Posts
Disclaimer: the topic of this blog post is mature but it is necessary for parents to be properly informed about their children's education. Comments will not be accepted for this post.
Mark Twain famously said, "No man's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." He should have added children to the mix.
The most pressing issue, in my opinion, is HB215. This modifies state law to allow for greater latitude in teaching children sexuality education (also known as Comprehensive Sexuality Education or CSE) which, as it has been implemented in other states, goes far beyond biology and medical facts. HB215:
1) decriminalizes providing IUD's and abortion services to minor children without parental consent and
2) REMOVES some common-sense prohibitions from school curriculum guidelines in K-12.
For example, current law includes the following that will be removed should this law pass.
1. Stressing the importance of abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases. *
2. Instruction is not allowed to facilitate or encourage the violation of any state or federal criminal law.*
3. Local school district material is not currently allowed to go into "how to", including erotic behavior, etc.**
Our current state law allows for abstinence-based instruction, not abstinence-only. It is also Opt-in, meaning parents have to agree to let their children participate. Parents also are able to review the contents and in many cases are invited to attend. To see the current FAQs from the State Board website, click here. These FAQs indicate what is CURRENTLY being taught. Everything proponents of CSE and this bill state, are already being taught and discussed.
The media is trying to portray our current instruction as being too prudish and not providing students with accurate information. A poll asked Utahns if they preferred an ***abstinence-ONLY approach versus a comprehensive approach. No definition of what these two terms meant was provided. Most people approved of the 'comprehensive' approach. But it most decidedly didn't ask if instruction in erotic behavior should be included in K-12 school curricula.
For information on how CSE is being marketed here and used in other states, please download this PowerPoint. If you look at lines 136-144, lines 191-197, lines 220-240 and lines 260-26 in HB215, you will see what state law is being changed that will now allow CSE curricula as outlined in the PowerPoint. The worst part is that CSE downplays the risk factors that lead to unwanted pregnancies and STIs. In the interest of providing a 'more comprehensive' sexual instruction to our children, we are doing them a grave disservice by downplaying the risks (both physical and emotional) that accompany sexual activity.
The job of the schools is not to promote a view of society absent reality. Our job should be to present the facts that our children will need about this important topic. Everything else, parents can choose to present at home.
Additional resources:
Talking Points on HB215: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzUjUSlTes-4XzNOTzVHZnZiQjg
War on Children video (10 min or 35 min documentary): http://www.comprehensivesexualityeducation.org/
1 hour presentation by Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D. on a CSE curricula being implemented in Ontario, Canada. About 19 minutes in she compares the instruction on smoking and alcohol to CSE and then provides medical information that most people didn't learn in school either. Note: This is what CSE should actually mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21YvYPD56-U
* [(b) (i) That instruction shall stress:]
137 [(A) the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity
138 after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases; and]
139 [(B) personal skills that encourage individual choice of abstinence and fidelity.]
140 [(ii) (A) At no time may instruction be provided, including responses to spontaneous
141 questions raised by students, regarding any means or methods that facilitate or encourage the
142 violation of any state or federal criminal law by a minor or an adult.]
143 [(B) Subsection (1)(b)(ii)(A) does not preclude an instructor from responding to a
144 spontaneous question as long as the response is consistent with the provisions of this section.]
** [emphasizing abstinence
192 before marriage and fidelity after marriage, and prohibiting instruction in:];
193 [(I) the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior;]
194 [(II) the advocacy of homosexuality;]
195 [(III) the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices;
196 or]
197 [(IV) the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage;]
***Utah law allows for an abstinence-based approach, not abstinence-only. So, the poll was disingenuous to begin with.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Friday, October 23, 2015
Attendance Policy
This Tuesday, Oct. 27 @ Deerfield Elementary (4353 West Harvey Blvd, Cedar Hills), the Board Study Session will include a discussion with Juvenile Court Judge Bazelle about the current attendance policy. The Study Session begins at 4:00pm, and the Judge will be there at 4:30 pm.
The regular board meeting with public comment will take place at 6:00 pm.
Why should you care? One major issue that keeps coming up from parents and taxpayers is attendance. I have had many complaints about the strictness of our former policies, and the inconsistencies of the application of our current policy. Some parents have sent their kids to a different school specifically because of the harshness of some of the attendance policies. I have not had anyone complain that our attendance policies are too lax...until now.
State Law allows certain things as valid excuses: illness, death in the family, etc. It also allows "any other excuse established as valid by a local school board, local charter board, or school district." In our district, our policy says, "The Alpine School District Board of Education has determined that the parent or legal guardian of a student can excuse an absence for reasons they deem necessary."
At our board meeting on Sep. 22, Board Member Taylor reported that in a meeting with Judge Noonan (who oversees that Orem area), concerns were raised that our policy is working great for about 95% of our students, but there are 5% that they can't help because our policy is too lenient. (To listen to the audio, go to http://board.alpineschools.org/2015/09/18/september-22-2015-board-meeting/, click on 'Additional Media', and the second audio file is the Board Meeting. The report begins about 1 hour into the meeting.)
While I have found that our district policy is not being implemented as stated, that is more of an internal issue. However, at the end of the day, we passed the attendance policy in order to support parental rights. We do no one a service when we try to insert ourselves into the realm of the family, prematurely, where we actually do not belong.
In other states where there has been no distinguishing between excused absences and truancy, many children have become 'collateral damage' to a system that is hoping to make sure that increased attendance is the ultimate good. But how many innocent parents and children will be harmed in the process? http://www.nebraskafamilyforum.org/2011/12/chambers-family-in-bed-sick-at-school.html
The question I have is whether we can find a non-judicial way to help those families that may need that help, without jeopardizing the rights of the rest of our families. Those who find themselves in extreme circumstances do not need the added concern of the County Attorney looking for reasons why they are unfit, if the only indicator is attendance. Attendance alone, if excused by parents, is insufficient to predict negative consequences for kids in school or later life (current internet talking points notwithstanding.)
At the end of the day, how many good families and how many parental rights are we willing to sacrifice? Do we start with the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, unless they have children in our school system? I think the same standard needs to apply. Can you imagine the pain and heartache in your family if you were threatened with the loss of custody of a child? Do you believe that only the 'bad parents' are possibly at risk? The evidence shows otherwise.
Justice Dallin H. Oaks, ruled, "Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society. There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children."
Parents have the fundamental right to manage their children, including their education. Until that parent has violated that trust (and it has been proven, with evidence), the state does not get 'veto' power over parents. The laws come from We, the People, not The State. We either value parental rights and support them, or we subject ourselves to the power of the State. This is an important discussion for us to have. Please join me on Tuesday!
The regular board meeting with public comment will take place at 6:00 pm.
Why should you care? One major issue that keeps coming up from parents and taxpayers is attendance. I have had many complaints about the strictness of our former policies, and the inconsistencies of the application of our current policy. Some parents have sent their kids to a different school specifically because of the harshness of some of the attendance policies. I have not had anyone complain that our attendance policies are too lax...until now.
State Law allows certain things as valid excuses: illness, death in the family, etc. It also allows "any other excuse established as valid by a local school board, local charter board, or school district." In our district, our policy says, "The Alpine School District Board of Education has determined that the parent or legal guardian of a student can excuse an absence for reasons they deem necessary."
At our board meeting on Sep. 22, Board Member Taylor reported that in a meeting with Judge Noonan (who oversees that Orem area), concerns were raised that our policy is working great for about 95% of our students, but there are 5% that they can't help because our policy is too lenient. (To listen to the audio, go to http://board.alpineschools.org/2015/09/18/september-22-2015-board-meeting/, click on 'Additional Media', and the second audio file is the Board Meeting. The report begins about 1 hour into the meeting.)
While I have found that our district policy is not being implemented as stated, that is more of an internal issue. However, at the end of the day, we passed the attendance policy in order to support parental rights. We do no one a service when we try to insert ourselves into the realm of the family, prematurely, where we actually do not belong.
In other states where there has been no distinguishing between excused absences and truancy, many children have become 'collateral damage' to a system that is hoping to make sure that increased attendance is the ultimate good. But how many innocent parents and children will be harmed in the process? http://www.nebraskafamilyforum.org/2011/12/chambers-family-in-bed-sick-at-school.html
The question I have is whether we can find a non-judicial way to help those families that may need that help, without jeopardizing the rights of the rest of our families. Those who find themselves in extreme circumstances do not need the added concern of the County Attorney looking for reasons why they are unfit, if the only indicator is attendance. Attendance alone, if excused by parents, is insufficient to predict negative consequences for kids in school or later life (current internet talking points notwithstanding.)
At the end of the day, how many good families and how many parental rights are we willing to sacrifice? Do we start with the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, unless they have children in our school system? I think the same standard needs to apply. Can you imagine the pain and heartache in your family if you were threatened with the loss of custody of a child? Do you believe that only the 'bad parents' are possibly at risk? The evidence shows otherwise.
Justice Dallin H. Oaks, ruled, "Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society. There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children."
Parents have the fundamental right to manage their children, including their education. Until that parent has violated that trust (and it has been proven, with evidence), the state does not get 'veto' power over parents. The laws come from We, the People, not The State. We either value parental rights and support them, or we subject ourselves to the power of the State. This is an important discussion for us to have. Please join me on Tuesday!
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Waiving Parents' and States' Rights: The No Child Left Behind Replacement
HR 5 is the bill in the US House of Representatives to 'reauthorize' No Child Left Behind (NCLB/ESEA). The vote in the House takes place this TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24!
We've all hated NCLB for more than a decade, so anything would be better than that, right? WRONG!
Please contact your Member of Congress ASAP and let them know they need to VOTE NO on HR 5! (Many will think that anything is better than NCLB, and at 600 pages, what are the odds that they have read it? Plus the summary sounds so 'fluffy and good'. )
Here are some snippets that every single American, regardless of ideology, should oppose.
1.) Sec. 6561: States can waive their rights (and the rights of parents) over certain aspects of education that would violate HR5, the "Student Success Act" (SSA), by approving a budget that includes these Federal Funds.
The language in this bill is so disingenuous, it makes me sad to realize that our elected representatives (or their staff) put this together. It starts out sounding so nice--reducing federal overreach.
And HOW does the State waive these rights?
Translation: if the State Legislature approves a budget that includes Federal Funds granted under this Student Success Act (which will be things like Title 1 funds), then the State WAIVES its rights and authorities to do anything that goes against what the Secretary of Education requires. (Opting out of SAGE testing? Nope. The State just waived that right, and it wasn't theirs to grant to begin with.)
Flashback to 1776, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." unless the State Legislature waives them. I have rights, but I will give them all up in exchange for federal money.
There's a word for this: prostitution. And before you think that too outrageous, let's consider what prostitution really means--To put to use one's talents or abilities [or rights?] in a base or unworthy way, usually for money. We will give up our virtue (root word: latin virtus meaning strength), our capacity to act, on behalf of our children's education in exchange for money.
2.) By waiving the rights of the state, the legislature also waives your rights as parents.
Again, nice sounding language about our rights as parents...except for those rights that your State Legislature waived for you in their budget proposals.
So, the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution apply to all rights and privileges except those that States waive to get this Federal education money.
Cue Mr. Jefferson again: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and anything else left to the states or the people via the Tenth Amendment and Natural Law], governments are instituted among Men..." unless we waive those rights for more money.
One can buy anything in this world for money, I guess, including the right to direct the upbringing of your child's education, as long as the State gets paid enough for it.
3.) Other disturbing things contained in this bill are:
Contact your Members of Congress, your state legislators, and your State Board of Education. Let them know that any federal law that includes the waiving of your rights as a parent or the state's rights as a 'sovereign state' needs to be vigorously opposed. Let's not sell our virtue, our power, our strength to act and oversee the education of our children....
for money.
We've all hated NCLB for more than a decade, so anything would be better than that, right? WRONG!
Please contact your Member of Congress ASAP and let them know they need to VOTE NO on HR 5! (Many will think that anything is better than NCLB, and at 600 pages, what are the odds that they have read it? Plus the summary sounds so 'fluffy and good'. )
Here are some snippets that every single American, regardless of ideology, should oppose.
1.) Sec. 6561: States can waive their rights (and the rights of parents) over certain aspects of education that would violate HR5, the "Student Success Act" (SSA), by approving a budget that includes these Federal Funds.
The language in this bill is so disingenuous, it makes me sad to realize that our elected representatives (or their staff) put this together. It starts out sounding so nice--reducing federal overreach.
No officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, ...Doesn't that sound nice? We're restraining the power of the Federal government in education....UNLESS....
unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that program and, in doing so, have waived the State's rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance. [emphasis mine]So, really, the state has all its rights in tact, UNLESS it decides to waive them. But, a State really shouldn't be waiving any rights to Congress. Please see the Tenth Amendment and get back to me on this one. (Cliff Notes: Education is NOT a power given to Congress, and so it is EXCLUSIVELY the RIGHT of the states and the people.)
And HOW does the State waive these rights?
This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds...[emphasis mine]
Translation: if the State Legislature approves a budget that includes Federal Funds granted under this Student Success Act (which will be things like Title 1 funds), then the State WAIVES its rights and authorities to do anything that goes against what the Secretary of Education requires. (Opting out of SAGE testing? Nope. The State just waived that right, and it wasn't theirs to grant to begin with.)
Flashback to 1776, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." unless the State Legislature waives them. I have rights, but I will give them all up in exchange for federal money.
There's a word for this: prostitution. And before you think that too outrageous, let's consider what prostitution really means--To put to use one's talents or abilities [or rights?] in a base or unworthy way, usually for money. We will give up our virtue (root word: latin virtus meaning strength), our capacity to act, on behalf of our children's education in exchange for money.
2.) By waiving the rights of the state, the legislature also waives your rights as parents.
Again, nice sounding language about our rights as parents...except for those rights that your State Legislature waived for you in their budget proposals.
It is the intent of Congress that other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart, control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans [emphasis mine] (Sec. 6564)
So, the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution apply to all rights and privileges except those that States waive to get this Federal education money.
Cue Mr. Jefferson again: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and anything else left to the states or the people via the Tenth Amendment and Natural Law], governments are instituted among Men..." unless we waive those rights for more money.
One can buy anything in this world for money, I guess, including the right to direct the upbringing of your child's education, as long as the State gets paid enough for it.
3.) Other disturbing things contained in this bill are:
- State-appointed ombudsman to oversee PRIVATE (yes, private) schools because kids will receive Title 1 vouchers for private schools. (Sec. 1120)
- Private schools must provide secular and neutral materials for students, e.g. "Such educational services or other benefits, including materials and equipment, shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological." (Because a private, religious school shouldn't be able to use religious ideology anymore, right? Right, because they are now required to accept federal monies!)
- Educational (and other) services in private schools will be essentially equivalent to local public schools. "Educational services and other benefits for such private school children shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children participating under this subpart, and shall be provided in a timely manner. (So, why choose a private school anymore, if they will all be the same? 'Equitable', in what way? In their secular, neutral and non-ideological educational services? In their standards and curriculum?)
- Essentially a requirement that all states adopt the Common Core standards, not by that name, of course. In true form, it starts by bad-mouthing the coercion to adopt CCSS that occurred during Race to the Top. And then it goes on to say the same thing: "The purpose of this title is to provide all children the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce." (Sec. 1001) Just watch and see: If you want to get to college, you have to pass by the 'college and career' gateway, i.e. Common Core or whatever the euphemism du jour is.
- The SSA will be effective 5 years from its adoption. This will allow bureaucrats time to put off any legitimate concerns about what is currently going on--Common Core, testing, 100% proficiency requirements, tying teacher pay to test scores--with the statement that "we've fixed it already". It also will allow them time to wait for any immediate opposition to die down, and when we're all boiled frogs, then they can implement whatever they want. No one will be paying attention five years from now.
Contact your Members of Congress, your state legislators, and your State Board of Education. Let them know that any federal law that includes the waiving of your rights as a parent or the state's rights as a 'sovereign state' needs to be vigorously opposed. Let's not sell our virtue, our power, our strength to act and oversee the education of our children....
for money.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Oath of Office
On Tuesday, Jan.4, 2011, I will be taking the oath of office. I invite everyone who is interested to come. It is at 6:00 pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E.) in American Fork and shouldn't be very long.
The Oath is stipulated in the Utah State Constitution, Article IV, Section 10. It reads:
I do solomnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
In preparation for this oath, I have re-read the US Constitution (including the amendements), and am in the process of reading, for the first time, the Utah State Constitution. The most interesting thing I have found, so far, is the repetition of the phrase no citizen shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" (US Constitution: Amendments 5 and 14, Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 7). Combined with the oath to "discharge the duties of my office with fidelity", I think that places a very large burden on myself and my fellow board members for the fiduciary oversight of the district. It then follows that without an elected board, our constituents would be taxed without representation, being deprived of "property without due process of law". Part of the reason for this blog is to give you insight into my thinking, but also to give you a forum for communicating with me. I am sworn to uphold both the US and the Utah Constitutions. I plan to consult them frequently in determining how to faithfully discharge my duties as a school board member, in your behalf. I hope that you, too, will take some time to read through these documents, and judge my performance based on this oath.
In addition to the oath of office on Jan. 4, we will be voting on the President and Vice-President of the Board. These officers have no more authority but more responsibility. The President attends more of the committee meetings, conducts board meetings, and gives the offcial direction from the Board to the Superintendent. The President is also the only one who is to communicate concerns from the district (i.e. the superintendent) to individual board members. It is inappropriate for district personnel, including the superintendent, to correct or otherwise instruct a board member. The Vice-President is there to take over when the president is absent. Under Utah Law, these elections for board officers must take place in an open meeting, and cannot be done by secret ballot.
The Oath is stipulated in the Utah State Constitution, Article IV, Section 10. It reads:
I do solomnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
In preparation for this oath, I have re-read the US Constitution (including the amendements), and am in the process of reading, for the first time, the Utah State Constitution. The most interesting thing I have found, so far, is the repetition of the phrase no citizen shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" (US Constitution: Amendments 5 and 14, Utah Constitution, Article 1, Section 7). Combined with the oath to "discharge the duties of my office with fidelity", I think that places a very large burden on myself and my fellow board members for the fiduciary oversight of the district. It then follows that without an elected board, our constituents would be taxed without representation, being deprived of "property without due process of law". Part of the reason for this blog is to give you insight into my thinking, but also to give you a forum for communicating with me. I am sworn to uphold both the US and the Utah Constitutions. I plan to consult them frequently in determining how to faithfully discharge my duties as a school board member, in your behalf. I hope that you, too, will take some time to read through these documents, and judge my performance based on this oath.
In addition to the oath of office on Jan. 4, we will be voting on the President and Vice-President of the Board. These officers have no more authority but more responsibility. The President attends more of the committee meetings, conducts board meetings, and gives the offcial direction from the Board to the Superintendent. The President is also the only one who is to communicate concerns from the district (i.e. the superintendent) to individual board members. It is inappropriate for district personnel, including the superintendent, to correct or otherwise instruct a board member. The Vice-President is there to take over when the president is absent. Under Utah Law, these elections for board officers must take place in an open meeting, and cannot be done by secret ballot.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Proposed Legislation: Superintendent Retention Election
On Monday, Dec. 13, the Daily Herald reported that a Salt Lake legistlator is proposing to create retention elections for local school superintendents. At first, I thought it wasn't such a bad idea, since it would require people to be more involved. (I'm big on that parental involvement stuff). But then, I thought about our retention elections for judges, and started to dig a bit deeper into all the ramifications. I would like to give you my input on this, as a newly-elected school board member.
Currently, the locally-elected school board is responsible for interviewing, hiring, reviewing, disciplining and firing the district superintendent. The superintendent works directly for the school board, and takes his/her direction from them. The school board, being elected, are to take their marching orders from their constituents. If you don't like the superintendent, you don't re-elect the board members who made the hire.
This is an important difference between a republic and a democracy.
In our republic, everyone does have a voice in choosing their representatives. This is an important part of the process. However, we delegate our power of decision-making, in specific areas, to those elected representatives. In a republic, these representatives become informed, study the issues, and make decisions in the way that best represents their constitutents (and their inalienable rights). If our representatives are not doing this, we do not need to appeal to higher government to make them do it. We the People have the power to remove them and replace them with someone who will. We delegate our power to our representatives because we want to have decisions made thoughtfully and with all the facts. We think it unreasonable to assume that most voters would want to spend time on the important minutia in order to make an informed decision. And if the decision is uniformed, then it is unfair.
The voters, even in a group, have much less power to direct the superintendent once every six years, than 5 or 7 members of a school board that are observing, directing, and evaluating the superintendent on matters great and small nearly every week. Retention elections might get rid of an unpopular superintendent, but it does nothing for day-to-day management. The problem isn't the system of boards managing superintendents. The problem is boards not being accountable to the people who elected them.
In addition to the major structural change in our republican system of government, I offer a few items for your consideration should this proposed legislation become law.
First, the board would become irrelevent at certain times. Currently, the board is "the boss". However, in light of a retention election, once a board appointed a superintendent, the superintendent would need to balance the direction of the board against popular opinion. Every major decision would become a political one and might require a focus group. In essence, the superintendent would have two masters: the board and the public. Depending on how close it might be to the retention election, the board's direction would be superceded.
Additionally, if the superintendent took direction from the board, and the board was wrong, would it be fair to punish the superintendent? Would it not more properly be the board's responsibility? Should the board not face the people and be accountable to them?
What about confidential matters of personnel or litigation? Since these, by law, are closed to the public, would those records be opened in order to properly inform voters prior to an election? And if not, this is a huge area of responsibility for which the superintendent would not be held to account.
With all due respect, the problem with a superintendent is not the superintendent; it is the board. If you are not pleased with your superintendent, I would argue that you are more accurately not pleased with your board representation. How much have you been involved and been communicating with your board members? What input has the board received from you? What accountability do you have from your board member? Do they have a website or a blog where they can be held to account by their constitutents? How closely do your concerns and issues match with your board member? Do you think they will accurately represent you vis-a-vis the district and the superintendent?
By the same token, if you were asked to vote to retain your superintendent, have you attended board meetings? Have you reviewed the financials? (If so, I'd like to enlist your aid.) Does the superintendent accurately follow the board's direction? If the board has given the superintendent direction that you disagree with, will you vote against retention?
If it were your job on the line, would you rather be judged by someone who sees your work up close and personal, who sets your job description and evaluation points, or by the stockholders of your company, based on reputation alone?
In all fairness, I am just starting to understand the job of the superintendent. I would not yet find myself qualified to accurately determine the fitness of the superintendent. In two years (when our superintendent's contract is up), I will have a much better understanding of the responsibilities and qualifications for the job. In two years, if you continue to read this blog, you, too, will understand the issues in the district, my perspective on them, and the roles the superintendent and the board play in those issues.
Also, in two years, another set of board members will be up for reelection. Times have changed. People are more involved in overseeing their representatives. I expect, in two years, you will see a lot more websites, cottage meetings, and YouTube videos from those wishing to represent you. Lawn signs and an endorsement from a friend of a friend of your neighbor's will no longer be enough to win an election.
But most importantly, I expect, in two years, you will find me accountable to you for the direction the superintendent has taken. You will then know where I stand, and can properly lay the responsibility on me and my fellow board members. You have delegated to us the responsibility of making those important decisions, with all the information available.
The system isn't broken, it just isn't being used properly. We are a constitutional republic. We elect representatives to buffer the sometimes-transient opinion of the majority. We are seeing changes at the local level to make board members more accountable. Hold our feet to the fire. Make us answer the difficult questions. And see the beneficial results of a constitutional republic over that of a democracy.
Currently, the locally-elected school board is responsible for interviewing, hiring, reviewing, disciplining and firing the district superintendent. The superintendent works directly for the school board, and takes his/her direction from them. The school board, being elected, are to take their marching orders from their constituents. If you don't like the superintendent, you don't re-elect the board members who made the hire.
This is an important difference between a republic and a democracy.
In our republic, everyone does have a voice in choosing their representatives. This is an important part of the process. However, we delegate our power of decision-making, in specific areas, to those elected representatives. In a republic, these representatives become informed, study the issues, and make decisions in the way that best represents their constitutents (and their inalienable rights). If our representatives are not doing this, we do not need to appeal to higher government to make them do it. We the People have the power to remove them and replace them with someone who will. We delegate our power to our representatives because we want to have decisions made thoughtfully and with all the facts. We think it unreasonable to assume that most voters would want to spend time on the important minutia in order to make an informed decision. And if the decision is uniformed, then it is unfair.
The voters, even in a group, have much less power to direct the superintendent once every six years, than 5 or 7 members of a school board that are observing, directing, and evaluating the superintendent on matters great and small nearly every week. Retention elections might get rid of an unpopular superintendent, but it does nothing for day-to-day management. The problem isn't the system of boards managing superintendents. The problem is boards not being accountable to the people who elected them.
In addition to the major structural change in our republican system of government, I offer a few items for your consideration should this proposed legislation become law.
First, the board would become irrelevent at certain times. Currently, the board is "the boss". However, in light of a retention election, once a board appointed a superintendent, the superintendent would need to balance the direction of the board against popular opinion. Every major decision would become a political one and might require a focus group. In essence, the superintendent would have two masters: the board and the public. Depending on how close it might be to the retention election, the board's direction would be superceded.
Additionally, if the superintendent took direction from the board, and the board was wrong, would it be fair to punish the superintendent? Would it not more properly be the board's responsibility? Should the board not face the people and be accountable to them?
What about confidential matters of personnel or litigation? Since these, by law, are closed to the public, would those records be opened in order to properly inform voters prior to an election? And if not, this is a huge area of responsibility for which the superintendent would not be held to account.
With all due respect, the problem with a superintendent is not the superintendent; it is the board. If you are not pleased with your superintendent, I would argue that you are more accurately not pleased with your board representation. How much have you been involved and been communicating with your board members? What input has the board received from you? What accountability do you have from your board member? Do they have a website or a blog where they can be held to account by their constitutents? How closely do your concerns and issues match with your board member? Do you think they will accurately represent you vis-a-vis the district and the superintendent?
By the same token, if you were asked to vote to retain your superintendent, have you attended board meetings? Have you reviewed the financials? (If so, I'd like to enlist your aid.) Does the superintendent accurately follow the board's direction? If the board has given the superintendent direction that you disagree with, will you vote against retention?
If it were your job on the line, would you rather be judged by someone who sees your work up close and personal, who sets your job description and evaluation points, or by the stockholders of your company, based on reputation alone?
In all fairness, I am just starting to understand the job of the superintendent. I would not yet find myself qualified to accurately determine the fitness of the superintendent. In two years (when our superintendent's contract is up), I will have a much better understanding of the responsibilities and qualifications for the job. In two years, if you continue to read this blog, you, too, will understand the issues in the district, my perspective on them, and the roles the superintendent and the board play in those issues.
Also, in two years, another set of board members will be up for reelection. Times have changed. People are more involved in overseeing their representatives. I expect, in two years, you will see a lot more websites, cottage meetings, and YouTube videos from those wishing to represent you. Lawn signs and an endorsement from a friend of a friend of your neighbor's will no longer be enough to win an election.
But most importantly, I expect, in two years, you will find me accountable to you for the direction the superintendent has taken. You will then know where I stand, and can properly lay the responsibility on me and my fellow board members. You have delegated to us the responsibility of making those important decisions, with all the information available.
The system isn't broken, it just isn't being used properly. We are a constitutional republic. We elect representatives to buffer the sometimes-transient opinion of the majority. We are seeing changes at the local level to make board members more accountable. Hold our feet to the fire. Make us answer the difficult questions. And see the beneficial results of a constitutional republic over that of a democracy.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Code of Conduct
The ASD Board of Education has a Code of Conduct. I was told that the most important thing for me to do right now is to read and learn the Code of Conduct. Please take a minute to review the Code of Conduct page, and give me your feedback here. We will be discussing this Code in January.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
November 3: What now?
Remember what we said about November 3rd? Win or lose the task is the same for both you and me. Today we roll up our sleeves and get to work. This is our day. Yesterday was about who represents us. Today is about getting the job done regardless of who represents us. It’s time to get to work.
Before we start, I need to thank Chrissy Hannemann for her example and service for the past eight years. I never saw myself running against Chrissy. I always saw our campaign as simply saying to the Alpine School District “open up and encourage more participation and accountability”.
Anyone who knows Chrissy knows she has been one of the most consistent, hard-working members of the school board. Our real differences were few. We differed on how we would prioritize the goals, but not much about the goals themselves. Our approaches to achieving the goals are as individual as we are, but the end goal is the same. I have enjoyed getting to know Chrissy better through this process and I hope to continue an association with her as we go forward.
But as we have said through the campaign, this really is not about who is sitting on the school board. I am not naïve in thinking this. I understand the importance the school board plays in affecting education across the district. But I have more faith in the individual families that make up the district than I have in the district government itself. We get the level of government we deserve. Our being informed and involved sets the level of government we receive. Let’s not complain about “them”. Let’s stay involved and informed. It will improve the system.
The real work is done by the students, the families, teachers and principals. They are only supported by the district, school community councils, and PTA. I need to support you. It is your job to actually do the hard work. You can count on my support. Let’s start today.
The fact you are reading this, tells me you appreciate the importance of being involved in the process. I want us both to remember the greatest good comes from people like you being involved in their local schools. That means you need to participate on your local school community council and find ways to volunteer for your local school. Send me an email (wendy@wendyhart2010.com) and let me put you on our email list for participating in attending one or two (more if you like) school board meetings every year and giving the rest of the volunteers a synopsis.
I will continue this blog, the Facebook page and continue to share this conversation. I invite you to join me on this journey. Hold my feet to the fire. Support me when you think I am correct and challenge me when you do not agree. You will notice both the blog and Facebook offer the option of giving comments. I encourage you to take advantage of this feature. I hate lectures, but enjoy conversations and debates. Right now, this is a lecture and only you can make it a conversation.
One more thing to ask…we need more people like you. Get at least one other person involved in school community council, volunteering, and participating in being informed on the issues. More of you and your involvement is what will make this good district the best it can be.
We have a meeting tonight at my house at 7pm. I would love for you to be there. Ensuring we have the best district possible will require work. Many hands make light work. I only ask for one hour. It is November 3rd. It is our day to not just make our voices heard, but our presence felt.
Before we start, I need to thank Chrissy Hannemann for her example and service for the past eight years. I never saw myself running against Chrissy. I always saw our campaign as simply saying to the Alpine School District “open up and encourage more participation and accountability”.
Anyone who knows Chrissy knows she has been one of the most consistent, hard-working members of the school board. Our real differences were few. We differed on how we would prioritize the goals, but not much about the goals themselves. Our approaches to achieving the goals are as individual as we are, but the end goal is the same. I have enjoyed getting to know Chrissy better through this process and I hope to continue an association with her as we go forward.
But as we have said through the campaign, this really is not about who is sitting on the school board. I am not naïve in thinking this. I understand the importance the school board plays in affecting education across the district. But I have more faith in the individual families that make up the district than I have in the district government itself. We get the level of government we deserve. Our being informed and involved sets the level of government we receive. Let’s not complain about “them”. Let’s stay involved and informed. It will improve the system.
The real work is done by the students, the families, teachers and principals. They are only supported by the district, school community councils, and PTA. I need to support you. It is your job to actually do the hard work. You can count on my support. Let’s start today.
The fact you are reading this, tells me you appreciate the importance of being involved in the process. I want us both to remember the greatest good comes from people like you being involved in their local schools. That means you need to participate on your local school community council and find ways to volunteer for your local school. Send me an email (wendy@wendyhart2010.com) and let me put you on our email list for participating in attending one or two (more if you like) school board meetings every year and giving the rest of the volunteers a synopsis.
I will continue this blog, the Facebook page and continue to share this conversation. I invite you to join me on this journey. Hold my feet to the fire. Support me when you think I am correct and challenge me when you do not agree. You will notice both the blog and Facebook offer the option of giving comments. I encourage you to take advantage of this feature. I hate lectures, but enjoy conversations and debates. Right now, this is a lecture and only you can make it a conversation.
One more thing to ask…we need more people like you. Get at least one other person involved in school community council, volunteering, and participating in being informed on the issues. More of you and your involvement is what will make this good district the best it can be.
We have a meeting tonight at my house at 7pm. I would love for you to be there. Ensuring we have the best district possible will require work. Many hands make light work. I only ask for one hour. It is November 3rd. It is our day to not just make our voices heard, but our presence felt.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
If Only There Were More Hours in the Day
In the past few weeks, the idea of extending school days and the school year has been proffered by both the President and the Secretary of Education. The reasoning goes like this. The US does not do very well on international math and science tests. A lot of countries do better and many of their kids go to school longer or for more hours a day. Therefore, if we extend the hours in school, math and science proficiency will increase. I just have one question. Will throwing more time at the problem result in higher test scores?
Here's the problem as I see it.
First, every so many years, a new "New Math" program comes out. Most, like the latest get-rich-quick or diet fads, promise to teach kids greater understanding of math without any of the difficulties we commonly associate with math. No times tables. No long division. Instead, we have: What color is the number 10? Kids like it because it's easy and fun. Some teachers like it. And parents like it until they realize their kid doesn't know basic arithmetic.
And science? Science is dependent on math skills to quantify its ideas and implementations. To be good in science, you have to have fluency with math. It's that simple.
In ASD, we spent several years, and the mathematical foundation of thousands of students, on Investigations Math. This, and other related programs, are ubiquitous in this country. (My sister, a teacher in New Jersey, had to deal with "Fuzzy Math".) If we had increased classroom time during "Investigations", would our kids have a firmer grasp of math? No. Would more time on a diet that doesn't work result in weight loss? More time spent does not equate to a better result.
Even teaching traditional math, more class time doesn't equal more proficiency. Like budgeting, dieting, sports, or most anything else, you learn a principle, and then you have to put that principle into practice. Michael Jordan didn't become a great basketball player by just studying dribbling and three-point-shooting. He had to spend a lot of time practicing. The same is true for math and science. Math is about seeing relationships between numbers. Science is finding relationships in nature by way of math. If you do not have the basic facts as an automatic part of your problem solving, you can't free up higher brain functions to find those higher-level relationships. We need to ensure we are teaching a good foundation of the basics and encouraging practice. And then, we will see improvement.
Next, I am reminded of a phrase that says, "Sometimes less is more". Sometimes putting more of something into a problem doesn't yield good enough results to justify the effort you put into it. I read the account of a woman who decided to cut back her work day by one or two hours each day. She was amazed to find that she accomplished the same amount of work in less time. We tend to fill the time we have. There is a point at which the time is properly managed and a point when it is wasted (or even counter-productive). Let's not turn math instruction into "too much of a good thing".
Finally, whether it is intentional or not, increased school hours result in fewer family hours. The days are already filled with school, homework, and various activities. How many days each week do you have where you are not running kids from one thing to the next? How many days are you actively involved with your family, as a family? The most important of all relationships are those within our own families. We need to be able to properly balance school, activities and home life. Parental involvement is what is needed, not more school time.
There are so many days I have wished for more hours in the day. But the answer isn't more hours. The answer is in optimizing the hours that we have.
Here's the problem as I see it.
First, every so many years, a new "New Math" program comes out. Most, like the latest get-rich-quick or diet fads, promise to teach kids greater understanding of math without any of the difficulties we commonly associate with math. No times tables. No long division. Instead, we have: What color is the number 10? Kids like it because it's easy and fun. Some teachers like it. And parents like it until they realize their kid doesn't know basic arithmetic.
And science? Science is dependent on math skills to quantify its ideas and implementations. To be good in science, you have to have fluency with math. It's that simple.
In ASD, we spent several years, and the mathematical foundation of thousands of students, on Investigations Math. This, and other related programs, are ubiquitous in this country. (My sister, a teacher in New Jersey, had to deal with "Fuzzy Math".) If we had increased classroom time during "Investigations", would our kids have a firmer grasp of math? No. Would more time on a diet that doesn't work result in weight loss? More time spent does not equate to a better result.
Even teaching traditional math, more class time doesn't equal more proficiency. Like budgeting, dieting, sports, or most anything else, you learn a principle, and then you have to put that principle into practice. Michael Jordan didn't become a great basketball player by just studying dribbling and three-point-shooting. He had to spend a lot of time practicing. The same is true for math and science. Math is about seeing relationships between numbers. Science is finding relationships in nature by way of math. If you do not have the basic facts as an automatic part of your problem solving, you can't free up higher brain functions to find those higher-level relationships. We need to ensure we are teaching a good foundation of the basics and encouraging practice. And then, we will see improvement.
Next, I am reminded of a phrase that says, "Sometimes less is more". Sometimes putting more of something into a problem doesn't yield good enough results to justify the effort you put into it. I read the account of a woman who decided to cut back her work day by one or two hours each day. She was amazed to find that she accomplished the same amount of work in less time. We tend to fill the time we have. There is a point at which the time is properly managed and a point when it is wasted (or even counter-productive). Let's not turn math instruction into "too much of a good thing".
Finally, whether it is intentional or not, increased school hours result in fewer family hours. The days are already filled with school, homework, and various activities. How many days each week do you have where you are not running kids from one thing to the next? How many days are you actively involved with your family, as a family? The most important of all relationships are those within our own families. We need to be able to properly balance school, activities and home life. Parental involvement is what is needed, not more school time.
There are so many days I have wished for more hours in the day. But the answer isn't more hours. The answer is in optimizing the hours that we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)