of the parent's wishes. 

3. It limits parents' ability to opt their kids out of anything but the end-of-year tests.  There is not demonstrable protection for student privacy and any sort of understanding as to how student data may or may not be used, as per the contract with our testing vendor, American Institutes for Research (AIR).  Not allowing parents to opt out of all versions of this testing, does not resolved the original data privacy concerns that parents have.  Those still exist.

If you'd like more information, please see below, or feel free to contact me at your convenience.

 

Even if you think there is no concern with SAGE testing, we should allow parents who do have concerns to protect their children as they see fit.  To limit this ability is to limit parental rights and to place the wishes and 'needs' of the state above that of the parents, and the individual child.  This is wrong, even if done with the goal of improving education. 

Thank you so much for your service to our state.

Wendy Hart

Alpine School Board, ASD2: Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills

More information:

1. SAGE testing has never been validated.  In 2014, I and two of my fellow board members, Brian Halladay and Paula Hill, requested information from then associate superintendent Dr. Judy Park regarding validation and privacy (see below) concerns, and received no response.  The state of Florida, which purchased its test questions from Utah, attempted to do an independent validity study on Florida's version of SAGE.  There is some question about the validating organization truly being independent, there is some interesting information that we should be aware of.  Florida currently requires passage of this test for graduation and certain grade-level promotions. However, one of the conclusions was that Florida's test was not valid for individual student grades or promotions. 

I appreciate that teachers are being evaluated based on test scores.  I believe it is wrong (even if the test was valid) to use this as part of the teach evaluation process for many reasons that I won't cite here.  But teachers are adults.  It is more wrong to penalize minor children who don't pass the test and potentially impact them for the rest of their lives. 

Also, setting the proficiency scores was a very subjective process that began, not with an analysis of the content of the questions, but with a straight list of which questions had more right answers.  (The analysis of some of the questions, came later.) The assumption was that those with the least right answers were the most difficult.  That may be true in most cases, but it could be equally true for confusing or invalid questions, as well as those with incorrect answers.  Then the test was 'normed' to make sure there was a 40 - 45% proficiency outcome to match the NAEP and ACT tests. So, we created a target where 60% of the kids would be considered failing, and then we hit it.  If we know that our goal is to have 60% of the students fail, and we set the bar that way, how is it fair to then allow those scores to be used in student grades?

2. This sets a very dangerous precedent where the state is allowing parents to be set up to play the 'bad guy'.  Creating a possible rift between parent and child, even in the short term, should never be something the state sanctions, let alone agrees to. 

3. The SAGE platform comprises three types of testing: a. summative (end-of-year), b.interim (same or similar questions to end-of-year, not seen by the teacher, but can be given multiple times a year for practice and benchmarking), and c. formative (a software system that includes a databank of questions that teachers can select and/or contribute to for chapter tests, daily assignments).  Of the three types, the formative tests are the most insidious for data collection.  The VP of AIR, Jon Cohen, told a member of the parent panel that every mouse click and latency measures (how long it takes for the child's actions), as well as the actual submitted answers are being collected on the formative platform.  There is a huge amount of data being collected on every child that logs on.  Our contract does not limit what can or cannot be done with that data outside of their not sharing it with a 3rd party without the USOE's (not a parent's) consent.  AIR has over 20 subsidiary organizations that are involved in policy-making recommendations and other functions at the national level.  There would be no limitation placed on any of them or their employees on how that data was used in their own internal research or analysis.

My main concerns with the SAGE tests are: 1) there is no validation to show that what we are told is being tested, actually is what is being tested. 2) no guarantee of data privacy. In 2012, the US Dept of Ed changed their privacy regulations, allowing any personal student data to be shared with a 3rd party without parental knowledge or consent, as long as it was for an 'educational program.'  It's important to note that the term 'educational program' is undefined.  As a database analyst, by trade, it is important to note that there is so much data being collected on our kids in education, as well as other areas, these days, that it makes data privacy almost a mythical creature.  If I, as a parent, choose to limit that data collection on SAGE, I should have that right. 

 

The summative tests are the only type of SAGE testing that is being retained for parents to opt out of without consequences.  I spoke with Sen. Osmond (the previous sponsor and author of the current language in state code) about these three types of SAGE testing, and it was his intent to allow parents the ability to opt out of all three versions of SAGE without naming it specifically.  At the end of the day, we are, again, assuming that the state knows best, and parents should not be allowed to protect their children as they see fit. 

Veto SB235: Unless you only want black cars...

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.
--Henry Ford

As Americans, we pride ourselves on our independence.  We like to do things our own way, in our own time, and for our own reasons.  We have become a model to the world in education and achievement, in large part, due to the freedom we have had to learn and grown and progress, not as a group, but as individuals. 

Indicative of this individuality has been our education.  We have had a large system of mostly independent schools and districts educating each generation as their parents saw fit.  But, it has always been based on parents and teachers and the community, a bottom-up approach, not a top-down diktat.  SB235 effectively removes local control and determines all success, all failure, rewards and punishments at the state-level.  We drive different makes, models and colors of cars.  Our children are more varied than our cars.  And yet, we assume that a top-down mandate of testing and meeting those testing demands will make education better, more vibrant, and more colorful.  Just like our driving will be improved if we only choose black cars.  It works only if you already wanted a black car to begin with. 

With the passage of SB235 S2 this past legislative session, we are taking the bad ideas of No Child Left Behind and making the state law.  So while our State Board is trying to get out from under NCLB, and our Congressional delegation is looking to repeal and replace NCLB, our state is going to adopt those bad ideas on a state level.  The Eagles sang, "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." I thought they were talking about Hotel California, and now I find out it's bad federal ideas in education.  We have one chance in the short term to reverse this. The Governor can still veto this bill.

SB235 sounds like a nice idea.  You take the bottom 3% of our schools and you turn them around.  Who wouldn't want that?  No one.  The problem is in how you determine those 3% and what turning them around means.

First, the 3% is determined, in large part by SAGE test scores...low ones.  My fellow board member, Paula Hill, has said, "Whatever is on the test is what will be taught."  This is a reality. It's well known corollary is "That which is measured improves."  If we measure it on SAGE, we will get better at doing it.  The problem is that we may not want that improvement.  The measurement may be invalid.  SAGE has had one year of pilot-testing.  It wasn't even adaptive the first year.  But everything is riding on the assumption that this test actually is measuring what success in education looks like. 

Note: A school is  put into turnaround status as long as it's test scores are in the lowest 3 percent.  Once in turnaround status, a school will be subjected to one or more of the following: 1) hiring an outside consultant, maybe taking money from other schools in the district to pay for it, 2) turning control of the school over to the State, or 3) turning the school into a charter school.  All this, based on the assumption that SAGE is valid, reliable and adequate to our community's definition of success for our children.  All three of those assumption, in my opinion, are faulty.  For more information on my concerns with SAGE testing, see here. 

Second, we like to make sure that the people have a voice in all aspects of government.  Education is no exception.  So, we elect school boards to oversee what is taught in our public schools.  Charter schools, in Utah anyway, have parent boards that oversee what is taught.  Under this legislation, any 'turnaround schools' can be taken from a local system of governance and put under either the State Board or turned into a charter school.  It's important to understand that, more than likely, this charter school will not be the parent-led charter schools that we are used to in Utah, but those with a track record for 'high performance' that are seen in many other states.  Charter school companies are popping up all over.  So, we will be turning our schools over to for-profit companies that do not have any accountability to parents and taxpayers.  Under this legislation, there will never be more representation at a local level in our schools than there is now.  In a period of 33 years, if no school is selected for turnaround status more than once, we can eliminate all local representation of our schools in the state of Utah.  

Finally, saving the best for last, the US Dept of Ed has a Turnaround schools program.  And even before the governor has signed this into law, our state has been assigned to a federal 'team' for overseeing turnaround schools.  It seems to be true that we are not coerced by the feds when it comes to legislation; we adopt their reforms voluntarily.

This bill has widespread opposition.  All members of Alpine School Board are opposed to SB235 and asking the Governor for a veto.  The Utah School Boards' Association, the Utah PTA, the Utah Educators Association, Utahns Against Common Core, and Locally-Directed Education are all opposed to this.  This is a case where various ideologies all see that taking power away from parents, teachers, and locally-elected representatives centralizes and standardizes what and how our children are taught.  Quoting one of my favorites, Jefferson said, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun ? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..." (1816)

Please contact the Governor at 801-538-1000 or http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html ASAP.  Ask him to veto SB235.  My understanding is that he will act toward the beginning of next week. 

More references below:

1. My email to the governor
2. The USBA talking points
3. Utahns Against Common Core article on SB235


1.My letter to the Governor:

March 20, 2015

Dear Governor Herbert,

As a member of the Alpine School District Board of Education, I ask you to veto SB 235 S2—Turnaround Schools. While the intent of the legislation is admirable, to improve our public schools, the method, the measures, and the outcomes are problematic.

1. SB235 has the potential to remove all local, elected representation in our public schools within 33 years. Since every year, three-percent of the lowest performing schools may be placed under state or charter control, there will never be greater elected representation in our public schools than there is today. If the same few schools fall into 'turnaround' status every year, then we will just be spinning our wheels with this legislation. If, however, the 'turnaround' is 'successful' in improving test scores, then in the space of about 33 years, every single school in the state will be in 'turnaround' status which will remove all local representation. Parents want more say in their schools, not less.
2. SB235 will standardize and centralize control to a single criteria set at the state, not local, level. The determination of success or failure is based on the school grading system. Anything that is taught or not taught in our schools will be determined by how it is tested at the state-level. As parents and teachers seek to help our children develop their own talents and skills, our education system is removing those who know the children best, and making top-down diktats as to what success in education actually means. Also, our major measure of 'success' is the SAGE test. This measure has only been pilot tested for a single year, and legislation for two years has been motivated by parents wanting their children to not participate in this metric. As such, this metric is highly questionable, and schools with parents who have the most concerns will be greatly impacted by this legislation. With the concept of parental opt outs, this metric is less than reliable. It could also be used to coerce parents into allowing testing against their wishes. As a representative dedicated to preserving parents' fundamental rights to oversee and direct their children's education, I see great potential for problems in this area.
3. And, finally, SB235 implements the Federal US Dept. of Education's Turnaround program at a state-level. While our State Board members and our Congressional delegation are looking at ways to remove federal control via No Child Left Behind (NCLB), this legislation effectively takes some of the most egregious parts of NCLB and implements them as state law. We are not being coerced or bribed by the feds; we are adopting their programs willingly. In this instance, at least, we become not a bastion of independence and sovereignty, but a vassal to a federal department with no accountability to parents and voters.

My overriding concern is the lack of local accountability to parents and taxpayers, much of which comes through the ballot box. I do not believe that education can or should be standardized. Parents want more say in what their children learn and how they learn it, not less. Centralizing what defines success at the state-level, effectively removes parents, teachers, and their elected representatives from having any authority to customize education to the individual student's and a particular community's needs.

For these and may other reasons, I, respectfully, ask you to veto SB 235 S2.

Sincerely,

Wendy K. Hart
Mother of 3
Highland, UT
Alpine School Board, ASD2


2. USBA concerns with SB235
Reasons to request a veto:
1. SB235 S2 represents a major loss of local control in working with schools that are in need of improvement, and, at a time when graduation rates across the state have been steadily increasing due to the great work of local boards, administrators, teachers, parents and students in each community in the state (an increase of 7% since 2011). See: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Graduation-Dropout.aspx and http://www.sltrib.com/news/1941455-155/utah-graduation-rate-up-2-percent Local boards and their communities surely understand their schools better than anyone at the state level or any outsider hired by the state. And yet, while board members, administrators and teachers can certainly learn from one another and from outside experts and mentors, the mandatory use of state and local money for an outside provider denies local control. Let’s continue to allow our local communities to work on their student proficiency and graduation rates, as they have been doing so well in the past few years.

2. The first use of additional money in education, in our view, should go directly to the student for individualized or tiered interventions, such as tutoring online or after school, to help the child overcome learning deficits. Instead, the first intervention the state wishes to put forward in sb235 S2 is to hire outsiders, to use vital school funding of $8 million for advisory personnel rather than for direct services for students. We cannot imagine this is what the Utah taxpayer has consistently expressed in their desire to see more money directed to their public schools. We believe the taxpayers want more money focused on the children, not on outside advisors.

3. The bill in substitute 2 was not heard in a House committee meeting and thus, did not get the vetting necessary to fully understand the effects of the bill.

4. The bill was written chiefly by non-educators and potential recipients of the resources contained in the bill http://cicerogroup.com/ and could easily be seen as, in part, a vendor bill.

5. The bill may override the intent of, and direction of use of funds, as governed by local boards of education and even of School Community Councils. The bill has total disregard for districts that already prioritize resources based on need, per child, not necessarily per school. It may also introduce wider disparity and inequity, as, on line 138, local districts are required to take funding away from other schools and their students to enhance funding for the identified school(s). This is so unfair to students in other schools, some of whom may be struggling as much academically as are students in any identified school. This might well lead to legal challenge.

6. Sustainable change is the goal of any school improvement, but as the grades in the school grading program can be readily changed through “teach-to-the-test” strategies rather than substantial improvements in student understanding/proficiency or school performance, the bill misses the mark of teaching/learning excellence.

7. The metrics used in this bill are relatively-based rather than based on meeting certain standards, i.e., lowest percentage and grading points are relative to other schools and not grounded in meeting a quality standard.

8. Rewards are not connected with quality changes based on meeting a standard, they are achieved by relative outcomes that can be gamed for certain ages, school sizes, and student body composition (see lines 336-351).

9. The consequences for failure include less able and less successful alternatives, and have an inordinate focus on turning traditional schools into charter schools. There is no empirical evidence on student achievement in Utah or nationally to support creating more charter schools. A policy that recommends conversion to a charter school for any reason seems to be built solely upon politics, not upon data-driven decision-making or what may be in the best interest of a community’s school.

10. A low performing school is defined as one in the lowest performing 3% of schools statewide (line 80), and thus, there will always be 3% of low performing schools in the state, even if all schools were to meet a certain quality standard. And, as consequences outlined in lines 316-323 are heavily weighted toward charter schools or for-profit management companies that oversee many Utah charter schools, if the lowest 3% are moved into such a consequence each year, how soon will Utah’s community schools be taken over by for-profit charter management companies instead of locally elected officials? Schools that are run by for-profit companies and no longer under the management and accountability of elected officials, may also no longer be as responsible to the public at large or to the parents they serve.

3. Utahns Against Common Core Opposition
http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/sb235-effectively-federalized-utahs-education-system-and-federalization-is-anti-family/