No on HB118: Just Say No to Legal Bullying Incentives

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

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


#UTPOL #NOHB118

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

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

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

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

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

Some concerns with HB118:

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

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

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

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

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

ESSA Opt Out Denial from the Feds: My Comments to the State Board

In June, the State Board was notified by the US Department of Ed, that their ESSA waiver request was denied.  The State Board requested the waiver in order to comply with Utah's Opt Out law that allows parents to Opt Out of state testing without penalty to the school, the employees or the student.  (Please read the linked waiver request.  State Supt. Dickson explains it perfectly.)  The Federal ESSA bribery plan requires that 95% of all students in the state take the same state test. So, parents, your rights are being sold for federal money, and a paltry sum at that.

I addressed the State Board at their June meeting, asking them to stand strong against the Feds.  (About 2% of Utah's education budget could be at risk for not complying with this provision of ESSA.  BTW, anyone else remember how ESSA was hailed as THE most wonderful of federal education bills because it RETURNED POWER OVER EDUCATION TO THE STATES?  Also, remember how those of us who read it said that it really didn't?  Yeah.  Shocked, aren't we?)

Since that time, the State Superintendent and State Board Chair renegotiated language and requested a one year moratorium on giving opted out students a 0 for the calculation of school grades.  (Cause kids who don't take the test would have definitely received a 0 for their lack of proficiency.  Wouldn't using an average score make more sense, if you really wanted to know how a school was doing?)  The Feds approved that request, even though it won't given an accurate picture of how a school is doing--assuming you think SAGE/RISE/ASPIRE is an accurate measure.  Instead, this will create a perverse incentive for schools to bully parents to make their kids take a test they have every right to reject.  We are now pitting teachers and parents against each other.  That's a phenomenally bad idea!!

At any rate, here are my comments from the June 7 Board Meeting.

I am speaking on the denial of the ESSA waiver and ask you to defend Utah's opt out provision. The right of parents to direct their own child's education is protected in Utah law. But that right is not granted by the State of Utah. It is merely protected by the laws of our state. As such, those rights are not rights elected officials can choose to remove at the request of the US Government.

The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In a 1982, Utah Supreme Court ruling, Justice Dallin H. Oaks stated: “The rights inherent in family relationships...are the most obvious examples of rights retained by the people. They are “natural,” “intrinsic,” or “prior” in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them..” Utah Code says: A student's parent or guardian is the primary person responsible for the education of the student, and the state is in a secondary and supportive role...

Our current opt out provision is consistent with natural rights and our state and federal constitutions. We stand on solid, legal grounds. ESSA is a voluntary grant program from the federal government. They have no legal right to require parents to not opt their kids out of SAGE testing. And the Department of Ed will never know, see or care about the students who are harmed by this policy. The State of Utah has the solemn DUTY to protect and preserve those parental rights. And yet, at the point that the Feds offer money and ask us to circumvent those natural rights, should we go ahead and do so? If ESSA were not a voluntary grant, but were instead legally binding on the state of Utah, it would be declared unconstitutional. Instead, the US Department of Education can bribe Utahns to give up our state sovereignty and the natural rights of our citizens because they offer a caveat of money if we “choose” to comply. If we agree, we “choose” to remove some of the fundamental rights we each swore an oath to protect.

In that same ruling, Justice Oaks explains: “We conclude that the right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect is ...so basic to our constitutional order that it ranks among those rights referred to in ...the [Utah and the] United States Constitution as being retained by the people.”

With a single vote by this body, in exchange for monetary compensation, parents throughout the state of Utah can be deprived of their parental rights without due process, without showing unfitness or substantial neglect.

We all know from past experience that the US Department of Ed is playing a game of political “chicken”. They are hoping we will back down. How can they justify penalizing the State of Utah because we are protecting parental rights and fulfilling our oaths to support the US Constitution and the unalienable rights it was designed to protect? Please stand strong and tell the US Department of Education they must reconsider. Inform them you are unable to violate the rights of the people you swore an oath to protect.

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.  

Orem Consolidation: Why You Care Even If You're Not In Orem

The Board has been considering consolidating schools in Orem (see info here).  "So What?" you might say.  "I don't live in Orem." The reason why it matters to you is because whatever we do or don't do in Orem will impact what we can or cannot do in the rest of the district.

So, here is what I'm asking.  Take a minute to look through the figures on the Orem plan.  Here is a link to the City Data that includes not just property tax, but also the amount the state provides per student.  Property tax only makes up 25% of the total amount we get in funding.  You will see that Orem brings in, on average: $6,140 per student.  But on the spending side,  Hillcrest (no Title 1 funding) spends $8,365 per student.  Geneva (Title 1*) spends $8,062.  Scera Park spends $6,235.  In contrast, Highland spends $5,416; Cedar Ridge: $5,911; Alpine: $5,119.  The district average for elementaries is $5,741.

On the website, there is a link where you can leave your feedback.  If you have suggestions as to how to keep these Orem schools structurally sound, with greater educational options for the kids in those schools and not incur additional debt, I'm all ears!  We looked at the numbers and put together our best plan, based on those numbers.  Now, we need feedback.  Do you like the plan?  How can we improve the plan?  Is there a way to accommodate the wishes of the parents in Orem and still provide for those kids in other parts of the district?  Please pass this information along to anyone in the district boundaries.  We'd love to hear your suggestions and your ideas!  Please provide feedback before the end of October.  For more information, read on!

The Orem Plan
The facts and figures of the Orem Plan can be found here.  The original Infographic was created a month or so ago.  After public comment and discussion, there have been options that are being discussed that differ.  These are the "hotspots" but as the graphic indicates, these are current considerations, meaning that nothing has been decided yet.  The board is looking at making a decision by the first November meeting.

Orem has a declining enrollment which has been going on since 1998.  Orem also has many older schools with seismic (Geneva, Hillcrest, Scera Park) and other maintenance issues. Because of these considerations, the Board has considered consolidating some of the schools, and doing boundary changes and, in some cases, a rebuild of some of the schools.  There are a few benefits to doing this consolidation. The first is to allow schools to have full grade levels and more than one or two classes per grade. This allows for teachers to work together.  It also allows for more options for specialty classes.   The second reason is so we can educate all the kids in our district in an equitable fashion.  We can only spend each dollar one time.  If we spend it in keeping older schools with declining enrollments open, that means we can't spend it on additional resources for those kids in Orem or in other parts of the district.  The overhead in opening and maintaining an elementary school is around $780,000 per year.  Two other things to keep in mind are class sizes and employees. The overall class size shouldn't increase much at all.  A Hillcrest-Scera Park combination shows a projection of between 23 - 28, depending on the grade.  And no employees will be let go.  We have so many employment needs throughout the district that any employees in the consolidated schools would simply be able to find employment in another school in the district.  As for the teachers, they could move with their class.  So, most, if not all, of the teachers who are currently at Hillcrest and Scera Park would continue to work at the consolidated school.






So, back to why you should care: wherever we spend one dollar means we can't spend it somewhere else.  That means, we can maintain and rebuild schools in Orem with 350 - 450 students (even though they were originally built for 700 or more).  If we do that, we will need to raise property taxes in a subsequent bond AND build the necessary schools in the high growth areas like Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain.

The majority of parents who responded to a survey in Geneva want to stay together.  There isn't room in any of the existing schools to keep them all together.  So it would require a rebuild of Geneva alone or an addition to or a rebuild of an existing school like Suncrest.  Hillcrest wants its school fixed and then a rebuild of Scera Park, without consolidation.  Incidentally, Scera Park parents appear to be in favor of consolidation.  If we were to consolidate and sell the Hillcrest property, then we could put that money toward the rebuild of Scera Park.  I don't remember the amounts, but it would allow for a portion of the cost to be paid outright.  The remaining amount could be taken from other parts of the budget, without waiting for a bond and without incurring debt. From a fiscal perspective, this makes the most sense.  On the flip side, rebuilding all the elementaries would require significant cost and a new bond.  A new elementary school is $16 -18 million.  That's an additional $16 million that would need to be added to a bond for EACH of those schools.  (Arguably, Hillcrest's seismic needs are less than $16 million, but they are probably close to half of that.)  So, whatever amount is necessary for Lehi and the West and on-going maintenance in the rest of the district, without consolidation, we would have a minimum of $32,000,000 more and possibly closer to $40,000,000 more to maintain these Orem schools as they are.  Additionally, the soonest any of those schools could be rebuilt (without consolidation) would be 2021, assuming the passage of a 2020 bond.  That leaves a minimum of 4 years with students in schools that have structural issues.  I'm not comfortable with either of those scenarios.  So, help us figure out what the best options are.  Make sure to fill out the Feedback form and to share it with your friends and neighbors in the district!

*Title 1 monies are federal funds that assist low income schools.  I am unsure whether these Title 1 funds are included in the chart on the website or not.  Title 1 could account for some of the increased expenses for those schools that receive Title 1 funding.

Feds and Bonds: Summer Happenings

There are two items of importance for your consideration and action: ESSA public comments (the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind has a set of regulations open for public comment.  Hint: They are the textbook definition of overreach and federal control) and the proposed Bond for 2016.

The ESSA public comment period has a deadline of Monday, Aug. 1, 2016.  The bond will be voted on by the Board Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016.

ESSA Regulations
In December, 2015, Congress passed the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), nicknamed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  At the time, I said I was opposed to it, due to the 1 step forward, 2 steps backward attempt at 'removing' federal control in education.  I still believe ESSA to be a net negative (Yes, as bad or worse than NCLB).  However, those members of Congress who voted for it, generally, see the regulations that the US Dept of Ed have put out on ESSA to be an egregious overreach of the law, itself.  (Find the Regulations here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html?src=essa-resources)

The biggest area of concern (and there are many) is the recommendation that schools with high opt-out rates of  Common Core testing be penalized.  See this article: http://longisland.news12.com/news/us-education-secretary-john-b-king-penalize-schools-with-high-rates-of-common-core-opt-outs-1.12031057  In June, I attended a training session on ESSA presented by the National School Boards Association (aptly titled: A New Federalism).  The presenter, an attorney, recommended that we work with our legislators to remove the ability of parents to opt their kids out of state testing.  The consequence, she said, would be to jeopardize our federal funding under ESSA.  So, the one avenue parents have to protest and to protect their students is under attack by the 'new' supposedly kinder, gentler, less-federal-encroachment law.  Additionally, I asked how they would be able to do this when some states, like Utah, for example, have opting out codified in state law, the state law predates ESSA, and under the 10th Amendment, the states would have jurisdiction in this area that the feds clearly do not.  Her response, paraphrasing, "Since the monies in ESSA are 'voluntary', you will not be able to get someone to challenge it on 10th Amendment grounds."  In short, by taking the federal monies from ESSA, we are subverting state (and natural) law--voluntarily. 

Also, the ESSA includes the 'Family Fixing Policy' as it is described by education blogger Peter Greene.  I wrote about this at the end of last year: http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/12/jan-4-2016-deadline-to-support-family.html  Nothing we want taking place in our state.  The concern is that if the Feds have the ability to (which it appears they do) to force states to do what they want, then the State Board will have no options (other than rejecting federal funding) in creating their 'Family Engagement Plan'.  It will have to come very close to what the US Dept of Ed has proposed. 

Incidentally, the NSBA presenter mentioned that the regulations overseeing how Special Education students are dealt with under ESSA were, to put it bluntly, a nightmare.  She said they were not out for public comment yet, but they were on the US Dept of Ed website.  I haven't found them yet, but if you do, please let me know. 

Take Action on ESSA:
1. An organization, US PIE (US Parents Involved in Education) has as its goal the elimination of the US Department of Ed.  They have drafted a letter to send to Congress.  You may add your name by emailing afew@uspie.org and asking to be added to the letter.  Include your name and title and state.
2. Comment on the US Dept of Ed regulations BY AUGUST 1 (MONDAY)!  https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ED-2016-OESE-0032-0001
3. Contact your members of Congress and make sure they know the Dept of Ed is over-stepping it's bounds.
4. If you like twitter, use the hashtag #ReignInTheKing and #StopFedEd

ASD 2016 Bond
The Board will vote on Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016 on whether or not to place a bond on the ballot for your consideration in November.  This bond is proposed to be $386 Million and cover projects over the next 4 years.  There will be no projected tax increase for the average $250,000 home, due to the interest rates, project schedule, and retirement of existing bonds.  For more information on the bond, go here.  (The 2011 bond was $210 Million.)

Originally, there were many items included in the bond, like technology infrastructure and key-card-security access, but they seemed to take a back-seat to the growth and maintenance of schools.  As such, those items were removed and the proposed projects can be found here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzUjUSlTes-4TjhBQXUtQlFjdjA  I would appreciate your comments as soon as possible on these items, as there is not much chance for public feedback at this point.  You are welcome to come and comment on the 16th, but by then, it is mostly a done deal. 

Personally, while I like Clear Creek, I think we should focus our resources on more school buildings instead of Clear Creek. I believe the parents who have kids in overcrowded schools would prefer more day-to-day school buildings than the benefit of Clear Creek. Additionally, I think we could probably get funding from other sources (corporate and personal donations), to determine the exact benefit our parents find from programs like Clear Creek.  (I, personally, enjoyed Clear Creek with my daughter, but I think when it comes to prioritizing our bond projects, more schools outweighs the benefits of Clear Creek.  You may disagree, but that's why I'm asking for input.) 

My take:
I will, most likely, vote to put the bond on the ballot.  There are serious growth concerns in Lehi and the West that I can't see being able to fund in the short-term without bonding.  Our district has a great track record of keeping its promises on bonds, getting the best interest rates, and keeping tax rates low.  So, if you must use a bonding model, I think Alpine School District and our Business Services Department do a great job!

However, in the Highland, Alpine, and Cedar Hills area, bonding is probably not a logical choice.  We have a few minor items that are included in every bond, but we are essentially paying for building and maintenance in the other areas across the district.  (For Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills: 2011 bond: 1% of the bond.  2016 proposed bond: 1% of the bond.)  I've been told that not wanting to pay for others' buildings is selfish.  But, my response is simply this.  Property taxation should not expand beyond those who are receiving the benefit of the property tax; otherwise, any meaningful checks and balances on property taxation are lost.  So, like in this instance, there are enough people in the rest of the district that want/need what is being proposed on the bond they can force those in the other areas to pay for those needs.  (And I remind you I don't think those buildings are a bad thing.  They are truly needed.  It just goes back to self-sufficiency, and the need for checks and balances on government processes.) This is one of the difficulties in bonding over a large area, like our district.

The other possible downside is in the high-growth or older areas that require more building, the bond dollars have to be spread around in order to have broad support.  If you are in Lehi, it would probably take much less time to get all those buildings done because you wouldn't have to pay for Orem or AF or Eagle Mountain..., and the question is whether or not the cost to Lehi would be significantly more than spreading it over the entire district.  Since Lehi is a high growth area, arguably, the increased property values in that area might equal the increased need in buildings.  These are questions I don't have the answers to.  But they are questions we should be asking. 

So, as an example, take Highland City.  It seems every year the City Council raises taxes to fix the roads, and every year, the residents pass a referendum to prevent it.  It's the check and balance that is needed.  If residents prefer to drive on lousy roads in order to keep their property taxes low, then that is their right.  If, however, Highland residents could expand their tax base out to Alpine and Cedar Hills and make them pay for Highland's road construction, there might be less resistance from Highland residents.  But would that be right?  Property tax exists to allow residents of a particular community to tax themselves for a particular benefit.  They pay the price, but they also receive the benefit.  If you are paying more than you are receiving in benefit or vice versa, then the checks and balances are misaligned.  And you will find people voting to take money from others to pay for their needs, instead of bearing the burden themselves.  If we want to help other areas of the district, in the long term, I believe working with the legislature to do the following would be better governance than bonding across the district every 4-5 years.  (Note: these items might not eliminate bonding, but they are better models for government and the bonded amounts would be smaller and more targeted, I believe.)

1. Change the law to allow impact fees to be used for school buildings.  (Impact fees are charged to developers for things like sewer lines and water.  15 or so years ago, the legislature, when the Senate President was a realtor, banned the use of impact fees for schools.  This means we don't have a way of getting more funding to build school buildings in growth areas other than property taxation and bonding.  We don't get to plan in advance and assess monies for schools to be built as cities grow.  And the growing areas are dependent upon the rest of the district for funding/bonding, as well.  The argument against impact fees is that it increases the cost of new developments.  However, to me, that's like saying we can't charge impact fees for water because it would increase the cost.  If you are building, we are obligated to provide you with water.  If you are building, we are obligated to provide schools. Without impact fees, we are reacting to growth instead of being able to plan in advance and prepare.)

2. Remove (or reduce) 'special programs' like technology grants and so forth that limit what funding can be used for at the local level.  Special programs and state grants turn the legislature into a super school board--dictating what projects are of most value in their eyes.  If we had the chance to get money for technology or for school buildings, each district might choose differently, but that is why you have a locally-elected school board--to decide how the money should best be used.

3. Reduce or eliminate the amount of income tax money funding higher ed.  Once upon a time 100% of our income taxes went to K-12 education.  The legislature changed this to allow a portion to also go to higher ed.  Over time, the percentage going to higher ed has successively increased, and reduced K-12 by the same amount.  We are obligated under our State Constitution to provide a free, public education for all our students K-12.  We are not obligated to subsidize higher ed.  If we want to subsidize higher ed, the money should come from outside the income tax amounts and should probably be reduced.  If we can't provide places for our K-12 children to learn, but we are subsidizing higher ed, we have our priorities backward. 

Please share this information with your neighbors.  Ask them to comment on the ESSA regulations, as well as on the bond, and any proposals to deal with growth and maintenance issues going forward.  Our district can represent you, but only if you are willing to weigh in on the things that matter to you!

Jan 4, 2016: Deadline to Support the Family vs US Dept of Ed

I hope everyone is having an enjoyable vacation.  My family enjoyed a wonderful Christmas and we are looking forward to 2016.  I apologize for interrupting what should be family time, but I felt this information was extremely important.

As many of you know, the replacement law for No Child Left Behind, called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), was passed in December.  As part of that law, the states must come up with a plan for education that includes a 'Family Engagement Plan.'  Also, the US Dept of Education (USED) is supposed to come up with their own Family Engagement Plan that states MAY adopt, if they don't want to do their own homework.  The USED has placed their plan on their website and is inviting comments until JANUARY 4th.  (It's almost as if they didn't want public comments, since they put this out over Christmas break, but I digress.)  Here is the link for comments: http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/families.html#family-engagement-draft-statement

I would especially encourage you to read pages 13 -14. 

Utah State Law says that parents are primarily responsible for the education of their children and that the state's role is to be secondary and SUPPORTIVE to the parents' role.  The Family Engagement piece is anything but supportive to the parents' role.  It does have a lot of nice-sounding stuff to blur the lines of you being allowed to 'partner' with the Feds/State as they raise your children.

I could go on with my own diatribe, but I found this from left-leaning education blogger Peter Greene that accurately assesses what a lot of the problems are with this 'plan'.  http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-federal-family-fixing-plan.html  I appreciate the fact that this plan is so appalling to average, normal people that it is not a left/right issue, it is a parents vs bureaucrats issue.

Please take a few minutes to weigh in.  Once this train is on the track, we will be told it's too late. 

Here are some samples:

Implement a vision for family engagement that begins prenatally and continues across settings and throughout a child’s developmental and educational experiences.

Develop and integrate family engagement indicators into existing data systems 

Local schools and programs should track progress on family engagement goals, as detailed in family engagement plans.

Just remember this when we adopt something egregious as part of our state plan.  The mantra that things like this can't happen in Utah hasn't been applicable for far too many years.

And a public thank you to Reps Chaffetz, Love, Bishop, and Stewart, as well as Sen. Mike Lee for voting against ESSA and it's horrid intrusion into the autonomy of the family!

Happy New Year and thank you for all your support and involvement!

No Child Left Behind: More of the same, but probably worse

If you hate No Child Left Behind, or Common Core, or Federal Government Expansion, or too much testing, or teachers being held to teach to the test, or government passing bills so you can see what's in them, or...

Call CONGRESS RIGHT NOW, don't even stop  to finish this post, and ask them to VOTE NO on ESEA Reauthorization.  The vote takes place at noon EST or 10am MST.

Phone: 202-224-3121, general number: ask for whichever representatives you'd like

Rep. Jason Chaffetz: (202) 225-7751, (801) 851-2500

Rep. Mia Love: (202) 225-3011, 801-996-8729

Rep. Rob Bishop: 202-225-0453, 801-625-0107, 435-734-2270

Rep. Chris Stewart: 202-225-9730, 801-364-5550, 435-627-1500

Sen. Mike Lee: 202-224-5444, 801-524-5933

Sen. Orrin Hatch: (202) 224-5251, (801) 375-7881

Moms and Dads, everyday Americans, are up against organizations that stand to benefit in some way from this legislation.  There is so much out there, but here are just a few things you should know.

1. The House Education Committee has put out unsourced talking points as to why this bill is a Republican victory.  Here is the rebuttal.  My read of the legislation supports the rebuttal. http://www.flstopcccoalition.org/blog/rebuttal-us-house-ed-committee-talking-points-essa.htm

2. The bill language was released on Monday, the vote is today.  It is 1000+ pages.  It is wrong to rush this through in short order.  None of our reps have been able to read and analyze this bill, let alone evaluate it. 

3. Some of the best information, and also a lot of fun to read, is this analysis of the first handful of pages, detailing the methods to the bill's madness. https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/this-is-the-moment-congress-we-are-watching-you-vote-and-we-know-whats-in-this-bill/

4.  Summary from some of the moms and dads I've been involved with over the past two days in reading this bill, top 12 problems (some have been discussed briefly, like the process)

1. PROCESS VIOLATES TENENTS OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT – OF TRANSPARENCY IN THE BILL PROCESS AND DELIBERATIVE DEBATE.

Process of forwarding conference report echoes the process of (Un) Affordable Care Act “You have to pass it to see what’s in it” – that is. Congress won’t be reading it.

2. HEAVILY INCENTIVIZES STATES TO MAINTAIN COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS: As a requirement of the Act, states must “demonstrate” to the Secretary that they have adopted standards that are aligned to the same definition of “college and career” standards used to force states into adopting Common Core under NCLB waivers.
3. ASSESSSMENT OF NON-COGNITIVE ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, and MINDSETS: Bill will maintain momentum for increasing non-academic data collection of student and family information into statewide longitudinal data systems.
4. PARENT RIGHTS: The Salmon Amendment in HR5 that allowed parents to opt out of high-stakes state assessments is no longer included. Students whose parents opt them out of the test, must be included in the 95% participation formula.
5. EROSION OF STATE POWER OVER EDUCATION: The state accountability system must be structured as per the federal bill.
6. FEDERAL CONTROL OF STANDARDS CONTENT: Bill language appears to require standards that align with career and technical education standards, indicating that the standards must align to the federally approved Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.
7. NO CHECKS ON FEDERAL POWER, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS JUDGE AND JURY OF ITS OWN ACTIVITY – NO SUNSET OF LAW: The framework would only "authorize" ESEA for four more years, as opposed to the typical five, but, there’s no sunset provision in the bill, so it could go on in perpetuity.
8. EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT ROLE IN CHILDCARE/DISINCENTIVE TO ACTIVELY SEEK EMPLOYMENT: Bill is said to expand Head Start to childcare with Child Care Development Block Grant Act of 2014 so that no work requirements will be expected of low income parents to access grant money to pay for childcare.
9. ADVANCES PROFITING BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS USING EDUCATION DOLLARS THAT SHOULD GO TO CLASSROOMS: Increasing the education budget to fund private investors to implement government- selected social goals is outside the scope of improving education, and outside the authority of Congress as described in the U.S. Constitution.
10. INCREASED ESEA SPENDING: ESSA authorizes appropriations for fiscal years 2017-2020. Spending authority will increase by 2% each year.
11. EROSION OF LOCAL CONTROL: The conference report language encourages states to form consortia that, without congressional approval, may be determined illegal.
12. DATA PRIVACY: Language in the conference report appears to rein in the Secretary of Education’s power and protect student data by inserting prohibitions of collecting additional student data, but makes no attempt to reverse the harm already done by Secretary Duncan’s modification of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

I believe that this quote by C.S. Lewis accurately sums up my thoughts on this legislation.


“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult.”