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.

Middle School Requirements: To Speak or Not To Speak

"Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer


Last month, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the changes to the middle school course requirements.  This rule change didn't eliminate anything, but it allows for local school boards to determine, other than English, Math, Science and History, which courses are required for 7th and 8th grade.  In talking with many other board members throughout the state, they don't expect to change any of the requirements on a local level hardly at all.  The one thing the rule change does allow is for local boards to craft policies that granting legal exceptions to the those requirements for individual students.

If you support this rule change, please take 1 minute to send the State Board members a quick note TODAY along those lines: board@schools.utah.gov.  The State Board will be discussing this rule Thursday, Oct. 12 at their monthly board meeting.

The education establishment groups do not want this level of local control.  They are afraid that you and I will choose...poorly...so we must be commanded and forced to do what they think is best for our children.

A parent group, of which I was a member, participated in the hearing. This is a copy of our statement to the board.  Please note: none of us was speaking on behalf of our respective organizations.


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

Thank you for taking the time hear our convictions on rule R277-700.

We, parents, are in favor of the new rule R277-700, allowing local school boards greater flexibility in determining middle school course requirements. This rule shows trust in our local school boards and our parents. This rule returns local control to our boards, but most importantly, this rule does NOT remove music, art, PE, health or world languages. This rule gives power back to the local level and to the people they represent. It is scary to trust others to make decisions when we are used to having those decisions made at the state level. But fear of local control is a fear of free people making their own decisions.

Freedom brings risk. But this Board has shown a desire to return that freedom back to the parents through their local boards. It can be assumed that those in Davis or Jordan may not agree with the level of PE or arts that those in Rich or Alpine decide. The districts may disagree with what the charters have determined. Freedom brings with it great responsibility. But it also brings great potential for success, far greater than a one-size-fits-all education system. Rep. Rob Bishop has said about public education, Ever since ...the mid-sixties, ... we've been consistently fighting that battle over standardization versus freedom. Freedom should be our goal." We echo his sentiment. And we are grateful that the majority of this Board agrees that Freedom should be our goal.

As parents, we are at a disadvantage, in that, we do not have a formal group with paid employees to represent our interests. We do not have marketing groups who will send out petitions and emails to amass people to our cause. We do not have the luxury of thousands of people in our organization with contact information who can be rallied at a moment's notice to speak up about a particular rule. We are simply citizens. We are the people you were elected to represent.

While not speaking for the groups we participate in, the majority of us are members of various local school boards (Alpine, Davis, Jordan, Rich, Timpanogos Academy, Maeser Academy). We are also current and former members of PTAs, SCCs, and various parent organizations. We are accountants, teachers, programmers, designers, musicians, and social workers. But, more importantly, we are parents. And we know our individual children better than anyone.

Those of us who are local board members are excited for the trust we have been given. We love the arts! We appreciate PE! We think CTE courses, health, and languages are extremely beneficial. We thrill at the thought of education being for the benefit and improvement of each, individual child. We are not motivated to change the middle school course requirements much, if at all, from what the state has had these many years. But we support this rule change because it allows us to legally make exceptions for those students who need them.

While this may appear to be a theoretical discussion, the impact of this policy is taking place around us as we speak. Here are some examples.

Emma has severe food allergies. She was required to take a CTE class that included a foods course, putting her in medical danger. Taylor is a child in foster care who has been abused. Changing in a PE locker room causes him trauma every day. Taylor would do better in his other courses if he didn't have to go through the difficulty of changing for PE class. Brandon has ADHD. He needs to take a PE class every day to do well in his academic classes. Taking two PE classes makes it harder to have open class periods for other electives of interest, instead of just required courses. Savannah is in a community symphony program which requires her to take orchestra in school. This limits her ability to take other courses that are not required. Jordan is heavily involved in karate outside of school four days per week. He wants to take drama, band, Spanish, and choir, but he can't take all of them because he requires PE. Trina signed up for dual language immersion in first grade. All these years later, she is required to take two language courses instead of the one that was originally required when she first committed to the immersion program. Her mother is a social worker and knows the health course would just be a repeat of what Trina already understands. She'd like to take a non-required course for fun. Justin has special needs. Being required to take PE and fine arts classes like choir or band adds greater stress to his life. His success with his other courses would be improved if he didn't have to cope with the additional stress of these required courses.

While the names of these students have been changed, their situations are real. These are experiences of real students in real schools in our state. We believe the majority of students will still need and find the current middle school requirements to be a good balance for their lives. However, for those parents with students like these who need greater flexibility, we support letting local boards find ways to make exceptions.

We also support this rule change because it highlights a very important principle: Local Control. The best decisions are made at the level closest to those who are impacted. Everyone seems to advocate for local control during elections, but this is the point where local control can be supported or defeated. Do we trust our local school boards to create policies that benefit their communities? Do we trust the parents of our students to decide for each individual child what is in their best interests? Or do we want to give up that responsibility and tell these parents, that we're sorry, there's nothing we can do to help their child?

We wonder why parents aren't as involved, and this is, in part, why. Sure, they can volunteer for the Valentine's party in the classroom. But when it comes to deciding what courses their child needs and what that child should focus on, do we defer to others, far away, from that child? Do we not believe individual parents can and should have the option of working this out at the local level?

State law acknowledges this fundamental truth: parents are primarily responsible for the education of their own children. They are the experts of their children, and it is up to those of us on local school boards to represent them and to allow them the necessary flexibility in this area. While there may be ways via IEP's and 504's to individualize requirements, why can we not simply support, as local school boards, a well-rounded set of experiences? But when that doesn't apply, let us trust those parents who need exceptions for their kids to simply ask for them. Why are we so afraid to trust the people who know their children the best: the parents?

Thomas Jefferson stated in 1816: “the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Trust us! Allow us, as local board members and parents, to make the determination for those children who will not be as successful being forced to fit into a pre-determined box. For many kids, the range of experiences we currently have will be beneficial and helpful. But for those who will experience negative consequences, we should be wanting and willing to allow that level of flexibility.

We ask for your trust. Trust that we will defend and protect the variety that currently exists: physical education, fine arts, health, world languages. Trust, also, that we will allow individual parents and guardians to make the call to aid their individual children with special needs, with specific challenges, with greater gifts in need of additional focus, with individual concerns. We either trust parents and want to empower them through their local boards or we don't. This rule change to R277-700 gives us back that trust. Let us not be afraid of freedom! Thank you for trusting us.

Wendy Hart, Parent

Paula Hill, Parent

Brian Halladay, Parent

Phillip Cardon, Parent

Rachel Thacker, Parent

Bryce Huefner, Parent

Matt Throckmorton, Parent

Liz Mumford, Parent

Julie King, Parent

Robin Allred, Parent

Alyson Williams, Parent

Darrell Robinson, Parent

Mona Andrus, Parent

Julie Tanner, Parent

Support Local Control

"The supreme principle of liberty suggests that it is better to risk erring in the direction of allowing too much rather than too little freedom." --W.H. Hutt

One of the main principles I have championed is Local Control of our schools.  Recently, the State School Board changed their rules on Middle School course requirements.  Each district is still obligated to provide the elective courses like PE, fine arts, languages and health, but each district is now allowed to set those requirements at the local level instead of being dependent on the state.

News outlets have characterized this as eliminating Music and PE from middle school.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The local school boards (like Alpine's) now have the opportunity to decide what courses our community wants to require (outside of the state-mandates ones of English, Math, History, and Science).  This is what Local Control looks like!

My personal belief is our local board will adopt something similar to what is already required.  However, it will allow us to put a policy in place to accommodate exceptions for students who need them.  Up until now, students were obligated to be treated the same, even IF there were legitimate reasons for wanting an exception.  (A child with sever food allergies, still had to take the CTE class that included foods, for example.)

Please take 30 seconds to sign this petition in support of this new flexibility for local school boards and our students.  Then please share with 5 of your friends!  https://www.change.org/p/utah-state-school-board-support-utah-middle-school-flexibility-and-local-control/nftexp/ex5/control/772398820?recruiter=772398820&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_content=ex5%3Acontrol

The Utah Education Association and other groups have filed a request for a hearing to contest this new rule.  They have paid lobbyist and marketing people who are supported by dues-paying members.  The rest of us average parents just have blogs and social media.  If you think local control is worth it, then please sign and share this petition.  A handful of us local parents and board members have requested to participate as well in order to speak in favor of this rule change.  A hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 20 @ 5pm at the State Board Offices in Salt Lake.  Please share your support.

For more information, see my previous blog post here.

Here is a screen shot of the changes.

Note: "an LEA board [that's Alpine School District] may: require a student to complete additional courses; or set minimum credit requirements."

Local control allows us to trust our local boards, our local teachers, and our parents!  We do not need to be told what to do at the state level for fear we will choose incorrectly.  If our board chooses incorrectly, then YOU can hold us accountable.  (And that's much easier than at the state level.)

State Board Allows Greater Local Control for Middle School

The State Board voted in a 9-6 vote to allow greater flexibility in Middle School for local boards and parents. They still require English, Math, Science and History, but the electives are to be determined by the local board. They require PE, Fine Arts, CTE, Health and so forth to be offered, but not required, by law/board policy, for every child. This will allow us, as a local board, to set the requirements and any exceptions at the district level.

Below is my email thanking the State Board for this greater freedom. Many people are very concerned because the news headlines read that the State Board had eliminated PE and Health. They didn't eliminate it, they are opening up the requirements so the local boards can customize as they see fit. This is a huge win in the local control column. Please take a moment to thank the State Board for this action.

*****************************************************************************************************************
Dear State Board Members,

I just want to thank you for supporting increased local control last week in allowing us, as locally-elected school board members, to set the requirements for elective courses such as Band, PE, and CTE. Thank you for having the confidence in us, and the parents we represent, to be allowed the flexibility to legally make exceptions for students who don't fit the mold, who might have reasons for not needing PE, Health, CTE and so forth.

The biggest problem I see in education is we are trending toward more centralized control and more standardization. While we all acknowledge the individuality and uniqueness of every child, too often in a large system, such as ours, that individuality can be shut out and lost as we try to mandate all things to all people. And yet, the best answers are always those that allow more freedom for the individual to make the decisions that most directly impact himself or herself. In this case, that means the parents and those elected, most directly, to represent them.

For those of you who disagreed with the decision, I hope you will give us a chance, at the local level, to prove that we are worthy of the trust of our communities. I fear that our schools are becoming too aligned with testing and results and pushing for workforce skills and missing out on the wide variety of educational opportunities. So, be assured, that I will be on the front lines of making sure that we continue to offer a full complement of classes to meet our individual students' needs.

I hope going forward you will be inclined to look at the high school requirements, in a similar vein.

Additionally, it would be fantastic if you allowed districts to choose to adopt a non-integrated math option and to go with the traditional sequence of Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, pre-Calculus and then Calculus. An additional track that would allow for Algebra 1 to start in 8th grade like it used to before we adopted the Common Core standards for math in 2010 would be fantastic. It would allow the average student to take Calculus as a senior without having to cram 4 years' worth of high-level math into 3 years. (I have heard that the concern is SAGE testing, and I'd be happy to address why that shouldn't be a big issue at all.) Personally, I would combine Intermediate 1 and 2 and pick the most important topics from both (the majority of Int 2 is of greater importance than Int 1, despite that the CC standards in the Appendix stated that you could start Algebra 1 in 8th grade after completing their 7th grade sequence. They are incorrect.) Even better, just restore the pre-Algebra standards from 2007. Of course, in my world of worlds, the 2007 math standards would be adopted in place of what we currently have, but I digress onto my favorite topic. ;-)

Sorry for the length of my email. I am just so thrilled to finally see just a bit of control returned to our local boards and parents! This is something that people have wanted since I ran for the first time in 2010. When you knock on people's doors and talk to them, their concerns always center around what isn't working for their individual child. We need to allow greater flexibility just like this going forward.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart
Mother of 3
Alpine School Board Member for Alpine, Cedar Hills and Highland