Phase 4 of the Bond: Promises Made on Faulty Data

Tomorrow, Oct. 8, 2019, the Alpine School Board will decide which two areas will see elementary schools built as part of Phase 4 of the bond.  In November, 2017, the Alpine School Board designated a new elementary would be built in Vineyard.  However, the projections used to make that decision were revised a year later a DECREASED by almost 400 students.  That made the "promise" of a new elementary in Vineyard, not as much of a "no-brainer" as it looked in 2017.  Here is my letter to the current board.  It is important to note, that every new board has the ability of reviewing and changing the actions of a previous board.  And certainly, if they have better knowledge and information, they are obligated to act, based on that improved knowledge.

**********************************************

Dear Board Members:

I know you are wrangling over the decision about what elementaries to add to Phase 4 of the bond for the meeting tomorrow.  I appreciate the difficulty of this decision and wanted to clarify just a few things.

1. Our previous board is not, legally, allowed to tie your hands, as the current board.  As new information and situations change, you are not only free to act in a different direction than what we planned, you are obligated to do so.  You are accountable for the knowledge and information you have now, regardless of what decisions we made in the past. 
2. The decision that we made in November, 2017 to designate Vineyard as one of the elementary schools was based on data that is no longer accurate.  In Nov. 2017, Vineyard was projected to be at 1,360, non-self-contained students by this year (2019).  By 2021, it was supposed to be at 1,523.  By contrast, Sage Hills was supposed to be at 1,070 by 2019 and1,136 by 2021.  Dry Creek was 1,102 by 2019 and 1,144 by 2021.  Currently, Vineyard is at 1,085. Sage Hills at 1,140.  And Dry Creek at 1,039.  The 2018 projections were more accurate by a large factor than the 2017 projections upon which the Vineyard “promise” was made.  Those numbers are much closer to the actual numbers for this year (which only makes sense), but the 2018 projections for Vineyard in the year 2021 went from 1,523 to 1,167.  This is a HUGE discrepancy.  Additionally, the Sage Hills and Dry Creek numbers are, roughly, similar between the 2017 projections and the 2018 projections, for both 2019 and 2021.  And, the 2021 projection for Sage Hills is already 4 students short of what Sage Hills has currently, in 2019. So, there was obviously a huge error made in the Vineyard projections upon which our board based its decision.  This information and the change in data must be incorporated into your decision, regardless of what we thought at the time.  This is why you were elected, to make on-going decisions, as new information presents itself.
3. I understand that many of you are concerned about keeping the promises that our previous board made to the citizens of Vineyard.  First, you need to know that the amount of time you’ve spent studying this issue is much, much greater than the time we took in making the original “promise”.  In point of fact,  I (and at least one other former board member) didn’t even remember this Vineyard “promise” ever occurring, until I read the Herald article and listened to the audio.  Granted, we go through a lot of issues, but I do remember the major decisions that took time, and effort, and energy.  To my recollection, this idea of specifying Vineyard as Phase 4 on the bond was not ever brought up in Superintendent Meeting, at least not one that I attended.  The placement of the issue on the agenda was one I discovered by looking at the agenda during the day or so before Board Meeting.  I have no record of having asked any questions outside of the Study Session or Board Meeting on this issue.  In short, I looked at the numbers presented and made my decision based solely on those, now obviously, incorrect numbers.  We were “promised” in our Board Meeting in November, 2017, that Vineyard would be the elementary with “the largest” population by 2021.  According to the projections, only one year later, that “promised” projection went down by nearly 400 students.  That discrepancy is the second point.  When the numbers are closer, as they actually appear to be, it’s a much more difficult decision.  This would have required a lot more analysis and discussion, than a few comments in a Study Session, then a 5 minute discussion in Board Meeting, and a vote.  Finally, based on the timing of the vote, it really did seem like we were designating Vineyard in order to appease the Hillcrest/Scera Park patrons.  And that’s fine, if you have the numbers.  But we didn’t designate any other elementaries for Phase 4 at that time.  And our numbers were much more accurate for our other elementaries.  It’s, as if, Vineyard was the only error in our projections.  I can promise you that if the numbers hadn’t been so widely out of line for Vineyard, I would not have been willing to make that determination at that time.  And certainly, if the numbers had been closer, I would have asked more questions and asked for more time.  My single vote wouldn’t have changed the board’s “promise”, but I am here to tell you, I hope you will not base your decision on my mistake.

In short, we made a “promise” with faulty data and without a lot of deliberation, discussion, or analysis.  We are not legally allowed to tie your hands.  Since you now have greater information and understanding, I ask you to take all the information into account.  If you are unable to diverge from what we, hurriedly “promised”, with inaccurate numbers, I shudder to think about other decisions that we made and the on-going implications.  You MUST be able to make a decision, without thinking about what was said in the past.  And, hopefully, without considering politics, only facts, numbers, and students.

Thanks for taking on this difficult task, and I hope you know if you decide against what I agreed to 2 years ago, I will be pleased that the system is working as it should.  And, even if you don’t, please don’t blame the hurried promises of our board for your decision.  Please own the decision, based on your own numbers.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart

November, 2017 Projections (2019 pg. 20, 2021 pg. 24)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4LZ8teFSo0femlIdzdESXY4c3c
November, 2018 Projections (2019 pg. 18, 2021, pg. 22)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2z1TYkIjIEONFV1djEtbnN5d28/view
Current Numbers (pg. 118)
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rOrnhPXSKu9gxOqoqpYMeMXZ2TYjEeU5

Where to build an elementary school?

There could be some lively discussion this Tuesday on who needs an elementary school more: the West or Vineyard.  At Board Meeting for Tuesday, Sept 10, 2019, the ASD board has a discussion item: Plan for Phase IV Buildings.  You can find the agenda here. The enrollment numbers can be found on pages 208-209 of the meeting documents here.

The fly in the ointment is that in November, 2017, after the board decided to consolidate Hillcrest and Scera Park elementaries in Orem, the board voted to put a new elementary in Vineyard as part of Phase 4 of the existing bond.  At that time, I asked whether or not the numbers supported this, as it was a couple of years out.  I was told that, yes it did.  I apologize that I didn't stand up more forcefully against promising something so far out.  But, as the numbers appear right now, Vineyard is large, but there are options.  Here are the current enrollment numbers for elementaries with lots of students:

Brookhaven: 1346
Sage Hills: 1152Black Ridge: 1141
Vineyard: 1103
Dry Creek: 1053
Hidden Hollow: 999
Harvest: 984
Pony Express: 965

If you notice, with the exception of Vineyard, all these schools are out west.  So, here's the thing.  Vineyard is near Orem and here are some numbers from schools in Orem (which, granted, are often, if not always, smaller than the ones out west).

Geneva: 305
Suncrest: 395
Aspen: 404Westmore: 463
Windsor: 570
Bonneville: 579

So, Vineyard's high numbers could be offset by changing the boundaries and moving some of the kids in Vineyard to surrounding schools.  There are options for Vineyard.  The other schools out west have no options for moving kids around because all their surrounding schools are also really full.  It seems like a no-brainer to me for the board to simply change the decision we made in 2017 (which is completely legal), and designate two new elementary schools out west to be the final elementaries built with the current bond.  Another bond is in the planning stages for the 2020 ballot.  But even if that passes, it would take an allocation from the board in 2021, and so, best case, another elementary couldn't be completed until probably 2022.  That means the west would continue to grow for 2.5 more years without any options other than the one elementary (which is definitely needed).  To me, it makes sense to alleviate Vineyard by changing boundaries and building 2 new elementaries out west.

Why would this not be self-evident?  Well, because Orem residents weren't pleased with the Hillcrest/Scera Park consolidation and wanted a promise on the Vineyard school.  The argument could be made that the board is going back on a promise made to those residents.  True, except the majority of the board has changed from 2017.  There are only 3 board members currently on the board who were there in 2017.  Plus, the reason why you have a board that makes decisions on an on-going basis is so they can address things, as they come up.  The reason why the 2 elementary schools were not named in the original bond proposal was because it's hard to project things more than a year or so out.  My "spidey-sense" should have gone off in 2017 to think that it would be at least 2 more years before these elementaries would break ground.  I should have voted no.  The other rumor is that if Vineyard isn't named as one of the elementaries on this final phase of the bond, then the Orem City Council might choose to break off and form their own school district.  In my opinion, if they want the higher tax burden of doing this in order to keep smaller, neighborhood schools, I'm in favor of them deciding to do whatever makes sense for them. And if not, then the board needs to stand by the numbers and the logistics as they are today, and not what we thought they'd be two years ago.

Please feel free to come to the board meeting at the District Office in AF at 6pm on Tuesday.  Public comments are always welcome.  You just have to sign up beforehand.

Goodbye but not Forgotten

Today is the last board meeting I will attend as your elected representative on the Alpine School District Board of Education.  To say it has been an honor but a difficult responsibility is an understatement.  I have been strengthened and encouraged by everyone's kindness and support throughout these past eight years.  And I thank you, more than many of you could ever know.

But having said that, this doesn't mean everything comes to an end and we drive away into the sunset.  This next year is every bit as important or more so than the last.  Who is serving in public office is nowhere near as important as what, We, the People do to inform that discussion and remain informed and involved.  I would like to ask those who are willing, can you attend a single board meeting out of 365 days in the next year?  Is that too much to ask?  4-5 hours out of 8,760 hours in 2019?  That's .06% of your time in the next year.  Is freedom, education and the future of our schools and our children worth .06% or .12% in that endeavor?  Let me know if you are willing to continue to be informed and involved citizens.  We have great people and teachers in this community.  Whatever the issues, we can improve them and solve them working together, not appealing to outside experts in DC or some Think Tank that stands to make a lot of money when they proclaim that our "education system" has failed.  A thriving educational system that partners with teachers, parents and the student doesn't make outside experts a lot of money, but it does educate the next generation, consistent with the values of their families and their communities.  This is only done when the individuals in this community step up and stay informed and involved.

There are so many things on the horizon, new health and science standards.  (The health standards are especially problematic, in my opinion.)  Math still being taught by cramming 4 years' worth of high-level math into 3 years (Algebra 1,2, Geometry and Pre-Calculus in 9-11th grades, IF you want to get to Calculus as a Senior).  What literature are our kids reading and obtaining their values from? How much emphasis on GRIT and social-emotional learning do you want in your schools, in a formal way, if any?  Do you want EVERY First Grader to learn to code?  How much technology do you want your kids exposed to in schools?  How will you, as a parent, manage their overall online activity when so much of the homework is now online?  If you have an opinion

, we need your voice.

I am grateful for the trust that you have bestowed on me.  I hope I have been worthy, in some small way, of that trust.  Thank you for your support.  As I have said before, you will never know how much your little notes, text messages, FB posts and treats have buoyed me up and given me the fortitude to go on.

My predecessor finished her final board meeting with these words: "When you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God."  I echo her sentiment and am grateful to have served.

Mt. Vernon, overlooking the Potomac River.

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!

Common Core IS NOT Dead, Board Goals, State Issues

A lot is going on in education.  Most importantly, tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 23, our Board will have a retreat to set goals for the district for 2018.  Please email me or reply on facebook with what goals you would like us to set.  (I can bring up to 2 goals, but I would like to see all your thoughts.)

I'm going to give you a brief summary of what's going on Locally, Statewide and Nationally in education.

Local:

1. Board Retreat, setting Board Goals.  Review of 21st Century Learning/STEAM schools.  It is the school district's plan to convert all of our schools into 21st Century/STEAM schools.  Right now, Cedar Ridge, Ridgeline and Highland (if I recall) in my area are all 21st Century Learning.  This means more project-based learning, less memorization, more technology and a focus on the 6 C's: Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Creativity, Citizenship, Character.  

I, personally, have grave concerns with more tech in schools, especially with the emphasis on character traits and values, as evidenced by the 6 C's and the national ESSA (replacement for No Child Left Behind) requirements.  More on ESSA below.  Here is an interesting read on Critical Thinking that I agree with.  https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

2. The Board set up a Local Building Authority last meeting to facilitate paying for the rebuild of Scera Park Elementary in Orem without raising taxes or going through a bond.  You can read more about it on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2018/01/local-building-authority.html

3. This is an election year.  4 Alpine Board Seats will be up for election this year, as well as 1 State Board seat in our area.  I would like to encourage everyone to take a moment and think seriously about running for office.  The 4 ASD Seats are: Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain (currently held by Paula Hill who will not be running again), American Fork (currently held by John Burton), West Orem (currently held by JoDee Sundberg), and Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills (currently my seat).  As always,  I welcome any and all to throw their hats into the ring.  Civil public debate is the BEST way to get the best ideas working for our kids.  The State Board seat is currently held by Joel Wright and covers most of ASD, except Orem and a small part out West.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires not just a few people involved, but all of us.  And the Founders expected that people would rotate their service in public office.  The deadline to file is mid-March.

State:

1. The State is close to releasing the new science standards for grades 5, 9-12.  Since the Grade 6-8 standards are a rewording of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), it is my personal belief that the Board will adopt, without hesitation, the NGSS for these grades as well.  I have many concerns about these standards, but the biggest one is that Utah currently scores higher on ACT science than any state that also tests 100% of its juniors, not just those who self-select as wanting to go to college.  (That means our scores will be lower, on average, than those states that let kids decide whether to take the ACT or not.)  We also score higher than the national average on the science portion of the ACT.  So, I'm unsure why we would adopt standards that show other states doing more poorly.  Not to mention that the math is almost non-existent, as are body systems, chemistry and physics.  Also, Utah's current science standards (except Grades 6-8) received a B grade.  NGSS received a C from Fordham Foundation.  You can read more by searching NGSS on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/search?q=ngss  Here's the video from when we adopted Grades 6-8: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/11/utahs-new-science-standards-national.html  The arguments are the same.  Please share with your friends and neighbors and ask them to contact the state board: board@schools.utah.gov to express their concern or their support.  If you are supportive, I would love to know why and where the NGSS has worked and by what measures it has worked.
2. The State's ESSA plan was rejected, in large part, due to our opting out of SAGE.  Rather than finding out why parents don't want their kids to take SAGE, the Board is looking at renaming SAGE.  They have hired a new testing vendor, Questar, to continue with the SAGE testing, but the terms of the proposal indicate we need to continue to use the same questions as SAGE.  So, new vendor, same questions, new name.  
3. Associated with that, the State Board is deciding how they want to handle the ESSA rejection by the Feds.  Please remember, when ESSA was being passed, everyone said that it returned Local Control of education to the states.  Those of us who opposed it said that it wouldn't.  What does everyone think now?  The options are 1) Ask the US Dept of Ed for a waiver for the opt out provisions, 2) Tell the Feds we don't want their Title 1 money and ask the Legislature to make up the difference in funding (my preference) or 3) Change state law to REQUIRE parents to submit their kids to SAGE testing against their will (Land of the Free?)  I have good reason to believe that if the State Board were to play their cards right, the Feds would be hard-pressed to hold back funding for the lowest socio-economic strata of kids in the lowest funded state in the nation.  But they'll try. 
4. The Legislature is in session.  1300 bills opened about education, if I remember correctly.  Please pay attention and email your legislators.  I'm sure there will be a desire to limit opting out of SAGE testing and other measures designed to limit parents in their primary role of raising their kids.

Feds:

1. ESSA requires a measurement for non-cognitive measures.  Just watch how everything will be focused on things like GRIT and perseverance, as well as technology.  The "nice" thing about technology is that you can have second-by-second information about your kid sent to a computer program to determine if your kid has the right attitudes, values and beliefs.  The desire to have knowledge is over.  "The most controversial issues of the twenty-first century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and who shall determine them. The first educational question will not be 'what knowledge is of the most worth?' but 'what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce?' The possibilities virtually defy our imagination." (John I. Goodlad) 
2. Secretary DeVos declares the "Common Core is dead!"  It's not.  Not by a long shot, and that is in large part due to ESSA.  You can read more about that here:  https://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/betsy-devos-aei-american-enterprise-institute/  Please share this information with friends and neighbors.  Most BAD Educational ideas never die.  They just get renamed, rebranded and shilled to the public again as the "latest and greatest" education silver bullet.  

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/)

Learning is Earning...and our Bond Hearing

Tomorrow, Sept. 13, is a very busy day for education in our state and county: Competency-based Ed conference, Prosperity 2020, and Bond Hearing.

BOND HEARING
The Public Bond Hearing is @ 6pm @ the District Office in AF. Generic public comments are first, standard business stuff, and then the official Bond Hearing.  The bond will be on the ballot in November, for $387 Million, no tax increase, new buildings due to growth, rebuilding due to age.  I voted to put the bond on the ballot.  Our area will get 1% of the total amount of the bond.  Here's the agenda: http://board.alpineschools.org/2016/09/09/september-13-2016-board-meeting/  And here is information on the bond. http://alpineschools.org/bond2016/

On to the 'new visions' for education.  Lots of it has been in the works for a while, and some things are just rebrands of what has gone on before.  Full-disclosure, I'm not a fan of most everything that we are seeing proposed for 'ed reform': Competency-based ed, Workforce alignment, Digital Badges, GRIT, 21st Century Skills/Learning, etc.  I believe most everyone involved in these projects are well-intended and are proposing these visions and ideas with the goal to help our children.  But many who are involved in these reforms do focus primarily on workforce training, not education. 

Education is a much broader vision than simple workforce training.  Don't get me wrong, I want my kids to be gainfully employed, but I believe the well-educated individual will never be an anachronism in the workplace; they will be capable of seeing the consequences of actions due to a vast general knowledge and understanding.  The specific skills related to a job, with a few exceptions, can be learned 'on the job.'  And there's evidence that these supposed 'skill sets': collaboration, critical thinking, communication are directly related to the specific subject-matter at hand.  I may be good at thinking critically about a mathematical problem, but fail miserably when it comes to architecture, mostly because I lack the foundational knowledge allowing me to think accurately about a particular issue.  And collaboration works very well with experts from various fields; not so much with amateurs with similar backgrounds.  And sometimes, like in the case of Steve Wozniak inventing the Apple computer, collaboration is completely unneeded, unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have worked.  (Einstein: Theory of Relativity; Newton, Kepler, how much collaboration did they do?)

So, without further adieu....

JOINT LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE on COMPETENCY-BASED ED
At 8am, there will be a Joint Legislative Conference talking about Competency-based ed at UVU--essentially, kids with computers designed to streamline credentials for workforce.  The discussion is not and never has been: Should we do Competency-based (or mastery learning or whatever)?  The focus tomorrow is how to implement it and how to overcome the obstacles (including, I'm sure whe'll hear about those 'people who just don't like change.')  Some of the focus is very appealing: don't make kids who already understand something sit through a semester or a year to get credit for it.  The question comes down to WHO decides what the criteria are for determining competency?  Is it a national organization dedicated to global citizenship?  Is it the local community college or the local school district?  Is it American Institutes for Research, SAGE test designer and behavioral research organization extraordinaire?  A newly-established and funded comptency-based ed board?And therein lies the rub.  Who is in charge?  I can guarantee it won't be parents.  Granted, my kids are taking online learning courses--specifically for the mostly brain-dead courses the legislature requires in order to 'check a box' to say they've done it.  While I would love for them to be able to test out of a lot of this garbage, I think the real answer is for the legislature to not impose arbitrary courses on to the locals.  I know that requires a lot of faith in your local school board, teachers and administrators and, most importantly, parents and taxpayers.  But, WE are obligated to chart the course to determine what our kids need.  If Park City thinks their kids need something different, so be it.  Why should we care?  Unfortunately, we live in an age where 'the experts know best', and parents are seen as obstacles in providing a child with 'real' education.

Back to the conference, many of you remember Marc Tucker, famous for his School to Work ideas during the Clinton Administration and the Dear Hillary letter (cradle-to-grave workforce development system.)  Mr. Tucker was the keynote speaker at last year's joint legislative conference.  This is Part Deux (part two).  This is Mr. Tucker's vision, and all the focus on Workforce as the end goal of education was enhanced by Mr. Tucker and his National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE).  It's always fun to think of my children in terms of their 'economic potential', as 'human capital'.  And dare are I ask, what happens to those humans who can't be turned into capital? 
THE LEDGER: 'FUN' ROADMAP FOR THE FUTURE
Here is a link to a video that ACT and others have put together to show what competency-based ed is projected to grow into.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zssd6eBVfwc

Learning is Earning 2026 - A partnership between ACT ... www.youtube.com Play the game, make the future. 9am March 8 - 9pm March 9 CST www.LearningIsEarning2026.org

And commentary from my favorite, liberal education blogger, Peter Greene (language warning).   http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-ledger-lab-rat-america.html

For those who don't want to read through Mr. Greene's blog, here are some excerpts:

Learning is earning.

Your Ledger account tracks everything you've ever learned in units called edublocks.
An edublock represents, supposedly, one hour of learning in any subject-- which brings us to our first mystery, which is exactly how one breaks down learning into hours.

...

Your profile displays all the blocks you've earned. Employers can use this information to offer you a job or a gig that matches your skills.

The Ledger will track the money you make from those gigs and use it to evaluate the edublock sources; ultimately every edublock source will carry a rating that shows which sources led to people earning the most money. Because in the world of the Ledger, money is the ultimate yardstick by which all value is measured. You can even market yourself as a commodity, bartering for free edublocks by offering a share of your future earnings in return. The video does not say anything about what happens if you do not provide a sufficient return on the investment, and I'd rather not imagine how that particular "collection" goes. [My note: See?  I'm not the only one who wonders.]

...

Does ACT have a plan for getting not one, but several governments to sign off and join up on the Ledger, so that the program can have access to everything, every last bit of data? Because this whole plan would seem to require that a corporation and governments join together to provide a more user-friendly computer-based surveillance state.
 

...

Who is going to create all the tasks that will measure and certify certain skills? It doesn't actually matter that much, because the bottom line is that all jobs and skill sets will be broken down to the simplest possible set of tasks, a simplification that guarantees that all nuance, complexity, and higher-order thinking will be kicked right out of the system.

Exactly what task will certify that you have acquired one hour's worth of critical thinking?

...

This is not education. This is training. This is operant conditioning for the servant class that also provides the upper class with tools that let them trickle even fewer benefits down to the working class.

In fact, I would say that this is just training rats to run a maze, but it's even worse than that, because ultimately even if we were to accept the premise that simply giving some job-ish training for the underclass is good enough, and even if I were to accept the racist, classist [b***sh**] that somehow ignores the immoral and unethical foundations of such a system, the fact remains that this would be a lousy training system. To reduce any job of any level of complexity to this kind of checklist-of-tasks training provides the worst possible type of training.

...

Do I think folks like ACT Foundation or Pearson (who also like a version of this model) can actually pull this off? It doesn't matter-- what matters is that this is their North Star, and even though you never get to the North Star, it still shapes the course you set. Worse, while I hope we never arrive in the world of the Ledger, these folks can do a huge amount of damage trying to navigate in that direction.

So, our legislators are being asked to start legislating competency-based ed stuff, so we can get on the Learning is Earning track without a public discussion as to why we're doing this and who will determine what is competency?  (And BTW, did you call your legislator to ask for this change?  I'm guessing you didn't.  Another 'brilliant idea' that comes down from some Think Tank somewhere that will be foisted on the public without any sort of pilot project, public demand, or scientific evaluation.  And then in 5 years, they'll say it wasn't properly implemented and come up with something else that's similar but somehow better that was presented with a nice PowerPoint at some conference somewhere.) 

PROSPERITY 2020
At 4pm at the District Office, Prosperity 2020 will be giving us a 15 minute presentation.  I'm not sure what they will be presenting, but they have a similar focus on the economic outcomes of education. 

Here is a quote from the Utah.gov website about Prosperity 2020.
"Great businesses are built with human capital—well-trained and educated workers."

Again, I think those involved are motivated by a desire to have well-educated kids, and they are seeing some deficits, I assume.  They want to 'bridge that gap.'  But I would argue, it's doing things the wrong way.  If there is a market for certain skills, the market, using supply and demand, will pay more for those skills.  People will jump through whatever hoops are necessary to gain those skills, in order to get a job that pays really well for those skills.  Public education should not be seen as a publicly-funded job-training program.  And your kids and mine should NOT be seen as human capital that can be used to promote the economic bottom-line of a corporation or the State of Utah. Central planning to match job skills with workers and 'training' (education) sounds so 1980's USSR to me.  So, I will try to keep an open mind (it will be hard) for the presentation.  But at the end of the day, my question will still come back to: Who decides?  In public education, it's supposed to be the parents and the taxpayers, not Marc Tucker or the Chamber of Commerce. 

To Tax or not to Tax: Budget 2012-13

 On Tuesday, June, 19, the board will have a public hearing on our proposed budget for this coming fiscal year.  Please attend at 6pm and comment at the district office in American Fork.

Budget 2012-13: Increase Tax Rates?  Don't Increase Tax Rates.
First, I would highly recommend reading the first few pages of the budget, found here.  Using the pdf pages, go to pg. 9 - 10 to read the summary on the tax rates, and then 11 - 14 to see the "Big Picture" of the overall budget.  It should take you less than 10 minutes.  If you are interested in the employee changes, see pg. 82.  Pg. 83-88 contain a glossary.  You can also see the Board, Superintendent and total principal salaries and benefits outlined on pg. 26.  We are planning on an additional 2,076 students this fall, and adding 66 full-time employee positions and 3.5 counselors to accommodate that growth.  (Incidentally, the state has mandated a certain counselor to student ratio.  Alpine is behind on this ratio, and we send a letter every year telling the state we are working on complying with their mandate.  I, personally, would err on the side of having more teachers, but that decision isn't in my hands.) 

At the board meeting, last month, we reviewed the proposed budget which included an increase in property tax rates.  This would require a Truth in Taxation hearing in August.  The rationale behind the increase was to "recoup" the property tax amount that goes to charter schools in our area.  About 4 or 5 years ago, the legislature changed charter school funding from entirely income-tax based to getting a portion from local property taxes.  The actual funding formula (other than overall increase in per pupil funding for ALL public school students), as far as I can tell, hasn't changed; just the combination of pots has changed.  At the time of this change, many school districts increased their property tax amount to accommodate the loss of property tax revenue.  Alpine did not.  We were planning on a bond, and we try to be more conservative in our approach to taxation.  At the time, the amount deferred from property taxes was $500,000.  It is now up to $1.2 million.  (It is based on the number of students going to charter schools, and the payout is 25% of the per student--including charter students--property tax amount. Email me if you want more details.) Our administration and most of the board found the argument compelling that the money should have been ours and wasn't anymore.  In my opinion, the money is the taxpayers' and whether or not we pull from one pot or another doesn't necessarily entitle us to that money.  I do agree with the idea that the amount of property taxes sent to charter schools should be clearly identified on the property tax notice (which was a bill that never came before the State Senate this year but passed in the House).  I also find property tax the least fair and the most egregious method of taxation.  For that reason, I would be opposed to a property tax increase except as a last resort.  I wouldn't base it on an appeal to fairness.

That being said, in the last month, our budget staff, Jim Hansen and Teresa Newman, and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith, have received more concrete information from the county.  It appears that due to 1)increased property values, 2) more people paying their taxes, and 3) the legislature consolidating property tax revenues and shifting from one pot of property tax to another pot, the district will be receiving $1.5M additional revenue from the state over our originally proposed budget.  Due to this increase, they are recommending that we not increase the current property tax rates.  (The board could, at any time, still decide to increase rates, but, most likely, won't without the recommendation of our administration.) However, despite a lack of tax rate increases, we have budgeted for 30 full-time teaching positions.  There may be some flexibility in this: more teachers that are part-time or whatever is seen as necessary.  The Obama EduJobs program from two years ago, allowed us to hire 26 teaching positions.  That money is no longer available, and so those 26 positions were to be eliminated.  Due to some good budget work and the reasons I mentioned above, we will be able to retain all 26 positions and add 4 more, in addition to the teachers required by additional student growth.  This is phenomenal!  In January, the board expressed a desire to reduce class sizes.  We have had several parents (and less publicly, teachers and administrators) comment on the need to reduce class sizes.  The original, original budget included only 8 additional teaching positions.  But, since this has been a high priority for the board, I have been impressed with the ability to come up with 30 positions.  With 79 schools in the district, it is a drop in the bucket, but, like anything, it is a big step in the right direction.  I would recommend an email or a comment at the budget hearing, if you are pleased with the reduction in class sizes and/or the static property tax rate.  I can't thank our business office enough for all their hard work on the budget and for looking for ways to not increase property tax rates, but to decrease class sizes.  Our business department has very good people, and I appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

Some additional items on the budget that might be of interest. 

1. Health care costs went up nearly 16%, which would have added $8.6M to our budget.  The collective bargaining agreements (also on this meeting's agenda: See Action Items: Certified, Classified, and Administrative Agreements) include five different health plans, ranging from current-level coverage (that would have increased the district's costs $8.6M) to a Health Savings Account.  Employees requesting the current level of coverage will need to pay a portion of the premium.  Those opting for the Health Savings Account will receive the difference between their reduced premium amount and the amount the district is paying for everyone else into their Health Savings Account.  The other three plans fit in between those two extremes.  As is, our health care costs didn't increase very much.  I applaud our administration and our associations for their creative approach in solving this dilemma. 

2. Federal Revenues make up 8.2% of our total budget.  For our general fund (day-to-day maintenance and operations), it is only 7%, or $28M out of $377M.  Due to the failure of the Congressional Super Committee, overall Federal Revenues will be cut 9% in January.  So, Federal Revenue is a figure we need to keep an eye on.  For Nutrition Services, Federal Revenues make up nearly 48% of of the budget, or $10.9M out of $22M.  A lot of this money is for Free and Reduced lunches, but all student lunch are subsidized, either by the state or the Feds, or both.  I was unaware of this information until a year ago. 

3. Pg. 18 shows a pie chart of the expenditures in the General Fund.  You can see that 70% of our expenses are on Instruction. 

4. Our collective bargaining agreements include funding "step and lane" which is the salary schedule.  As employees get more education and are with the district longer, their salaries are increased.  This requires an increase in the budget to accommodate those increases.  Also, there will be a 2%, one-time bonus given to all employees out of last year's budget, which came in under projected expenses.

5. The Common Core math textbook purchase is being taken out of Fund Balance (essentially our savings) from this past fiscal year (2011-12). It will be about $1.2 - $1.5 M.

6. The Collective Bargaining Agreements change our requirement to negotiate with the associations from them needing to have a majority of employees (State Law) to having the "greatest number". 

7. And lastly, the budget includes $1.5 M for the purchase and implementation of a new financial/purchasing system.  Our current system is 30-years old and has been modified in-house multiple times.  Those who are familiar and comfortable with the system are few and far between.  The financial system will be discussed and voted on in the July board meeting.

Superintendent Reappointment
The Agenda includes the reappointment of our superintendent, Dr. Vernon Henshaw, for another two years.  There is no formal contract, but the benefits include the same health and retirement benefits as our other employees.  The budget includes a raise for both Dr. Henshaw and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith.  Dr. Henshaw is a very good and competent administrator.  I have seen him ably implement whatever direction he is given from the board. 

Common Core/State Board of Ed Update
The State Board of Education will be voting in August on whether or not to remain a governing member, to change to advisory member or to withdraw completely from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC), which is creating the state tests all Utah public school students (district and charter) will take come 2014-15, along with 30 other states.  (What is tested is what will be taught.)  Our original agreement with SBAC, as included in our federal Race to the Top application, Phase 1, was just a non-binding memorandum.  In the Race to the Top, Phase 2 application, this non-binding memorandum was replaced with a signed, legally-binding contract. (See page 286 for the signed contract with SBAC.) Additionally, the SBAC consortium signed a legally-binding cooperative agreement with the Federal Department of Education.  So, via our contract with SBAC and their agreement with the Feds, our state tests are subject to Federal control and supervision.  Interestingly, the state board never discussed or voted on this contract with SBAC.  State Board President, Debra Roberts stated in a public forum on April 26 that the contract was not legally binding because the board never voted on it.  However, it was signed by the Board President, the Governor, and the State Superintendent.

It was suggested during the June meeting that a letter be sent changing Utah's status from Governing Member to Advisory Member.  The Board was told that Advisory status would alleviate our obligations to the consortium.  State Board Member Dave Crandall read the contract and indicated that our obligations would be the same with the exception of losing our vote in the consortium.  Based on Member Crandall's information, Board President Roberts declined to sign the letter, since there was no apparent advantage.  Kudos to Mr. Crandall for his follow-up!  Because of this, the full board will be voting on whether to withdraw completely from SBAC this August.  Without the direct obligation from the consortium to the Dept of Ed, Utah can adopt the Common Core standards and still determine it's own tests.  Currently, there are no financial penalties for this course of action.  There is, however, concern that we may not receive our (illegal) No Child Left Behind waiver if we pull out of the testing consortium.  Once we are granted the No Child Left Behind waiver, we are obligated, as far as I can tell, to maintain the Common Core standards and SBAC testing until such time as the Federal government determines we need to do something ELSE in education. 

Additionally, the State Board is reviewing Social Studies standards.  If you are like me, you will want to pay close attention to this process and give a lot of input.

Happy 2012: Where Are We Going This Year?

In this blog:
Math Committee for Common Core (Hint: School Community Councils)
Review of Board Training
Agenda for Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012.

Math Committee for Common Core Curriculum
The district has established a math committee to review curriculum for the Common Core. We will be implementing grades 6 -8 (some 9) this Fall. Those currently in 9 - 12, will continue with the current standards throughout their high school careers. The rest of the grades will implement in 2013. There are members of the district community council (Bruce Armstrong, Kim Paulson, and Melanie Westcott, among others), teachers, and staff that will be on this committee. Sometime before April 15, when textbooks need to be ordered, the math committee will make several recommendations. Then, the School Community Councils (SCC's) will decide on the curriculum their school will use. There will be school community council meetings where this information will be presented to the parents and the community at large.

In short, you need to get involved with the district community council members on the district committee, as well as make sure your views are reflected in your local school's community council. If you have an opinion, this is the point you get to provide feedback, and it is done via the SCC's.

I would appreciate information about the school community council meetings in your school (dates/times, etc), and would be happy to post any and all information on this blog, as well as Facebook. This is being done at a local level, so you must be the one to attend school community council. All SCC's are public meetings and open to everyone. The SCC's, in theory, should print their meeting notices on the Utah Public Notice website.

Board Training
The board met for our semi-annual board retreat/training.  We reviewed the board handbook and processes, and then set priorities for the coming year for the district staff.  This may sound boring, but this is the meeting where the board provides formal, overall direction to the administration and staff.

Priorities
Every year, the board creates a list of Basket Items to give specific direction to the staff about our priorities for the district overall.  Each board member takes a turn, lists a priority, and then it is discussed.  After that, each board member, the superintendent, and the business administrator assign a priority to each item (1 -5, 5 being the highest priority).  The top five or six priorities are those that will be worked on.  The others will be done, if there are sufficient resources.

I suggested:

1) Put a plan in place to reduce our debt, so that when we bond next time, the bond amount will be less and our overall debt is less--not just reduced by the required amount of principal.  Some options presented were:

• Create a fund where money is saved for future building needs and/or to reduce debt by paying some debt off sooner
• Limit the amount of bonding to maybe just a high school next time, or to a specific, lesser amount. 
• Instead of reducing some of the taxes that naturally go down as debt is paid off, go through a truth in taxation hearing every year to maintain the level of taxation to either pay off more of the debt or to fund additional buildings directly, instead of through debt.

2) Make sure we are emphasizing the role of the School Community Councils (SCC) as the "vehicle" through which the board requests feedback from the local community. The board currently receives feedback on everything from the bond, the math curriculum to the mission, visions, values and goals through School Community Council and PTA meetings.  During the bond process, every school's SCC/PTA received a presentation about the bond.  This was also one way for the public to indicate which projects they wanted to see included, to comment on the amount of the bond and the taxing implications, etc.  The SCC's will be used this spring to decide on a math curriculum to accommodate the new Common Core standards and assessments that the State Board of Education has imposed on each school district in Utah.  See the above section on the Math Committee.

3) Find ways to involve parents more in the actual education of their child.  I believe we have a large, untapped and very beneficial resource in having parents involved, directly, in their child's education.  This would require some thinking out of the box because we have been accustomed, for nearly 100 years, of sending our kids to school, and just making sure they do their homework.  Being able to use technology to customize the education for each child would allow parents the opportunity to be more involved in seeing and experiencing what their child is learning.  We know that parental involvement is the leading indicator of a child's academic success.  Unfortunately, we justify leaving this aside because "some parents can't or won't be involved".  As I've mentioned previously, there is no reason to penalize those families where the parents can be involved because some parents can't.  Why not focus, instead, on what we can do in those situations where parents do want to be more involved.  For myself, I'd be happy to mentor and oversee more of my children's work, alleviating that responsibility from the teachers, and freeing them up to accommodate more students or more involved learning/mentoring, etc.

One item that received quite a lot of discussion was reducing class sizes.  Everyone is in favor of this. However, to reduce class size by a single student across the board would cost $3.2M in on-going expenses.  Some teachers and parents prefer having aids to reduce the adult to student ratio, but leaving a larger class.  Targeted reductions (e.g. K-3 grades) were also discussed. A proposed bill that will be going through the legislature will limit class sizes.  ASD's impact would be $20M plus 10 new schools, to accommodate the new class size mandate, if passed.  One of the options we are using is the extended day in elementary schools, where the teacher only has half the class in the morning for reading and the other half in the afternoon.  That allows a smaller class size with limited resources, but targeted to the most important skills.

Another issue was incentive pay and recognizing "super stars" in our teachers.  There are two schools of thought on the incentive pay.  Currently, ASD rewards teacher teams (e.g. the 3rd grade at one school or the Math Dept. at another school) with incentive pay.  Alpine Foundation rewards individual teachers, but, starting this year, will also recognize one outstanding teacher team.  The concern about rewarding individuals for their work is it might limit teachers' desire to collaborate in our Professional Learning Communities (PLC's).  So, the desire is to reward an effective team for their collaboration.  The difficulty is by not rewarding (either monetarily or by some sort of recognition) truly outstanding performers, you are either ignoring those people or rewarding them along with those they are bringing along.  In short, you are rewarding non-performers for being part of a high-performing team.  The other concern brought up was who should decide.  Logically, the principals would decide, but like any organization, administration has its favorites.  It is an imperfect system.  Still, I would favor rewarding individuals for high performance, and that high performance would also include collaborating with and mentoring their fellow teachers.  I am uncomfortable with the idea of mandating a group reward, over individual recognition. 

Here is the list of basket items (in the order they were suggested), and the first two--according to memory--are the ones that took top priority.  I will post the actual priority when I receive it.

• Continue to recruit quality teachers and administrators and retain them.  Mentor and train in leadership.
• Support the list of Superintendent and Cabinet focus areas for the next 6-12 months*
• Address class size issue (especially elementary and possibly by subject)
• Increase incentive pay
• Have plan to reduce debt
• Recognize "super stars"
• Filter out low-performing teachers and administrators
• Achieve Master Boards Award (new award presented by the Utah School Boards Association)
• Allow the student body to elect the student body officers
• Increase the use of technology instruction
• Find ways for the average person to become more aware of the role SCC's play in getting public feedback
• Find ways for the committees to be more effective
• Find alternative ways to involve parents in the actual education

* Superintendent and Cabinet Focus Areas for Jan - July/Dec. 2012 (Italicized indicate the Areas of Focus)
1. Gifted and Talented program shift -- Question four (what we do if they already know it), ALL classes, Gifted classes (Student Achievement)
2. Language Immersion classes-Expansion (Chinese and Portuguese) (Comprehensive Curriculum)
3. Utah Core (Common Core) training and implementation for Math and Language Arts. (Hold community meetings at the school level this spring to educate parents and patrons.)  Train principals to engage the public in Utah Core implementation. (Teacher Quality)
4. Math committee at district level to review materials and recommend list for school selection. {Community Relations and Resources)
5. Training of Collaboration Team Leaders (CTL's) to continue support of PLC process with a focus on the four essential questions to improve Student Learning. (Leadership, Quality Teaching, & Student Achievement)
6. Refocus of East Shore High School.  (Comp. Curriculum and Student Achievement)
7. Expansion of online school and options (K-12). (Comprehensive Curriculum)
8. Extended year school (credit recovery at local high school during the year and at East Shore during the summer). (Student Achievement)
9. Evaluate program effectiveness -Using Hanover Research and BYU/Partnership to evaluate (double dosing, PLC's, summer collaboration, effective instructional techniques, etc.) (Teacher Quality)
10. Transition of AS400 System to new financial program - Review and focus technology to support student learning.  Unlock more features of Skyward. (Resources and Student Achievement)
11. Administrative appoints for July of 2012 (New Junior High, Diversity Specialist, Online School) (Leadership)
12. Facilities plan for expansion of Dream School, Summit, ATEC, Food Services, Media, Bus Garage, Technology and Maintenance. (Resources)
13. Bond implementation and purchase of additional land for schools - Plans for new high school design. (Resources and Community Relations)
14. Review the location formula for the distribution of ASD resources - new schools vs. Title 1 schools vs. schools in the middle. (Resources)
15. Keep Employee Morale High / Negotiation Process. (School and District Culture)

Board Handbook and Processes
The board has a handbook, outlining our processes and responsibilities.  Included in this is our Code of Conduct.  I have updated the Code of Conduct page on this blog to reflect the changes that were made at last year's meeting.  No changes were made this year. 

Some discussion took place on our collaborative governance model.  I asked for clarification on what other governance models there were and how they would differ from our current one.  The main difference was board members are invited to be on committees that the administration would have with or without our involvement, e.g. curriculum, technology, PR.  In the past, decisions were made that the board was unaware of (including Investigations Math).  This governance model allows for more involvement between the board and the administration than a traditional model.  The only difficulty I have with it, is the lines are sometimes too blurred.  It can be difficult to know when we are being provided information, just so we know, and when the information will come back later, like in the budget, for formal approval.  If there is not sufficient discussion because we don't want to micromanage, it may be assumed we are in agreement.  One of the board members said that over time these things would become clear to those of us who are still new. 

Another discussion involved the committees.  (See above for our role in the committees.)  The board members report on their committee meetings during the formal board meeting.  However, some have felt the committees aren't very effective.  Also, sometimes, the board presentation is almost the same as that made in the committee meeting.  In the interest of streamlining and to provide information to all board members, we will be receiving agendas for these committees in advance.  This will allow other board members to convey their thoughts to committee members prior to the discussion.  The committees are for the staff and the board to vet ideas before being presented to the full board for discussion and possible implementation. 

 We also discussed some tweaking on the superintendent and business administrator evaluations process.  The Board Handbook says in March the board selects an evaluation instrument.  Then, in April, that tool is used to evaluate the Superintendent.  My emphasis was on selecting the evaluation instrument at the time the superintendent or the business administrator is appointed, and that tool should be in effect, unless formally modified by both parties, until the subsequent evaluation (two years later).  I was told the instrument had, in fact, been selected, and the four new board members would be provided with this information. 

Jan. 10, 2012 Board Meeting Agenda
There will not be a study session prior to the regular board meeting.


BOARD MEETING:
575 NORTH 100 EAST
AMERICAN FORK


6:00 P.M.


PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR DECEMBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report

2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases - JB, CC, EH, BH, AH

SH, AI, AJ, MK, JL, EL, IM, NM, SP

KP, CS, CT, JV, AV

5. Student Expulsion - JH

REPORT

1. Membership Report

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Annual Financial Audit: Board Meeting Nov. 8, 2011 Agenda

Two items of note for the board meeting on Tuesday: 1) CAFR report--annual audit/financial report and 2) school closings.  Also, don't forget to vote on Tuesday whether you are for or against the bond.

Award-Winning CAFR (Finanical Report)
Don't tune out yet, just because it has to do with finances.  Every year, the district is required to have an independent audit.  The auditors found no concerns with the books or our compliance with Federal and State requirements for certain monies that come with strings and hoops.  Evidently, we are very good at jumping as high as necessary.  An interesting point was emphasized (which I've heard from other auditor-types).  That is the audit takes the policies of the district and uses them to make sure the proper procedures are being followed.  For example, if the district's policy is to have a principal sign off on a purchase for a $7000 video camera, the audit will make sure that the video camera does exist, was properly signed for and receipted, and placed on the books accurately, for example, as instructional use equipement.  What an audit doesn't do is decide whether or not the item should have been purchased in the first place. 

The CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) report is 120+ pages long and is quite involved for those without an auditing background.  It is the required annual report that documents all the finances for the district from July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011.  I have some background with accounting and finance, having had to deal with these in my business.  However, I received the report last Tuesday, and have successfully gone through only half of it so far.  I would GREATLY appreciate any and all accountant/auditor types who are interested in giving me some pointers on what items to focus on.  You can find the report here.  ASD's CAFR report has won awards for 28+ years. 

School Boundary Restrictions 2012-13 School Year
Another item on the agenda has to do with restricting some schools to out-of-area students.  The board can decide to restrict schools to just a specific geographic area.  In Utah, most schools are 'open', meaning that if you want to drive your kid there and register them, they can attend.  Each local school board has the option of restricting enrollment at a given school for a few specific reasons.

The most common reason is enrollment.  For example, Lone Peak's enrollment is at 2171.  The suggestion to close the school is a result of not having enough teachers, rooms, etc for additional students.  In this instance, those who were granted exceptions, e.g. North of Canyon Road in Cedar Hills, will need to apply for an out-of-area exception by March, 2012 (I think).  The next most common reason has to do with program protection.  As I understand it, the concern is if a School A is open, those in a neighboring School B may come to School A, leaving School B without enough students for certain programs.  This is the case with Lakeridge Jr. High and Orem Jr. High.  I would welcome your feedback on these issues, especially from those in the affected areas.  For a list of proposed schools, please go here.  All other schools in the district (not on the closed list) are open, and you can go there and register, if you so choose. 

Board Meeting Agenda
STUDY SESSION


4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to review the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), and to receive an update regarding the focus and direction of language immersion and gifted programs, East Shore High School and alternative education programs.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING

6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR OCTOBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases - KB, MC, MGC, CD, KD

JMD, JD, JLD, ED, BE, EG, KH, CJ, DJ, KK

NL, RO, JR, TS, JS, RT, VV, MW, BW

5. Student Expulsions - DB, AB, CF
6. Career and Technical Education (CTE) National Competition


ACTION ITEMS
1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and External Audit

2. Schools Closed to Out-of-area Attendance for the 2012-2013 School Year

3. Board Meeting Schedule for 2012

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Policy No. 5550 – Head Injuries
2. Policy No. 5320 – Service Animals

REPORT

1. Membership Report

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Oct. 25 Board Meeting Agenda

The board will have the second work session each month dedicated to board training ("How to be a better board member") and a discussion of various topics.  The last discussion item was math and was met with concern from The Daily Herald.  See here.  Because of this, we will not be having just open discussions on any items board members wish to discuss.  Instead, we will receive a presentation of information on a particular topic and then discuss that topic. 

The topic for the 25th concerns "The Four Essential Questions".  In the district, teachers are given four essential questions to use in determining their direction with their students.  Those questions are:
1. What do we want student to know?
2. How will we know that they know it?
3. What do we do if they don't know it?
4. What do we do if they already know it?
Some board members are particularly interested in the fourth question.  There are a lot of incentives, both state and federal, that address question 3, but we want to make sure there are options and challeges for kids who already "get it".

Here is the agenda for the meeting.

AGENDA . . . TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011


HILLCREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

651 EAST 1400 SOUTH

OREM

STUDY SESSION


4:00 P.M.

A study session will be held prior to the regular board meeting. The purpose of the study session

will be for (1) professional development for the Board, and (2) to discuss the “four essential

questions” focused on student learning.

BOARD MEETING


6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

STUDENT RECOGNITIONS

ALPINE FOUNDATION RECOGNITIONS

PRINCIPAL, PTA AND SCHOOL

COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORTS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

ACTION ITEM

1. Utah Consolidated Application
BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS
CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Oct. 11, 2011 Board Meeting Agenda

Oct. 11, 2001 Board Meeting
District Office: 575 N. 100 E., American Fork, UT 84003

To see the supporting documentation, please go here.

STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to (1) discuss the future focus and direction of East Shore High School, (2) to review the bond brochure to be mailed to the public, and (3) to discuss other current issues for future meetings.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR SEPTEMBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases – MB, MB, CD, MD, AH, FJ, ML, TM, JM, BM, AR, SS, AT, JW, KW

5. Student Expulsion – HT

6. School Clubs


ACTION ITEM

1. Student Travel Requests
DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Utah Consolidated Application
2. Schools Closed to Out-of-area Attendance for the 2012-2013 School Year

3. Board Meeting Schedule for 2012

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT