Mission Statement and Murdock Canal: Jan 3, 10, 17 Meetings

The two top issues for Board meetings this month are the Mission Statement will be addressed at the Board Retreat on Tuesday, Jan. 17.  And a resolution supporting the Murdock Canal road construction from 4800 West (Highland/Cedar Hills by Harvey Blvd) to 100 East (Alpine Hwy in Highland) will be voted on.  Board Agenda for Jan. 10 is here.

Mission Statement

The mission statement is "Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy."  Seven years ago (yes, time flies) there were concerns about the mission statement.  The first concern is that our country is a republic, not a democracy.  (For a good video on the difference, go here or see the embedded video above.)  Democracy is a concern because it implies that the common good, as determined by the majority, outweighs the rights of the individual.  Other concerns had to do with John Goodlad, whose Moral Dimensions of Teaching, formed the basis of the mission statement in Alpine School District.  In reading Dr. Goodlad's books (The Moral Dimensions of Teaching and Developing Democratic Character in the Young), I found quite a few ideas that didn't square with my understanding of individual, unalienable rights discussed in the Constitution.  I think it is safe to say that Dr. Goodlad is focused on creating a more socialistic society in America than currently exists, and he hopes to do so through education in the youth.  I'll admit this is a very controversial situation.  But that's the point.  Our previous board had discussed finding a mission statement that would be less controversial and would appeal the the vast majority of our taxpayers and patrons.  If you have suggestions for the mission statement, you are welcome to email the board members or make public comment at any of the Board meetings.  The next meeting is tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 10 @ 6pm.  (You will want want to come a few minutes early to sign up.)

Murdock Canal Road

For years, a proposed East-West road has been proposed near the Murdock Canal in Highland.  Highland City is planning on building this road.  However, due to certain legal requirements and the proximity to the Utah State Developmental Center, the State Legislature must give its approval for this new development.  The City Councils of Highland City and American Fork have passed formal resolutions in support of this construction.  Cedar Hills has voiced its support for this construction project as well.  On Tuesday, Jan. 10, @ 6pm, the Alpine School Board will consider a resolution in support of this project, as well.  I, personally, am in support of this project.  Those involved want to make sure that all parties are taken care of, while allowing an East-West corridor that facilitates quicker times to AF Hospital without using SR-92.

Non-Discrimination Policy and Property Purchases

Also, a discussion about possible changes to our non-discrimination policy will be addressed, and several property purchase resolutions. To read the policy proposal and the resolutions, download the "Meeting Documents" found here.)

Summit Energy Proposal
A proposal to obtain Natural Gas through Summit Energy instead of Questar for our secondary schools is also on the agenda.  The proposal shows a significant cost savings on an annual basis.  Summit Energy presented to the Board on Jan. 3, 2017.  You can listen to the audio here.  (Additional Media->Board Meeting start around 8min in: http://board.alpineschools.org/2016/12/21/january-3-2017-board-meeting/)

Responsible Participation in a Democracy

Note: I am NOT aware of any of these materials being used in Alpine District Schools. However, where they are recommended by the USOE's Materials Committee, they are fair game for any public school in Utah to adopt.

Imagine your daughter comes home from school.  She presents you with an essay on a political topic she is, all of a sudden, very passionate about.  Her essay makes you angry and afraid.  She deliberately projects the worst that could happen with this particular situation.  And finally, she wants you to join her cause.

...Now imagine she's six years old.

Too far-fetched?  Read on.


One of the big issues for parents has to do with textbooks. Which textbooks are used?  Can they bring them home?   I have been told we want to allow our teachers to use whatever materials and resources they need to accomplish their objectives.  However, parents want to know what their kids are learning and have some idea of what is being taught.  How do parents stay involved in that process? Should the local school board have oversight in this regard? Or should it be left to the individual teachers? Should teachers provide a syllabus and a list of materials for parents? Should parents even want to know, as long as the kids are doing well and meeting the objectives?

And just what are some of those objectives?

At a Utah School Boards' Association meeting last January, the President of the National School Boards' Association gave the keynote address.  She concluded her speech with the idea that if public schools ceased to exist, we would lose our democracy. 

At a recent Governor's Education Summit, it was reported that while it is important for us to educate our students for employment, it is also important they know how to treat people in society and act "civilly".

The State Board of Education says, "Utah's public education system is created in the state Constitution to 'secure and perpetuate' freedom."

Alpine School District's first value statement is, "To prepare our students for responsible participation in a democracy."

Currently, the emphasis of public education seems to be more on perpetuation of our democracy/way of life/democratic republic/[insert your preferred description here] than on the 3 R's.  Nationally, as I read publications, teachers are being told their role is to make sure their students become good citizens.  Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic take a back seat to participatory democracy. 

"So what?" you say. "Who can argue against good citizenship?"  I would submit that while securing and perpetuating freedom are very good and noble goals (ones I whole-heartedly support), good citizenship (however defined) is not the sole purpose or even the primary purpose of education, public or otherwise.  When you make good citizenship the primary objective, you remove the focus from the individual child.  The child becomes a cog in the wheel of the larger society.  At one point, education was about providing skills for discerning truth from error; classical education was about creating an educated individual without any other expectation.  Citizenship and public involvement were the by-products instead of the objectives.  Public involvement was also reserved for adults, not children.  Furthermore, depending on who determines what "good citizenship" looks like, you could be opening a big can of worms.

That brings us back to the original questions: how do we know what our kids are being taught, and how involved should parents be in following along?

The Utah State Office of Education has an Instructional Materials Database.  A committee, made up of educators from the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) along with appointed citizens, reviews materials and makes recommendations. The official purpose of the Instructional Materials Committee is to determine how closely materials align with the Utah Core standards for a given grade and subject. Recommended materials may be used without reservation for that grade/subject. Recommended Limited materials may be used in the classroom but require supplementation.  So, someone is watching over us and determining what our kids should learn.  No need for us to be concerned, right?

Let's take a look at a few examples.

MATH
In our district, it's safe to say the majority of parents want a more traditional approach to math.  Since implementing Common Core, we have been trying to find textbooks that would appeal to our parents.  Unfortunately, we couldn't find any Common Core integrated math textbooks for Grade 9. Only one other Common Core state adopted the integrated math approach besides Utah. The other 45 states still teach Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, etc.  Obviously, the textbook publishers didn't have a market for the integrated textbooks.   Alpine's ninth-grade teachers are having to use whatever they have and put things together on their own. (As a side note, a parent at a School Community Council asked what the approval process was for teacher-developed materials. There is no formal process.)

One integrated textbook the State's Review Committee recommends is the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). This math book doesn't have any examples, but does have a political agenda. The introduction says this program is appreciated for the "communication skills...developed....The ability to persuade people and to effectively argue ideas has proved priceless...in personal, academic, and professional situations." This is a math book, remember. 

Here is a link to the IMP evaluation from the Materials Review Committee. "Lessons consist of single-page individual or group tasks without traditional mathematical instruction or explanations. Mathematics is learned through the culture and practice that is developed within the classroom as students work on the various tasks.[emphasis mine]"  This is an approved textbook. 

By contrast, Saxon Math, considered a traditional math text, didn't have an integrated approach available yet.   Even so, a pre-Common Core review of Saxon was considered "Recommended Limited" by the Materials Review Committee. "While we found much of the content of the Utah State Core in Saxon Math, the philosophy in how children best learn math differs greatly. The following skills and pedagogy were considered by the review committee...Problem solving is more teacher-driven. It does not encourage students to develop their own ideas. Lessons in problem solving are very superficial. Students are told how to solve each problem. [emphasis mine]"

The more traditional approach is marginally recommended, not because of WHAT is taught. The problem is HOW it is taught. So, the review committee reviews for content but can also "blacklist" a teaching philosophy most parents prefer for their kids. In short, if a math book shows kids how to solve problems and doesn't force them to develop those solutions on their own, the State Office of Education doesn't think it should be used to teach math. 

Rather than the Materials Committee being a resource to the districts, it has an obvious philosophy and an agenda. Should local schools and their constituents wish to pursue a method of math instruction varying from the preferred philosphy of the USOE, they are hindered in their ability to do so, even IF the content matches the state standards. Remember this, when you hear how Common Core is "just standards, not curriculum".

LANGUAGE ARTS TEXTBOOKS
Language Arts is even more subjective and values-laden than math.  And, it, apparently, is a great opportunity for encouraging responsible participation in a democracy.  Here's an example. 

The Zaner-Bloser Voices First Grade Langauge Arts series is Recommended Limited for elementary reading but Recommended Primary for Character Education. You can see the official review here. (All emphasis below is mine.)

• Six- and seven-year-olds are taught to deliberately make their parents "upset or angry". This is done in order to get parents to participate in specific social or political activism. "Say: We're going to write a letter to parents about our problem. We need parents to understand our problem, so we're going to use words that make them feel how important it is to help us. Write anger, fear, and joy." Say: Now remember...this is for your parents...Guide discussion, as needed, to the idea that parents might be upset or angry [i.e. it will be a good thing to get your parnets upset or angry for your cause]." (Assessment Handbook, pp. 38)
• An exercise about using "emotional words" teaches children the phrase "my mom always 'nags' me to clean my room" is better than "my mom always 'asks' me to clean my room."
• The materials teach First Grade children to deliberately exaggerate or distort reality in order to stir up emotion and action in others. "By stating the worst that could happen, the writer appeals to the readers' feelings of anger." (Good Neighbors, pp.T79)
• "The purpose of the book is for students [ages 6-7] to use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems that they care deeply about. They are engaged in learning...social advocacy." (Good Neighbors, pp. T1)

So, instead of learning to read and write about pets or fairy tales, your six-year-old is learning to use emotional words to manipulate you into becoming an involved citizen in some "good" cause the publishers are advocating and the teacher is facilitating. When I was in school, manipulating your parents using emotional words wasn't a character trait to be desired. It was called a tantrum, and you were sent to your room. These days, it's taught as "character education" and "political advocacy" in a First Grade writing class. (Incidentally, does anyone really believe a six-year-old is advocating something other than more Oreo cookies and a later bedtime on their own?)

This series also comes with a selection of Informational Text readers (instead of literature--Thank You, Common Core). These readers include a lot of emotional words to inspire the children to action. The books in the series include a political agenda and encourage activism. One book from probably a Fifth- or Sixth-Grade series is The Highlander Center.  Not only is there an entire book on this center, it is then referenced in another book called Education for All. By way of information, from Wikipedia: "Current focuses of Highlander include issues of democratic participation and economic justice, with a particular focus on youth, immigrants to the U.S. from Latin America, African Americans, LGBT, and poor white people."  Nope.  No agenda here, right?

MVVG and You
In our school district, we have our Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals (MVVG).   Our website says they "guide the focus and priorities of the Board..."  The Goals were determined by a very-involved community process several years ago. The Mission, Vision, and Values were adopted and promoted, over several years, by our district administration.  Remember our first value: To prepare our students for reponsible participation in a democracy.  Given this value, the recommendation by the State Office's Review Committee for character education, and all the rest, is it any wonder that a good and decent teacher might feel this reading package is exactly what everyone wants their children taught in First Grade?  And if parents are not happy with this, who should they blame?  the teacher? the district? the *State Board? the Governor?

As we are laying blame, we should first take a look in the mirror. This Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm at Timpanogos High School, our board will be reviewing our district value statements.  Is the primary purpose of education democratic participation?  Good citizenship?  Or are we looking to create educated individuals, the by-product of which may include securing and perpetuating our freedoms?  What do you think our values should be?  If you aren't there, our district values will be left up to those who are.

*About half of the State School Board members are up for election this November. The State School Board appoints the State Superintendent who oversees the entire USOE. (Here is a map for the State School Board districts.) I would encourage you to find out who is running, and vett them.

P.S. Special Thanks to Zaner-Bloser's "Voices" series for instruction on using emotional words.

The Media...Again

Several days ago, I was contacted by a reporter from the Salt Lake Tribune. I was asked to outline why I was running and my top three issues. A few days later, as an after-thought, I was contacted again to get my take on the district's mission statement. The article, instead, is about the mission statement and yet again, turns this issue into a semantics game. I had hoped that the article would be about the candidates and their positions, and would not misrepresent the 'democracy' issue. It seems that the media can't get enough of this idea, and everything else must pale in comparison. That's too bad.

For those of you reading this blog, you already are familiar with my priorities and issues, so I won't go into them here other than to point out that 'associations' is number five of six. The mission statement debate falls into my fifth issue because the statement has connections to ASD's association with John Goodlad and his organizations. I believe all our education associations should be made with organizations that are academics-centered and void of political agendas. Despite email responses, a website, and a blog, the only information presented about me in the Tribune article is that I am endorsed by a particular group. No information about me or my views was communicated. That is why I have this blog, to clarify who I am and allow you to decide if I accurately represent you.

Let me start by asking, why do you educate your children? I have a list of reasons why I think education is important for my kids and for myself. But, how about you? You want your children educated because.....? Before you continue on, take a minute and come up with a reason or two. Okay, got your list? If not, stop and give it some real thought.

My guess is that my reasons are not the same as yours. Sure, we will find some commonalities. But what really drives me is not the same thing as what motivates your family. I think we do our families a disservice when government (in this case the district) tries to imply WHY kids are being sent to school. Each family is going to have different goals and reasons for their children's education. We want to help children reach their highest potential in all areas of their lives. School is there to provide educational opportunities that meet a baseline. What they do with that education is their own business. Certainly society has a vested interest in a well-educated, productive, freedom-loving populace. But we step into dangerous territory when we allow the government to say that what motivates me...should motivate you. Like all motivation, it is an individual thing. Setting a one-size-fits-all policy doesn't motivate people very well. There is no single 'end goal' to education.

In the early days of our country, one of the main reasons for education was to enable children to read the Bible. Today, that goal is deemed unconstitutional. "Educating all students to ensure Bible Literacy." OOPS! That wouldn't be a good mission statement. For some, a formal education is sought to attain a particular skill, trade or income level. "Educating all students to ensure a lucrative income or a professional career." Some people would like that statement, but many would think that was the wrong approach. Sometimes, education is to fulfill a personal goal. "Educating all students to ensure their future college attendance." Sounds nice, but not everyone may want or need to go to college. None of these reasons is The Reason for education. It is entirely individual. What most agree on is the "what"...that everyone should be given the opportunity for a certain level of education. The "why" will be difficult to find consensus on. The "why" should be left to families and individuals and not the government.

The district states the goal of education is democracy, and since they claim the majority are okay with the mission statement, we should probably keep it or tweak it slightly. I think it is presumptive for the district to put "to ensure _______" into the mission statement, no matter what fills in that blank. To know what individual families' goals are for educating their kids requires a crystal ball. To tell them what that motivation should be is government at its worst. We, as the people, need to make sure that our government is steadfast in precisely executing the tasks we set for it. In this case, it is public education. Would you expect everyone else to have the same reasons for educating their kids as you have for yours? I don't think you're that heavy-handed. Neither should the district be. In a public education system, I think the mission statement should be something all parents can agree on. Would you have a problem with a mission statement that said, "Assisting students to achieve an excellent education"? The point is the district needs to leave the WHY off, and let families fill in the blank.

UDOT doesn't need a "Building roads to ensure the future of our democracy" statement. Just build the roads with our tax dollars and we will decide how to use them. Likewise, focus on getting children educated and let the families and individuals work out what to do with that education.

The role of the School Board is to represent the families in this community to the School District. It is not to be the outreach arm of the district. If there is a group of people in the district who are concerned by the mission statement, and there is another mission statement that is acceptable to all, why wouldn't we change it? We need more input from the community to the district. We need to focus on the things that are most important. On one hand, we are told continuing in this debate takes away from the more important educational issues. I agree. So, let's change the mission statement and leave the 'why' off.

While I think it's wrong to determine the 'end goal' for the mission statement, let me address the 'semantics' issue from the article. The parents concerned by the word 'democracy' are okay with 'republic'. Do you have a complaint against 'republic'? What the reporters fail to realize about this debate is that words mean things. Democracy means majority rule. On that we all agree. In addition, it has become watered-down over the years, but it is used, sometimes incorrectly, in many different contexts. Both Lenin and Reagan used 'democracy' and I doubt their end goals were the same. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. In our republic, laws are designed to protect the inalienable rights of the minority from the majority. In our republic, the sheep would be constitutionally protected by law. This is an important distinction. Again, words mean things. Educators should be involved in teaching facts and maintaining word meanings. Variations on meanings should be a concern for all involved in this process. The district's premise that we need to educate children to ensure the future of our democracy is incorrect. It is factually incorrect; we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Further, the people expect the government to simply perform the tasks we tell them to do and leave the motivation up to us. We need to educate children. The Why is up to the individuals and their families.

I am disappointed that the information I gave to the reporter wasn't reflected in the article. The ASD mission statement has become a bigger issue than it deserves to be. The media and other groups have pushed the mission statement issue to the forefront. The school district's handling of the issue has contributed in a major way. What we need more of is an infusion of you and your neighbor into the district, not more of the district explaining what they meant or the media telling people they are being silly. More of you...that is number one on my list of six issues. More of your voice to the district would resolve the vast majority of these issues. The first step in doing this takes place on November 2. But what's more important is that you and your neighbors get involved and remain involved on November 3 and everyday thereafter.

A Mission Statement Proposal

Alpine School District's Current Mission Statement:
Educating All Students to Ensure the Future of Our Democracy


Last Tuesday, as I was entering the regularly scheduled Board Meeting, there was a very beautiful, full-color document about the Board. One-fourth of the document discusses "Education In a Democracy... What we [sic] Value". I noticed three things in this section I would like to bring to your attention.

First, the word "citisens [sic]" is misspelled. It's a shame, really, because the misspelling detracts from the message of the brochure. It is indicative of the problem of focusing on unimportant things and shying away from what is truly necessary.

Second, there are four basic principles the Board says anchor their actions. These principles approximate those listed on the district's mission statement page. They are:

1) Schools have a responsibility to teach citizenship to all students.
2) All students have equal access to educational programs.
3) School personnel have a responsibility to nuture the children entrusted to their care.
4) Everyone has a stewardship for the schools in their individual educational communities.

Since these principles are highlighted by the Board, I'd like to take a moment to go through each one.

1. Teaching citizenship. Yes, we want to teach citizenship. But, would we find it odd to say one of our principles that anchors all action is: Schools have a responsibility to teach physical education? There is a definite focus on citizenship to the exclusion of all other subjects. Why? As we get in to citizenship it begs the question of what manner of citizen? The Board was very defensive that their mission statement was questioned by parents, but when your primary focus is on a particular item, does it not necessitate scrutiny? What are those principles of citizenship? Who determines them? And do they take precedence over reading, writing, and math?

2. Equal access to educational programs. I am glad to know that ASD follows federal and state law granting equal access. Has this been a problem in the past? Do we have to work to not discriminate against certain groups of children?

3. Nurturing teachers. While we want children to have good teachers who are nurturing, I would be surprised to find that our teachers, in general, wouldn't be nurturing and inspiring without this statement. If we find that a teacher is not nurturing, is there a policy in place to remove them? Most people who go into the teaching profession do so because they are, by nature, nurturing and inspiring. They want to dedicate their lives to educating children because of the types of people they are to begin with. Goals or values or mission statements will not have a very big effect on innate personalities.

4. Stewardship. People support public education because they believe that an educated populace is a benefit to society. How does this concept impact the specific decisions of the board? This seems to be a principle for the community at large. The Board should already be focused on their stewardship for the schools.

While I agree that the Board should have basic principles in mind as each decision comes before them, I would argue that most of these items are self-evident or handled by law. The one that is not, citizenship, is the one that has come under the microscope of late. If you place your principles out there for the public, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start paying attention to them. Since we believe in local control of our schools, this is precisely what should happen. I would recommend that the Board not be defensive, but be open and welcoming of the scrutiny.

Now back to the brochure.

Third, the brochure says "Public education is the place where children have similar experiences. These similar experiences allow each to understand the democratic principle of common good vs. individual need." Does this mean common good should trump individual need or vice versa? Which would you choose? A truly democratic principle would require common good to be determined by the majority to the detriment of individual need. So, if the common good required the sacrifice of your child's individual need, this is what we are advocating by touting the word democracy in this context. Would you send your child to school to have their individual needs forfeited for the common good?

From reading this brochure, the board's (and by extension the district's) focus isn't on academics at all.

In addition, during the board's work session on July 13, there were some board members that were, reportedly, very emotional about the mission statement. It has also been stated that more than 40 meetings were necessary to come up with our current mission statement. I am perplexed that it would take that long to create a mission statement that was so emotional and yet so distant from academic education. While I don't disagree with the idea that we need morals and good citizenship, I wonder if this is truly the best use of our time and our focus as a school district and a school board?

Under the section of the brochure entitled, "Board Responsibilities", we have a much better mission statement. "We want to deliver the best possible education for the greatest number of students for the fewest possible dollars." I would add the word 'academic' or specify core classes (reading, writing, and arithmetic). But either way, this a fine mission statement. It is absent any controversy, and it conveys the actual goal that most, if not all, of our families have for their children's public education. I would be curious to know why this, or something like it, wasn't the proposed mission statement to begin with.