What I'm Supposed to Say and What I'm Not Supposed to Say

What I'm Supposed to Say

On Oct. 8, the Will of the Board supported approving approximately 80 clubs in our Senior High Schools.  Each of the clubs had followed the rules outlined in our board policy.  The board policy on clubs was reviewed just this year (not by the full board, but by a committee).  Our job, as board members, is to make sure our policy is complied with.  The Board approved all the clubs.  It is not rubber-stamping to approve the paperwork of all clubs that complied with our policy. 

I can appreciate that you might have some concerns about some of the clubs or else the process, but the board has a policy, and it was followed.  The Will of the Board is that we go forward and we support these clubs and the decision of the Will of the Board.

How did I vote?  What's important is the Will of the Board has been made known.  We had vigorous discussions and then a vote was taken.  Now is the time to be supportive of the direction the Board has taken.  If we were to have well-known differences of opinion on issues, then we would not be a support to our district, and our employees would not be directed properly knowing there might be some differences of opinion.  As such, highly-effective boards debate and discuss, and then go forward in full support of the Will of the Board.

That is what I'm supposed to tell you.  That is what I have been trained and lectured to tell you. That is the acceptable thing to say.  And I should not elaborate further.  I certainly shouldn't put what I'm about to write on a blog or a facebook post.  If you felt the need to know more, you could check out the audio and the minutes of the past board meetings, if you knew they existed and where to find them.

What I'm NOT Supposed to Say

I voted against the clubs.  You may agree; you may disagree.  But, now you know.  I have lots of reasons why.  So, rather than tell you how we all need to support the Will of the Board, I will let you know what my main concern is: lack of representation. 

Most people believe their elected officials are elected to represent them.  Most people think that 'board approval' implies the board members looked at individual clubs and applications and thought, "Gee, that's a good idea.  Let's do that!"  That's what approval means.  Most people think there will be disagreements on a board, and that a majority will win.  As a result, the minority will lose.  But, to be transparent, even the Supreme Court issues majority and minority opinions.  Our Board is not supposed to do that. 

The reality is "board approval" means we rubber-stamped the paperwork required by our policy.  The students and faculty sponsor(s) jumped through the appropriate hoops, and we "approved" their hoop-jumping.  Our approval was not based on merit, debate, or community values.  Our approval was a foregone conclusion, a mere formality. 

I believe the Board is elected to represent you, the taxpayers of this community.  I also don't see a single, homogenous group of people with unified beliefs on every issue.  As such, you are better represented by a diversity of opinions, ideas, and issues.  It is assumed that anything voted on by the board requires community/public approval.  We are approving on your behalf.  If we just rubber-stamp, we only pretend there is "taxpayer" approval. 

As parents, you need to be aware that just because a club is "approved" for the school, you should not lower your guard on any level.  Please understand, the board has no role in vetting or whittling down applicants.  It doesn't matter if the reason is the threat of a lawsuit, questionable charter activities, or anything else.  If the board doesn't have the option to vett anything, we should not be voting on it, period. 

I was told we couldn't look at each club individually, on the merits.  If we were to pick and choose, we could be sued for discrimination. I have been involved in situations where I was told one thing relative to legal counsel, and then found out, with greater research and citizen involvement, the reality was quite different.  Because of this experience, I requested legal counsel meet with the Board.  That request was denied, but the administration spoke with legal counsel instead. 

Who Is In Charge? 

This denial goes to the heart of the matter.  What is the role of the school board?  Is the Board there to represent the public's will to the district or does the board represent the district's policy to the public?  Of course, politicians would skirt the issue saying it's not a mutually-exclusive question.  A balance of the two approaches is helpful with an emphasis on one or the other, depending on circumstances.  But which method is most important and why?

I believe the board should represent the will of the people, even if that goes against the will of the government administrators. We create the system and direct government to work on our behalf.  I believe we should have a trust-but-verify relationship.  This is not to say that we don't hire good people.  We do.  But the role of the board is oversight, and verification of that trust.  To trust, without formal verification, is not the role of the Board.

In the example of approving clubs, I recognize our administrators have addressed similar issues in the past, and, with renewed conversations with attorneys, felt they had a good handle on things on their end.  My fellow Board members, apparently, felt their issues were resolved, based on district administration directives.  But for me, the verification issue comes with my ability to field the questions you, the public, might have.  The questions I would ask are not the same as those our administrators or even my fellow board members would ask.  You should be represented by the various questions and perspectives of the entire board, not just the majority. 

So, you must decide what the school board's role should be.  This is your school district.   How much representation do you want?  How much oversight should the Board exercise?  Yes, the district will function smoothly if the Board is supportive of everything the administrators do. But sometimes the best system comes with debate and resolution, give and take, and it isn't always smooth. I believe the best possible public education system is achieved when the foundation is built on involved, informed citizens, not smooth-operating government administration.

Without the benefit of legal counsel, I came to our meeting feeling we were being held hostage with the threat of a lawsuit.  In short, we must accept ANYTHING that is placed in front of us.  I still don't know if the board could have rejected some of the applications, based on state law, or requested amendments to them.  But, in the spirit of transparency, here were some of my additional concerns.

1) Should a board approve a club charter that states it will report school or district policy concerns to a third party, such as the ACLU?  Are we really comfortable approving a club that, by my read, may essentially be looking for ways to sue the school or the district?  I certainly want all legitimate issues brought to the appropriate parties on a school or district-level.  But are we legally obligated to empower a club to set us up for lawsuits?

2) I am concerned about approving a club that might pose harm or a health risk for some students.  In speaking with a First Responder in suicide cases as well as a medical doctor, I have been warned that some discussions of suicide lead to more harm than good.  It is a very difficult subject to tackle without the appropriate training.  Mentioning suicide in the club application requires a much more thorough vetting, in my opinion.  What will be discussed?  Who will be overseeing and directing the discussion?  What is their certification?  How much, if any, time will be devoted to this topic?  Even though, it's an important topic, I am not comfortable without greater assurances that we are following the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."  If I can't assume no harm will come to our students, I can't approve it. 

3) Breaking state law, by allowing students without a signed parental-consent form to attend club meetings, was another issue.  It was expressed that hopefully this discrepancy would be resolved by the club members. 

A system produces exactly what it's designed to produce.  If you don't like the idea of your elected "representatives" rubber stamping administrative decisions, you have the power to change it.  You need to ask the people who represent you to not be afraid to do so, no matter the consequences.  This is either representative government or it is a rubber stamp. Don't fall for political double talk about it being both. Ultimately every school board election is about who is in charge. If the people do not assert their rightful dominance with proactive, transparent representatives, the void is filled by well-meaning, smooth-operating government administrators.  You get to decide which it will be.

How Do I Find the Truth? Follow the Money and Read the Grant Documents

I have had many people say, "I've heard so many conflicting stories about ________________.  How do I find out what is really the truth?"

When it comes to government, one of the best ways is to read the grant applications.  Common Core and the idea of 'Common Standards' has been involved in a handful of formal, legal documents, all tied to money from the Federal Government.  It stands to reason that IF you are receiving money for something, the best way to determine what will ACTUALLY happen, is to read what the money is supposed to be used for.

This is horribly boring reading, but many people involved in researching Common Core have spent the time looking at 1) The State Fiscal Stablization Fund (SFSF), 2) The Race to the Top Grant (RTTT), 3) The ESEA (No Child Left Behind or NCLB) Waiver, and 4) The Statewide Longitudinal Database System (SLDS).  All four contain four things:

1. Common Standards and Assessments
2. Improving Teacher Effectiveness (not really professional development, but tying teacher pay to the tests.  Teachers now have high-stakes testing, as well.)
3. Improving Low-performing schools (really shutting down neighborhood schools and turning them over to a 'higher-level' for management--without elected representation--a semblance of 'privatization')
4. Pre-K to College and Career Data Systems

Here is a MUST READ analysis of the Race to the Top Grant Application.  I don't care what side of this argument you are on, it is important to know WHAT we were, and are, committing our state to.  You may feel the merits outweigh the strings, but shouldn't we proceed with full knowledge of both?

http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-common-core-memorandum-of-understanding-what-a-story/

This is where 'rigorous' and 'internationally benchmarked' come from.  They are the promises ("benefits") the Federal government is making to the states about what the Common Standards WILL BE.  Note what "state-led" really means in this application.  This is how we know WHAT we were being expected to do.  Even though Utah didn't win any money with Race to the Top, it outlines the details of what Utah was signing on to when it adopted Common Core and all the rest.  Because we have received money for the remaining 3 grants, listed above, we are still tied in to all those same requirements.  (See a nice graphical presentation here:
http://prezi.com/embed/icbma_8t5snu/?bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=1&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0&features=undefined&disabled_features=undefined)

Since the RTTT Grant application was over 400 pages long, I doubt any of the State Board members read it, at the time.  They were placing trust in their staff and their administrations.  However, they were committing you and me to what they signed.  It, nicely, outlines who has really been in charge in this 'more rigorous standards' process. 

No Man Can Serve Two Masters: School Grading/Accountability

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)

School Grading is touted as a way for parents to find out how well their school is doing. Obviously, we pay lip-service to parents being primarily responsible for their child's education, but we have higher levels of masters who take that power away from parents. If the teachers, schools, and student are graded based on how well the student does on a test, then everything is dependent on that test. I believe all those involved in setting standards, assessments, and school grading in this state are intending to have the best outcomes available for children. However, it is important to stop and look at the principles behind these issues and what the end results most likely will be. Who is the master we will serve?

A prime case in point is the presentation we received as a Board on Aug. 13 about the new school grading and teacher evaluation programs.   (A great overview can by found online, courtesy of the Alpine Parent Society.) These programs have been put into law by the legislature, but are also requirements of the Federal Waiver from No Child Left Behind. I could go into the mathematical flaws in the system, the necessary faith in the test creators, and the fact that testing drives what is taught in the classroom. However, the biggest issue I have is who will truly have the power to determine what our children learn. If you realize teacher evaluations, school grades and student grades are all tied to the new state SAGE (Common Core) tests, you realize whoever writes and grades those tests affects every aspect of education in this state. Say what you will about standards, the practical application of it will be in the tests.
 

Here's an example. Some people have heard recently of the Toni Morrison book, The Bluest Eye. I have never read it, but the excerpts I've read put it, in my opinion, in the category of pornography. (You may disagree, but bear with me for the sake of the argument.) I have an acquaintance back East whose children have read this repeatedly in her private, Catholic school, not because the teachers and administrators agree with the book, but because selections from the book appear on the AP English test. In this case, the AP test determines what is taught in the classroom, even if it is completely contrary to the values and mission of a particular school.

Additionally, the federally-funded Common Core tests (SBAC and PARCC) are testing “process and communication skills over content knowledge”, according to one reviewer. Since our test-developer (AIR) is also developing the SBAC test, one wonders if our state tests will follow suit. If so, anyone who fails to teach the proper methodology, not just the facts, puts their students, their career, and their school in jeopardy. (An example of this from another state can be found here.) Testing is the way standards, curricula and teaching methods are enforced. 

Joseph Stalin is supposed to have said, “It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes.” Similarly, “He who makes the tests, controls the education.” The Master of our Education is the test-maker/grader. 

Parents can want certain things taught. Our laws and constitution can say how parents are primarily involved in their child's education. We can speak till we're blue in the face about how parents and local control of education are so important. But as soon as we tie everything to the grade on a test--a test parents have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over--we realize we have a different master. Instead, we must have complete faith in the test developers.  Have they created a fair, accurate system of measuring what we, as parents, want?  And if they do not, there is nothing we can do at a local level to change it. 

We think an end-of-year test will be testing fact, knowledge, and information. However, the emphasis of the SAGE (Common Core) testing is to test “higher-order thinking” over fact. Most parents want their kids to learn higher-order thinking. But what does higher-order thinking mean to the test developer? Benjamin Bloom, author of the well-respected Bloom's Taxonomy (used extensively in education) defines it this way,”...a student attains 'higher-order thinking' when he no longer believes in right or wrong.” (Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, p. 185) This is completely inconsistent with my motto on education: Truth vanquishes darkness. 

You cannot serve two masters. 

Education cannot serve the parents if they can't control the test.  Higher-order thinking cannot lead to the discovery of truth if it also means no right or wrong.  

In the end, who is the master of education in Utah? The state tests, brought to you by American Institutes for Research. It's not you, and it's not me.

*****************************************************
About 50% of the time, I agree with the Utah School Boards Association (USBA) on legislation. This is one of those times. We may not agree for all the same reasons, but we agree on the end result. Last session, the legislature passed SB271 on school grading. This is an update of a school grading bill from 2011. In response to the 2011 law, the State Office of Ed developed a process for grading schools, called UCAS. UCAS is mathematically flawed and, like every accountability measure emanating from the state, will take local control away. SB271 is opposed by the USBA because, while they must have some sort of school grading to get the No Child Left Behind waiver, they prefer the UCAS grading system. I think we need to get rid of it all. However, I will be at the press conference/rally the USBA is holding in opposition to the current version of school grading, SB271, on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. at the Utah School Boards Association (USBA) office at 860 E. 9085 South (East on 90^th South, just east of 700 East and the Canyons School District ATC buildings).  I'd invite everyone who is opposed to the enforcement Common Core via testing, or to centralized control over education to attend.

Just remember, we can't serve two masters. Until we reassert our rightful position, as masters of our children's education, education in Utah will continue to be subject to a master set up by those who are willing to fill the void we have left.

How Can I Have an Impact on the Direction of our District? Answers Here!

As school starts, I want to inform you about 3 opportunities for you to get involved.  I have lots of people say they'd like to be more involved, but other than PTA, what can they do?  Also, you want to have an impact in your child's education, but how much time does it really require.  Well, here you go.

1) I am looking for one volunteer to serve on the District Community Council for the Ridgeline/Timberline/Westfield area.  The DCC is the public input arm of the district.  It will require you to attend about 80% of the School Community Council meetings from those 3 schools, and then attend a meeting at the District Office once every two months to report on any issues from those 3 schools.  Please let me know if you are interested.  This is a great opportunity to have input, to communicate the local issues, and to provide feedback.

2) The district would like 3 volunteers from the 'empty nest' crowd to participate in a single evening focus group in September.  The aim is to find a way to better communicate and involve our empty nesters in the direction and focus of the district.  Please let me know if you are interested in participating.

3) And finally, the Alpine Parent Society is in full swing.  A few enterprising mothers have started the society to attend and report on Board meetings and any other important doings of the district.  It is on a rotating basis, and you only need to commit to 2 times each year.  Each meeting will be about 1.5 hours.  So, this would be a total commitment of 3 hours each YEAR.  This helps to increase the transparency of the board, and to allow the local community to have an impact.  Also, just because Parent is in the name, it really means any taxpayer in the district.  So, just like the empty nest coalition, you needn't have kids in district schools to participate.  Here's the link: http://alpineparentsociety.wordpress.com/  We had great success with this in Highland City.  I think the goal is to have a couple of people attend each board meeting.  But for right now, they just want to get people in the swing of things.  Please sign up today!

Thanks for your support!

Wendy

Aug. 6, 2013 @ 6pm: Hearing on Property Tax Increase!!!

Tuesday, Aug. 6, 6pm at the District Office, 575 N. 100 E., American Fork!!!!


Tonight is the final hearing and vote on the tax increase for the district.  While it is a minimal tax increase, scheduled to raise $1.5 M to replace the amount being sent to charter schools by the state, I believe that a tax increase is a measure of last resort.  While we can always find good things to do with that money, the question is whether or not we need that additional amount to fulfill our obligations.

As an example, during June's meeting, we purchased a piece of property from MATC for $1.4M.  This property may be used to move our Adult Services classes for those with disabilities from our Lindon facility to American Fork.  We could also use it to house our At-risk students' alternative High School.  In short, there are many potential uses, but nothing concrete at the moment.  So, do we need to now raise taxes from our patrons for the same amount?  Sure, we can raise taxes and replace carpets and make repairs.  But, we could also not purchase property and do the same thing.  For me, I would have preferred to wait on the property until we were more clear on its use before expending the money. 

Just because our district can use your tax money to do good things, just because it's not a lot of money, does that mean we have a moral imperative to take your money by force?  I think we are under a greater obligation to make sure this is the last possible course of action for educating the kids of our district before we come to you with our hand open.  Property taxes, as I've said before, are the most eggregious form of taxation.  You don't get more money as your property values increase, but you still have to pay the increased taxes.  This places a huge burden on people who are undergoing income difficulties.  There are waivers for the elderly and the disabled, but nothing for a young family that moved into their first home last year and then lost their full-time employment, or a military family affected by the sequester.  While I know we could use the money, I am not convinced that it meets the criteria of being the last, possible resort.  I think it is just simply a matter of wanting to get the amount back that the legislature sent to the charter schools.  I disagree with the legislature on this one, but I'm not comfortable making you pay for their mistake.  For me, showing up the legislature on the backs of our taxpayers isn't what good government means.

Policies: How did we change the district last week?

On July 16, we approved four policies for the district. I ended up voting against two of them, and I think I need to explain why.  To view the four policies go here and click on the 'Meeting Documents' link to download the file. The page numbers are listed below.  The Meeting Documents show the additional words in either red or underlined, with the exception of policy 4056, which has the new policy listed first, and the following page contains the previous policy.

The two I supported were the Fund raising (5148) (pg. 519 of Meeting Documents, see above) and Bullying (5181) (pg. 521 Meeting Documents) policy. Fund-raising simply added a stipulation that if a high school was going to have more than two fund-raisers, it would require written permission from the principal. I think it's fine for the Board to set a district policy limiting the number of fund-raisers but then allow some latitude for individual circumstances in a given school. Also, the Bullying Policy just added parental notification procedures as required by a change in state law. These two, for me, were pretty basic. 

The first policy I opposed was a change to the Wellness Policy (5520) (pg. 523). So, lest anyone says, "You don't like wellness," here's what I really think. I do support wellness.  I want our schools to support parents by not contradicting healthy habits.  I'm glad we strive to have balanced meals served in our cafeterias.  However, I'm not a fan of referencing Federal Law in local policy unless absolutely necessary. 

In 2010, the US Congress passed the "Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act". This is the law that requires schools to limit calories, based on age, and have every student take a fruit or vegetable, regardless of whether they want it or not. Of all the complaints we heard when school started last Fall, every one had to do with the new school lunch menus, all required by this new Federal law. Some of the consequences of this law have been an increase in cost for food, as well as disposal of all the food the kids aren't eating.   Additionally, kids complain about being hungry.  (Funny YouTube video: We Are Hungry.)  One of the concerns was that, for example, in Middle School, the 7th and 8th graders have a lower calorie allotment than the 9th graders. To handle this, you are given a particular tray color based on your grade. If you are in 9th grade, you can have a cookie. If you are in 7th or 8th grade, you cannot.  The idea that, in Middle School, caloric requirements can be determined by age is wrong.   At any rate, long-story-short, our proposed change to the Wellness Policy modified a few words and then referenced our compliance with the Federal Act. The question was raised whether the Act required us to change our policy or if we could just go along to get the Federal lunch subsidies without specifying the compliance in district policy. It was agreed that we were going to follow Federal Law because we are still taking the lunch subsidies. However, there is no reason why we need to enshrine Federal Law that comes with a large compliance price tag into district policy. For that reason, I voted against the changes to the Wellness Policy. Additionally, I requested that we see if there would be an easy way for parents to opt to pay full-price for their student's lunches should they so choose. Every student lunch is subsidized by both state and federal monies. I would be perfectly happy having my kids eat lunch at school from time to time, if I knew I was paying their way without any subsidy from any of my neighbors. I think this option should be allowed for those parents who feel the same.  I will follow up on this request and let you know. 

The second Policy was the Personnel Certified (Teachers) Goals and Objectives (pg. 527 Meeting Documents). The previous version of this policy was horrible (pg. 528), so the new version is a great improvement. However, there were two substitute motions to change a few of the words. The first was to state that updating the student grading system (currently Skyward) would be done regularly instead of weekly. This allows individual teachers and principals to manage large projects and individual circumstances with greater local control than at a large district level. I supported this change. I also supported a change to state that our educators accept, not support, the district Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals. Since there has been public concern with the Mission Statement that has not been addressed, I felt it would be inappropriate to ask our teachers to support something that a decent segment of our public doesn't support.   (I, personally, think we could find a Mission Statement with a much wider appeal to our constituents than our current one. I do not support our Mission Statement as it now stands. So, I don't feel comfortable having this 'support' as a basis for employment.) Board Member Paula Hill explained it this way. When visiting a country where head-scarves are appropriate/required for women, Mrs. Hill said she would graciously accept their custom and wear a head-scarf. However, she would not be willing to support the tradition. I agreed with this change, as well. However, because of the way the votes and the substitute motions came about, I ended up voting no on the final vote in order to state my support for the change from weekly updated to regularly updated. Even though, I would have liked the two changes, I find the new policy a great improvement over the old one and am okay with the compromise. But I still do not support the Mission Statement.

Finally, there will be a public hearing on the proposed tax increase on Aug. 6, 2013 at 6pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E. AF). I hope you will come and express your opinion. Please see my previous blog as to why your opinion makes a difference, even if the outcome may not go your way.

Audio: Every board meeting is recorded.  The audio can be found at the bottom of the agenda under the + sign.  As I write, the Study Session audio is available.  The Board Meeting audio should be available shortly.  You can find it here.

What Did They Used to Say About Common Core? Just Listen!

This video contains actual audio from the beginning of the Common Core standards discussion in Utah. Having listened to these meetings, I wanted to make sure some key points were readily accessible and available to everyone.

As human beings, sometimes it's helpful to go back to original sources instead of listening to talking points.  This information on the Common Core process is invaluable in providing insight from those who were there at the time. What was their perspective, and what was their focus?

Please take a few minutes to watch and to understand what was being said about Common Core from the very beginning, not the least of which was the Utah State Board Agenda Item: "National Common Standards".  Contrast this to the Utah State Office of Ed flyer which states: "Fiction: Utah adopted nationalized education standards that come with federal strings attached."  Then ask these questions:

 

What was the overriding reason for Utah joining in with a group that was developing national, common standards?

 

Was there any federal involvement, real or implied, that motivated the jump into Common Core?

 

With all the public involvement, who do you know who was involved in vetting the Common Core standards?

 

The answers you get may be different from what you are being told.

 

 

 

Links to audio files featured in the video:

 

May 1, 2009 Utah School Board Meeting, Agenda Item: National Common Standards

http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings/Audiocast/2009.aspx

 

June 17, 2009 Legislative Interim Education Committee Meeting

Quoted audio starts about 27:30

http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=17&clip_id=5624

 

July 18, 2011 Alpine School Board Training, select the first audio file, quoted starts about 27:14

http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=850