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!

A Thankful Heart Is the Greatest Virtue: Informed and Involved

'A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues.' --Cicero

I want to start by thanking all of you for your support throughout these past 6 years for the principles that I have tried to stand for.  It was especially felt during this past legislative session with the numbers of calls, texts, and emails that were sent to our legislators.  I am grateful to all of our legislators, even those I vehemently disagree with, for taking the many hours of time and energy and the mocks and scorns of the populace that they are oath-bound to represent.  But I am even more grateful to you, the many moms and dads, everyday people, who are willing to take a little time out of your day to defend the family, protect parents' rights, and demand that parents and teacher decide what knowledge is of most worth.

I am writing to once again enlist your aid: To Run for Public Office or to Support Another Who Shares Your Principles.  You can FILE to run up to THIS THURSDAY, March 17, at the County Elections Office (in Utah County, that's in Provo).

The point of running for office is about the principles that you are willing to stand up and defend. Do you want to defend the family?  Do you want to defend individual freedom?  Do you want to support parents and teachers deciding what knowledge is of most worth to pass along to our children?  If so, you qualify.  The goal of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' is that the people are the ones who are involved, overseeing it and running it.  If you haven't served as a state or county delegate, if you haven't attended a caucus meeting, if you haven't filed to run for office, think seriously about doing so.  You are who we need in the country, not those who seek office for power or glory, but who seek it to maintain freedom and liberty.  

FIRST, for school board.  Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next."  I would argue that who is elected to Local and State School Board positions could have a greater impact on the direction of our country than the president.  (And as the Founders understood it, it really should.)

Alpine School District, ASD4 (PG/Lindon), ASD6 (Lehi), ASD7 (East Orem).  The only incumbent seeking re-election is Scott Carlson in ASD6.  I do not believe that any office should go uncontested, and certainly, any office where those running do not share the vast majority of your principles.  If you have ever thought, "Why don't we have anyone I like running for office", that is a call to arms.  You should be running.

In our predominantly LDS culture, we are used to taking upon ourselves leadership responsibilities and rotating that responsibility around to different members of the ward family.  In a similar manner, our Founders felt that public office should be rotated around to the different community members as a sense of civic obligation and personal duty.  It was assumed that most people would be willing and able to serve 2 - 4 year terms, and then return home to their families, their farms, and their livelihoods. Politics was never supposed to be a professional occupation.  And if you've ever wondered about why we are headed in the direction that we are, I would emphatically argue it is BECAUSE average people don't run for public office.  Many years ago, William F. Buckley, paraphrasing, said that he'd rather be governed by the first 535 names in the New York Phonebook than by the members of Congress. And yet, THAT is exactly what our Founders envisioned: everday people, representing their neighbors, their families, and their friends.

Opportunities for public service are just that, opportunities for service.  Here are several that I would ask you to seriously consider.

1. Attend your party's caucus meeting on March 22.  (An excellent article on the caucus is here.)

2.Vote in the Presidential Preference Poll (this IS the presidential primary for Utah).
3. Run for State or County delegate at your precinct or support someone who shares your principles.
4. Run for Public Office yourself, unless you find someone who shares your principles.  Then campaign on their behalf.  (Money is good, but time is better.)

Some Public Offices that are up for election this year. For more information, go here.

Local:
ASD 4, 6, and 7: If you are in one of those areas, think seriously about running for office.

County:
State Senator
State House
Utah County Commission, Seat C


State:
State School Board (My specific area is not up, but half the State Board seats are.  In UT County: 11, 12, and 13)
State Attorney General
State Auditor
State Treasurer
Governor/Lt. Governor

Federal:
US House of Representatives (all seats)
US Senate (1 seat)
President/Vice-President

Most people are unaware that every two years 100% of the US House of Representatives and 33% of the US Senate are up for election.

In Utah, 100% of the State House of Representatives and 50% of the State Senate are up for election.

We, the People, have the opportunity to completely change the direction things are going every two years, or to reinforce what is being done.  And sometimes we reinforce it by our apathy.

Informed and Involved is the only way to maintain freedom.  And it isn't once every four years by voting for president.  The most important elections are those closest to you!  It is our responsibility to be informed and then to be involved.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,.. it expects what never was and never will be.  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

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.”

ESEA Reauthorization: Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Please call Congress 202-224-3121 and ask them all to Vote No on the reauthorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act).  It will take 2 minutes.  Are your parental rights worth 2 minutes?

Today, Monday, November 30, Congress will release the language of the reconciled* No Child Left Behind reauthorization. So many of us are frustrated with the level of federal overreach in No Child Left Behind that we can't wait to have Congress get rid of it. However, in our zeal to throw out the bad, we are trading bad for worse...and Congress is doing it be taking shortcuts in the transparency and public involvement part of the process. 

Before Thanksgiving, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called out the reconciliation process saying:

“So, from the surface it will still look like the conference process is happening, is unfolding in the manner in which it is supposed to, but beneath the surface we know that all of this has already been prearranged, precooked, predetermined by a select few Members of Congress working behind closed doors free from scrutiny, and we know this vote was scheduled on extremely short notice so it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the rest of us to influence the substance of the conference report through motions to instruct.”

This bill is going to be at least 1000 pages long, based on the two versions of the bill that have already passed.  The vote in the House is probably scheduled for Dec. 2.  That keeps changing.  But there's no way to read and study 1000 pages and then vote, all the while receiving and considering the input of your constituents all in 2-days' time.  For no other reason, they should vote no.  I was told by my then-state representative that he was often the only Nay vote on some apparently 'decent' bills.  However, if you don't have the time to read and study and understand the implications of what you are imposing on people through the force of law, it is your duty to vote NO.  If representatives would consistently vote no by default, we would start to see them (and us) get much more time to review bills and to fully study and learn about them.

This bill claims to get rid of Common Core and the process whereby the US Dept of Ed (USDOE) coerced states into adopting Common Core.  Common Core was adopted by having the USDOE establish a program stating that you get 'more points' for college and career ready standards common to a significant number of states and then clarify that significant number means 15, which then leads states to the ONLY set of standards that meet those qualifications, i.e. Common Core.  Now, the Secretary is prohibited from giving direction on what he would like to see in a state's plan.  However, he can still veto a state's plan.  So, at some point, the state will find a way to find out what the Secretary WILL actually approve, and that will be some other subset of national standards and testing that the Secretary wants to see implemented in the states.  It changes the process from the Secretary directly saying what he wants from the states, to the states playing "Mother, May I?" with the USDOE. 

"USDOE, may we adopt our own science standards?"  Rejected.

"USDOE, may we adopt the Next Generation Science Standards that are not Common Core but were developed by the same group that gave us Common Core?"  Approved

The bill also expands the federal footprint into Preschool.  It's not enough that they are controlling K-12 education, now we need to allow them input into Preschool, as well.

Testing is still required at 95%.  So, even thought Utah has an opt out law that prohibits negative consequences from parents opting their kids out of state testing, the opt-out amendment passed in the House didn't make it into the reconciled version.  So, states will have to develop their own punishments for those schools who have more than 5% opt out.  Does that sound like support for parental rights and increased freedom?

Please call Congress 202-224-3121 and ask them all to Vote No, including the new Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who promised greater transparency.  Let's hold him to this!



IDEAS on CONTACTING CONGRESS:

• Phone: 202-224-3121, 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

• Twitter: https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/join-us-how-to-reach-out-in-twitter-rally-or-video-to-stopesea/

• Video: An invitation for every citizen to make a short video (I'd recommend under 3 minutes, and 1.5 minutes is ideal.) about your opposition to the ESEA reauthorization. http://www.resoundingbooks.org/blog/content/full.php?y=2015&m=11&d=28

• Bill Language Read-a-thon: If you are willing to take a portion of the bill, when it comes out today, to read it and report, please contact me.  A group of us, nationally, are making sure that some of us have read the bill before it's voted on.

More references:

• Letter from many national groups, including 3 of us on the Alpine School Board--myself, Paula Hill, and Brian Halladay--detailing the overreach that exists in the House and Senate versions of this ESEA reauthorization.  http://bit.ly/1Lj6uz5#sthash.YLc0t0ki.dpuf

• Open letter to Senator Mike Lee on the procedural issues and a request to postpone the vote on the bill until these issues are investigated. https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/open-letter-to-senator-mike-lee-from-charlotte-iserbyt-stopesea/

• Explanation of the problems with the preschool language in the bill: http://edlibertywatch.org/2015/06/more-dangerous-federal-control-with-new-preschool-grants-within-the-every-child-achieves-act-2/  This is from the Senate bill, but the exact same language is in the conference framework, starting on page 384 and going through 391.  We don’t know the page numbers in the final bill yet, but the language is definitely going to be in there.

• Research compilation with quotes from approximately 30 different studies and expert reviews showing the lack of effectiveness, fade out of beneficial effects, or academic or emotional harm of preschool from 1985 through 2015 and encompassing Head Start and many other state pre-K programs. http://edlibertywatch.org/2015/11/compilation-analysis-of-early-childhood-research-regarding-effect-fade-out-academic-emotional-harm/

• Op-ed by Dr. Effrem and Jane Robbins on Pre-K in the Pulse 2016:  http://thepulse2016.com/karen-r-effrem/2015/11/16/nanny-state-preschool-expansion-another-reason-the-esea-rewrite-should-be-voted-down/

• Overview of the recent House Oversight Committee hearing on data privacy protections (or the completely lack thereof) from the US Dept of Education, chaired by my Congressman, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3).  https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/utah-rep-jason-chaffetz-on-dept-of-ed-data-mining-it-has-become-an-absolute-monster/

*Bill Process Primer.  The House and the Senate each passed bills modifying the existing No Child Left Behind 'law', which was just an extension of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), originally passed in 1965.  Because the language in both versions of these bills is different, a conference committee gets together to reconcile the differences between the two bills.  Then, the House and Senate vote on the reconciled language, and that is what is sent to the President for his signature to become a law. 

Veto SB235: Unless you only want black cars...

Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.
--Henry Ford

As Americans, we pride ourselves on our independence.  We like to do things our own way, in our own time, and for our own reasons.  We have become a model to the world in education and achievement, in large part, due to the freedom we have had to learn and grown and progress, not as a group, but as individuals. 

Indicative of this individuality has been our education.  We have had a large system of mostly independent schools and districts educating each generation as their parents saw fit.  But, it has always been based on parents and teachers and the community, a bottom-up approach, not a top-down diktat.  SB235 effectively removes local control and determines all success, all failure, rewards and punishments at the state-level.  We drive different makes, models and colors of cars.  Our children are more varied than our cars.  And yet, we assume that a top-down mandate of testing and meeting those testing demands will make education better, more vibrant, and more colorful.  Just like our driving will be improved if we only choose black cars.  It works only if you already wanted a black car to begin with. 

With the passage of SB235 S2 this past legislative session, we are taking the bad ideas of No Child Left Behind and making the state law.  So while our State Board is trying to get out from under NCLB, and our Congressional delegation is looking to repeal and replace NCLB, our state is going to adopt those bad ideas on a state level.  The Eagles sang, "You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave." I thought they were talking about Hotel California, and now I find out it's bad federal ideas in education.  We have one chance in the short term to reverse this. The Governor can still veto this bill.

SB235 sounds like a nice idea.  You take the bottom 3% of our schools and you turn them around.  Who wouldn't want that?  No one.  The problem is in how you determine those 3% and what turning them around means.

First, the 3% is determined, in large part by SAGE test scores...low ones.  My fellow board member, Paula Hill, has said, "Whatever is on the test is what will be taught."  This is a reality. It's well known corollary is "That which is measured improves."  If we measure it on SAGE, we will get better at doing it.  The problem is that we may not want that improvement.  The measurement may be invalid.  SAGE has had one year of pilot-testing.  It wasn't even adaptive the first year.  But everything is riding on the assumption that this test actually is measuring what success in education looks like. 

Note: A school is  put into turnaround status as long as it's test scores are in the lowest 3 percent.  Once in turnaround status, a school will be subjected to one or more of the following: 1) hiring an outside consultant, maybe taking money from other schools in the district to pay for it, 2) turning control of the school over to the State, or 3) turning the school into a charter school.  All this, based on the assumption that SAGE is valid, reliable and adequate to our community's definition of success for our children.  All three of those assumption, in my opinion, are faulty.  For more information on my concerns with SAGE testing, see here. 

Second, we like to make sure that the people have a voice in all aspects of government.  Education is no exception.  So, we elect school boards to oversee what is taught in our public schools.  Charter schools, in Utah anyway, have parent boards that oversee what is taught.  Under this legislation, any 'turnaround schools' can be taken from a local system of governance and put under either the State Board or turned into a charter school.  It's important to understand that, more than likely, this charter school will not be the parent-led charter schools that we are used to in Utah, but those with a track record for 'high performance' that are seen in many other states.  Charter school companies are popping up all over.  So, we will be turning our schools over to for-profit companies that do not have any accountability to parents and taxpayers.  Under this legislation, there will never be more representation at a local level in our schools than there is now.  In a period of 33 years, if no school is selected for turnaround status more than once, we can eliminate all local representation of our schools in the state of Utah.  

Finally, saving the best for last, the US Dept of Ed has a Turnaround schools program.  And even before the governor has signed this into law, our state has been assigned to a federal 'team' for overseeing turnaround schools.  It seems to be true that we are not coerced by the feds when it comes to legislation; we adopt their reforms voluntarily.

This bill has widespread opposition.  All members of Alpine School Board are opposed to SB235 and asking the Governor for a veto.  The Utah School Boards' Association, the Utah PTA, the Utah Educators Association, Utahns Against Common Core, and Locally-Directed Education are all opposed to this.  This is a case where various ideologies all see that taking power away from parents, teachers, and locally-elected representatives centralizes and standardizes what and how our children are taught.  Quoting one of my favorites, Jefferson said, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun ? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..." (1816)

Please contact the Governor at 801-538-1000 or http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_governor.html ASAP.  Ask him to veto SB235.  My understanding is that he will act toward the beginning of next week. 

More references below:

1. My email to the governor
2. The USBA talking points
3. Utahns Against Common Core article on SB235


1.My letter to the Governor:

March 20, 2015

Dear Governor Herbert,

As a member of the Alpine School District Board of Education, I ask you to veto SB 235 S2—Turnaround Schools. While the intent of the legislation is admirable, to improve our public schools, the method, the measures, and the outcomes are problematic.

1. SB235 has the potential to remove all local, elected representation in our public schools within 33 years. Since every year, three-percent of the lowest performing schools may be placed under state or charter control, there will never be greater elected representation in our public schools than there is today. If the same few schools fall into 'turnaround' status every year, then we will just be spinning our wheels with this legislation. If, however, the 'turnaround' is 'successful' in improving test scores, then in the space of about 33 years, every single school in the state will be in 'turnaround' status which will remove all local representation. Parents want more say in their schools, not less.
2. SB235 will standardize and centralize control to a single criteria set at the state, not local, level. The determination of success or failure is based on the school grading system. Anything that is taught or not taught in our schools will be determined by how it is tested at the state-level. As parents and teachers seek to help our children develop their own talents and skills, our education system is removing those who know the children best, and making top-down diktats as to what success in education actually means. Also, our major measure of 'success' is the SAGE test. This measure has only been pilot tested for a single year, and legislation for two years has been motivated by parents wanting their children to not participate in this metric. As such, this metric is highly questionable, and schools with parents who have the most concerns will be greatly impacted by this legislation. With the concept of parental opt outs, this metric is less than reliable. It could also be used to coerce parents into allowing testing against their wishes. As a representative dedicated to preserving parents' fundamental rights to oversee and direct their children's education, I see great potential for problems in this area.
3. And, finally, SB235 implements the Federal US Dept. of Education's Turnaround program at a state-level. While our State Board members and our Congressional delegation are looking at ways to remove federal control via No Child Left Behind (NCLB), this legislation effectively takes some of the most egregious parts of NCLB and implements them as state law. We are not being coerced or bribed by the feds; we are adopting their programs willingly. In this instance, at least, we become not a bastion of independence and sovereignty, but a vassal to a federal department with no accountability to parents and voters.

My overriding concern is the lack of local accountability to parents and taxpayers, much of which comes through the ballot box. I do not believe that education can or should be standardized. Parents want more say in what their children learn and how they learn it, not less. Centralizing what defines success at the state-level, effectively removes parents, teachers, and their elected representatives from having any authority to customize education to the individual student's and a particular community's needs.

For these and may other reasons, I, respectfully, ask you to veto SB 235 S2.

Sincerely,

Wendy K. Hart
Mother of 3
Highland, UT
Alpine School Board, ASD2


2. USBA concerns with SB235
Reasons to request a veto:
1. SB235 S2 represents a major loss of local control in working with schools that are in need of improvement, and, at a time when graduation rates across the state have been steadily increasing due to the great work of local boards, administrators, teachers, parents and students in each community in the state (an increase of 7% since 2011). See: http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Graduation-Dropout.aspx and http://www.sltrib.com/news/1941455-155/utah-graduation-rate-up-2-percent Local boards and their communities surely understand their schools better than anyone at the state level or any outsider hired by the state. And yet, while board members, administrators and teachers can certainly learn from one another and from outside experts and mentors, the mandatory use of state and local money for an outside provider denies local control. Let’s continue to allow our local communities to work on their student proficiency and graduation rates, as they have been doing so well in the past few years.

2. The first use of additional money in education, in our view, should go directly to the student for individualized or tiered interventions, such as tutoring online or after school, to help the child overcome learning deficits. Instead, the first intervention the state wishes to put forward in sb235 S2 is to hire outsiders, to use vital school funding of $8 million for advisory personnel rather than for direct services for students. We cannot imagine this is what the Utah taxpayer has consistently expressed in their desire to see more money directed to their public schools. We believe the taxpayers want more money focused on the children, not on outside advisors.

3. The bill in substitute 2 was not heard in a House committee meeting and thus, did not get the vetting necessary to fully understand the effects of the bill.

4. The bill was written chiefly by non-educators and potential recipients of the resources contained in the bill http://cicerogroup.com/ and could easily be seen as, in part, a vendor bill.

5. The bill may override the intent of, and direction of use of funds, as governed by local boards of education and even of School Community Councils. The bill has total disregard for districts that already prioritize resources based on need, per child, not necessarily per school. It may also introduce wider disparity and inequity, as, on line 138, local districts are required to take funding away from other schools and their students to enhance funding for the identified school(s). This is so unfair to students in other schools, some of whom may be struggling as much academically as are students in any identified school. This might well lead to legal challenge.

6. Sustainable change is the goal of any school improvement, but as the grades in the school grading program can be readily changed through “teach-to-the-test” strategies rather than substantial improvements in student understanding/proficiency or school performance, the bill misses the mark of teaching/learning excellence.

7. The metrics used in this bill are relatively-based rather than based on meeting certain standards, i.e., lowest percentage and grading points are relative to other schools and not grounded in meeting a quality standard.

8. Rewards are not connected with quality changes based on meeting a standard, they are achieved by relative outcomes that can be gamed for certain ages, school sizes, and student body composition (see lines 336-351).

9. The consequences for failure include less able and less successful alternatives, and have an inordinate focus on turning traditional schools into charter schools. There is no empirical evidence on student achievement in Utah or nationally to support creating more charter schools. A policy that recommends conversion to a charter school for any reason seems to be built solely upon politics, not upon data-driven decision-making or what may be in the best interest of a community’s school.

10. A low performing school is defined as one in the lowest performing 3% of schools statewide (line 80), and thus, there will always be 3% of low performing schools in the state, even if all schools were to meet a certain quality standard. And, as consequences outlined in lines 316-323 are heavily weighted toward charter schools or for-profit management companies that oversee many Utah charter schools, if the lowest 3% are moved into such a consequence each year, how soon will Utah’s community schools be taken over by for-profit charter management companies instead of locally elected officials? Schools that are run by for-profit companies and no longer under the management and accountability of elected officials, may also no longer be as responsible to the public at large or to the parents they serve.

3. Utahns Against Common Core Opposition
http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/sb235-effectively-federalized-utahs-education-system-and-federalization-is-anti-family/

Waiving Parents' and States' Rights: The No Child Left Behind Replacement

HR 5 is the bill in the US House of Representatives to 'reauthorize' No Child Left Behind (NCLB/ESEA).  The vote in the House takes place this TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24!

We've all hated NCLB for more than a decade, so anything would be better than that, right?  WRONG! 

Please contact your Member of Congress ASAP and let them know they need to VOTE NO on HR 5!  (Many will think that anything is better than NCLB, and at 600 pages, what are the odds that they have read it?  Plus the summary sounds so 'fluffy and good'. )

Here are some snippets that every single American, regardless of ideology, should oppose. 

1.) Sec. 6561: States can waive their rights (and the rights of parents) over certain aspects of education that would violate HR5, the "Student Success Act" (SSA), by approving a budget that includes these Federal Funds.

The language in this bill is so disingenuous, it makes me sad to realize that our elected representatives (or their staff) put this together.  It starts out sounding so nice--reducing federal overreach.

No officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, ...

Doesn't that sound nice?  We're restraining the power of the Federal government in education....UNLESS....

unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that program and, in doing so, have waived the State's rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance. [emphasis mine]
 

So, really, the state has all its rights in tact, UNLESS it decides to waive them. But, a State really shouldn't be waiving any rights to Congress.  Please see the Tenth Amendment and get back to me on this one.  (Cliff Notes: Education is NOT a power given to Congress, and so it is EXCLUSIVELY the RIGHT of the states and the people.)

And HOW does the State waive these rights? 

This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds...[emphasis mine] 

Translation: if the State Legislature approves a budget that includes Federal Funds granted under this Student Success Act (which will be things like Title 1 funds), then the State WAIVES its rights and authorities to do anything that goes against what the Secretary of Education requires.  (Opting out of SAGE testing? Nope.  The State just waived that right, and it wasn't theirs to grant to begin with.)

Flashback to 1776, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."  unless the State Legislature waives them.  I have rights, but I will give them all up in exchange for federal money. 

There's a word for this: prostitution.   And before you think that too outrageous, let's consider what prostitution really means--To put to use one's talents or abilities [or rights?] in a base or unworthy way, usually for money.  We will give up our virtue (root word: latin virtus meaning strength), our capacity to act, on behalf of our children's education in exchange for money. 

2.) By waiving the rights of the state, the legislature also waives your rights as parents.

Again, nice sounding language about our rights as parents...except for those rights that your State Legislature waived for you in their budget proposals. 

It is the intent of Congress that other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart, control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans [emphasis mine] (Sec. 6564)

So, the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution apply to all rights and privileges except those that States waive to get this Federal education money.

Cue Mr. Jefferson again: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and anything else left to the states or the people via the Tenth Amendment and Natural Law], governments are instituted among Men..." unless we waive those rights for more money.

One can buy anything in this world for money, I guess, including the right to direct the upbringing of your child's education, as long as the State gets paid enough for it. 

3.) Other disturbing things contained in this bill are:

• State-appointed ombudsman to oversee PRIVATE (yes, private) schools because kids will receive Title 1 vouchers for private schools. (Sec. 1120)
• Private schools must provide secular and neutral materials for students, e.g. "Such educational services or other benefits, including materials and equipment, shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological." (Because a private, religious school shouldn't be able to use religious ideology anymore, right? Right, because they are now required to accept federal monies!)
• Educational (and other) services in private schools will be essentially equivalent to local public schools. "Educational services and other benefits for such private school children shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children participating under this subpart, and shall be provided in a timely manner. (So, why choose a private school anymore, if they will all be the same? 'Equitable', in what way? In their secular, neutral and non-ideological educational services? In their standards and curriculum?)
• Essentially a requirement that all states adopt the Common Core standards, not by that name, of course.  In true form, it starts by bad-mouthing the coercion to adopt CCSS that occurred during Race to the Top.  And then it goes on to say the same thing: "The purpose of this title is to provide all children the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce." (Sec. 1001)  Just watch and see: If you want to get to college, you have to pass by the 'college and career' gateway, i.e. Common Core or whatever the euphemism du jour is. 
• The SSA will be effective 5 years from its adoption.  This will allow bureaucrats time to put off any legitimate concerns about what is currently going on--Common Core, testing, 100% proficiency requirements, tying teacher pay to test scores--with the statement that "we've fixed it already".  It also will allow them time to wait for any immediate opposition to die down, and when we're all boiled frogs, then they can implement whatever they want.  No one will be paying attention five years from now.

"That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [protecting the rights of the individuals], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Contact your Members of Congress, your state legislators, and your State Board of Education.  Let them know that any federal law that includes the waiving of your rights as a parent or the state's rights as a 'sovereign state' needs to be vigorously opposed.  Let's not sell our virtue, our power, our strength to act and oversee the education of our children....

for money. 

NCLB Waiver Funding Request to the Legislature: $30 M

Note: This letter was sent to the executive appropriations committee to request an additional $30M for the State Board of Ed should they decide to either refuse the NCLB Waiver or write their own waiver, absent the (illegal) requirements from the US Dept of Ed.


I'm in support of an additional $30 M for the State Board to make up any potential issues if they refuse the No Child Left Behind Waiver.  This year's waiver includes all the requirements from the previous years (College and Career Ready standards aka Common Core, testing, tying teacher pay to those aligned tests, and data tracking).  Additionally, it appears that they are redefining Title 1 monies to cover all students, not just low-income. 

Since the original NCLB act prohibited this kind of involvement from the Feds, the waiver, itself, violates federal law, not to mention the clear language of the Constitution.  Additionally, while NCLB allows the state to apply for waivers, it does not indicate that those waivers would require any particular requirements about testing, standards, or teacher evaluations.  The State Board is legally within its right to request a waiver from the egregious 100% proficiency of NCLB without acquiescing to additional requirements arbitrarily imposed by the US Department of Ed.  However, should they do this, it is entirely possible that the US DOE will reject their waiver.  A rejection of the waiver would mean the loss of flexibility in spending about $30 M in Title 1 funds.  It would be greatly appreciated if you were able, as an Executive Appropriations Committee, to include this request. 

This single action of appropriating $30 M for the State Board to push back against the Federal Waiver would remove the vast majority of our federally imposed requirements for testing and standards.  In short, it would return educational sovereignty to our state, in a very large degree.

If you'd like more information on the NCLB waiver, please look at my letter to the State Board from last August.  I have taken the time to look through much of the actual text of NCLB. 
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Thanks,

Wendy Hart
Alpine School Board Member, Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills   

Why Have a School Board? Taxation without Representation

What my opponent got wrong. 

From her post:

What would our school district look like if my opponent’s votes had the support of the majority of the School Board?

Monthly bills would have gone unpaid more than 30 months in the 4 years she has served.

The Board, by law, receives a report on a monthly basis of what HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID.  Four school districts in the state do not take any formal action on the claims.  My substitute motions were always to 'accept' the claims instead of 'approving' them.  I can accept them, but I don't have enough information to approve them.  After two years, with two new board members, we now accept the claims.  I have voted 'yes' on all 'acceptance' of the claims.  I will never vote to approve something that I cannot personally stand behind and support.

No annual budgets would have been approved, so maintenance and operation funds would not be approved to be used by schools.

Annual budgets must be approved by June 22 of every year.  A budget would have been approved, but if the majority had agreed with me, we wouldn't have spent $75,000 for a party or nearly $42,000 of your money on dues for the Board and Superintendent.  Instead, we would have had more teachers and/or aides in the classroom, a lower tax rate, and discussions of important budget issues by board members BEFORE the money is allocated.

We would not have had the financial ability to accommodate growth, so class sizes would have been even larger.

This might reference the 2013-14 budget where I voted against a tax rate increase and against a salary increase for our Superintendent and our Business Administrator.  It's wrong to ask the people for more money in taxes and then pay your top administrators more.  I suggested that the Board pay the Superintendent and the Business Administrator a modest increase out of our own salaries. 

Taxes on our local residents would have to be raised to compensate for withdrawal from ANY Federal funding.

Many Federal programs cost so much to implement that there isn't a benefit.  I have never moved to get away from ANY Federal funding. Federal Special Education funds, in particular, are severely constrained by federal strings, impacting our ability to 'plug holes'.  When the federal strings impacts our kids, it's important to look at what our options are.  I have supported requests asking for an analysis of the costs vs. benefits of our different federal programs.  Our federal strings give us 6% of our budget, but control a lot more than 6% of what we do.  We need to know if the benefit of the funding is worth the cost of the strings. 

Our schools would be subjected to the federal No Child Left Behind standards and labeled as failing.

Under No Child Left Behind, all schools are failing this year.  That's not anyone's fault but Congress'.  The waiver magnanimously provided by the US Dept of Education included 'assurances' that violate No Child Left Behind.  I supported the Waiver submitted by our State Board of Education that is allowing us to get out from under the egregious penalties of No Child Left Behind and still retain our state's control over education, as legally REQUIRED under No Child Left Behind.

Extracurricular activities that serve students and address their needs would be limited to ONLY what the school board wants to offer.

If a club is illegal under state law, it is the duty of the local school board to limit or deny that club.  I asked that the Board, not just our administration, consult with legal counsel.  If the majority had agreed, we would have been able to go forward knowing, legally, where we stood, instead of hoping that someone doesn't sue us.

Benefits for teachers would be reduced or eliminated

I have never voted to reduce or eliminate benefits for teachers and I never would. I have supported every single salary increase or bonus given to teachers. 

If the Board isn't supposed to weigh in and represent the various views of the community on these many issues, then why have a school board at all?  I support public education.  I support the public, not just funding education, but having a say in what that education looks like through their local board members.  Otherwise, a board, rubber stamping whatever is proposed, is just taxation without representation.

Sources:
Utah Law: Duties of a Business Administrator
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A03_030300.htm
By contrast, I have found nothing in the duties of the school board that say we have to approve all of these expenses that have already conformed to our policies.

Claims discussion:
http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1020
(download the study session audio file)

2014 Budget Discussion:
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/06/04/june-17-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, my motion is at 47 min in)

No Child Left Behind
http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/nclb-law-contents.html
See Sec. 9401: Waivers (who can do them and what is required)
and Sec. 9527: Prohibitions on Federal Government...

My letter to the  Utah State School Board on the NCLB Waiver
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Utah Law: School Clubs
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A11_120600.htm

2014 School Clubs motion for legal counsel
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/10/09/october-14-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, beginning at 16 min, 50 sec)

NCLB Waiver Letter to the State Board

Dear State School Board Members:

I can't thank you enough for taking the time to look at this important issue from all sides.  Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate the time, the thoughtfulness, and the deliberation that you have given to this issue.

I have read all of Utah's current ESEA Waiver, the Legal Analysis from the Attorney General, as much as I have been able to of the No Child Left Behind Act, and the bill sponsored by Senator Dayton in 2005, as referenced in the report from the Attorney General.  I hope that my comments will be of benefit to you.

I do not support renewing the ESEA Waiver.  The Waiver, as I explained in my comments in July, transfers power from our elected Congressional leaders to unelected people in the US Department of Education.  I believe we should always be wary when we transfer power from elected representatives to unelected people. 

Furthermore, NCLB specifically prohibits some of the assurances that the Dept of Ed (USED) is requesting as a condition of the Waiver.  For example, Sec. 9527 that is the trigger for Sen. Dayton's legislation requesting a waiver, prohibits the federal government from mandating curricula, standards, etc. 

It says: "Notwithstanding any other provision of

Federal law, no State shall be required to have academic content

or student academic achievement standards approved or

certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive assistance

under this Act."

 

I would humbly suggest that the requirement to have college- and career-ready standards 'common to a significant number of states' is a specific set of achievement standards, i.e. Common Core. Additionally, Option B requires a particular process that is external to state law for adopting 'acceptable' standards under the Waiver.  As such, I would submit that a process such as this, dictated by the USED, is a de facto 'certification' of standards.  In short, to adopt this Waiver, would effectively trigger Sen. Dayton's law to request a Waiver from the Waiver, as it requires a waiver request anytime Sec. 9527 is infringed upon. 

Additionally, the NCLB Waiver section does not contain any authorization for the USED to make additional requirements of states as part of the waiver process that are not already contained in the NCLB law, itself.  The requirements for the waiver are contained in Sec. 9401 and outline the following:

1. An SEA, LEA or Indian Tribe may apply for a waiver

2. Identify the programs affected and what we are asking to be waived

3. Explain how the waiver will a) improve quality of instruction and b)improve academic achievement of students

4. Describe specific, measurable goals and how those goals will be measured under the waiver

5. Explain how the waiver will allow the SEA, LEA, Indian Tribe to obtain those goals

6. Describe how affected schools will continue to provide assistance to the populations served while under the waiver.

There are no legal requirements for any additional assurances that can dictate teacher evaluations, standards, or assessment methods.  In fact, from reading NCLB, it appears that it was assumed the state would modify its plan on a regular basis.  As such, the Secretary is "shall not have the authority to require a State, as a condition of approval of the State plan, to include in, or delete from, such plan one or more specific elements of the State's academic content standards or to use specific academic assessment instruments or items."  The argument about the standards is the same as referenced above.  Additionally, this section discusses assessment instruments.  The assessment piece is one of the assurances, as well. 

Finally, it appears that the Waiver process is open to the State Board or any LEA at any point in time, and is supposed to be 'developed and submitted' by the SEA or LEA.  I would suggest that for us to adopt the Waiver provided to us by the USED (and just fill in the appropriate information), the Waiver does not meet the requirement of being developed by the SEA or LEA. 

I would, respectfully, request the following:

1. Please do not renew the current waiver.

2. Please either write a new waiver, specifically developed by the SEA or modify the existing Waiver application to remove the assurances.  All assurances would be preferable, but at the very least, those prohibited by the law, itself in Sec. 9527.

3. Please make a formal request/resolution of our legislature to restore the $26 million that will be made inflexible should the new waiver not be approved. 

4. Please make a formal request/resolution of our Congressional delegation to repeal or replace NCLB as soon as possible.

I recognize the biggest concern many of you have in not approving the waiver is the impact it will have on funding in our local schools.  As a local school board member, I cannot thank you enough for this.  It seems to be very rare that our local concerns rise to a higher level.  It is so very much appreciated!  However, I believe it to be far more important to be out from under the requirements being dictated to us, especially in regards to teacher evaluations being tied to testing, approval of our testing instruments, as well as our standards.  Alpine School District was able to finish the year with nearly $10 million in fund balance in our general fund.  20% of our Title 1 monies would be $1.8 million.  As such, while I would welcome the opportunity to use that money to reduce class sizes or to pay for more aides, I believe our children, parents, and teachers will be better served with more local control and accountability that will come in the absence of the current waiver.  I acknowledge that there will be difficulties, and going the waiver route would be easier.  However, if we just go along now, how do we know next year's waiver will not be more egregious? 

If we are able to receive a waiver without committing to the assurances, that would be fantastic!

Thank you so very much for your service!

Sincerely,

 

Wendy K. Hart

Mother of 3

Alpine School District, Board of Education, representing Alpine, Cedar Hills, and Highland

Highland, UT

Taxpayer

Principle or Practicality:No Child Left Behind Waiver

Tomorrow, August, 8, 2014 at 10am, the State Board will debate and decide whether or not to accept the US Department of Education's (USED) waiver for some No Child Left Behind (NCLB) penalties.  This is actually a huge decision, determining who will decide the future of education in Utah.

The Problem:
No Child Left Behind is a huge overreach of the Federal government into education.  It arguably violates the Tenth Amendment.  As of 2014, every student in every school is supposed to pass our statewide tests, no matter what.  If not, the Title 1 schools (low income) that receive Federal Title 1 funds will have to set aside 20% of those Title 1 funds to use in transportation to another (non-failing) school, before and after school tutoring programs, and professional development.  In Alpine, we will be receiving about $9 million in Title 1 funds this year, and so $1.8 million, instead of being used however we see fit in the schools, will need to be set aside for those reasons this year.  This is about 0.3% of our entire budget for this year.

The US Department of Education has (magnanimously) offered a waiver for these past two years, allowing schools more flexibility with that 20%.  They have done so, in exchange for our agreement to adopt Common Core Standards*, Common Core Testing (SAGE), School and Teacher grading that is tied to the testing, and a central database on students, teachers, test scores--called reduction of duplication or something.  Two years ago, our State Board decided they were okay doing these things, and applied for the waiver.  At this point, they have the option of applying to extend the waiver. 

The Solution:
Before I get into my analysis of the problem and why I believe not renewing the waiver is the appropriate course of action, let me give you my proposed solution. 

1. The State Board should develop its own Waiver that has similar flexibility arrangements to those the Dept of Ed is suggesting.  HOWEVER, they should not put any of the 'assurances' that the Dept of Ed wants to say are a condition of the Waiver.  They are not required by law, and in fact, probably violate both state and federal laws.
2. The State Legislature should allocate $26 million to the schools to cover the lack of flexibility that will occur until such time as a waiver is granted.  (So contact the Governor and your State Reps and get their commitment to doing this.  $26 million from the state budget is a small price to pay to get rid of this level of federal overreach.)
3. Local school districts would need to provide at least some of that money to the Title 1 schools in the short term, with the promise of receiving a reimbursement from the state after the next legislative session.
4. Contact your Senators and your local Congressman.  Tell them to repeal NCLB, right away.

The State Board has the right to request a Waiver from the Feds, at any time.  They do NOT have to accept the waiver that the Dept. of Ed is proposing.  The Waiver is allowed under NCLB and does not specify they have to accept any requirements that come from the Feds.  The State Board is to propose a State plan and justify why waiving certain penalties and requirements will allow them to make their goals more readily.  Under NCLB, the waiver is supposed to be entirely of the State's own creation.  Furthermore, the Feds are not supposed to have any say in curriculum, standards, testing, or teaching materials.  In short, requiring the Common Core standards or SAGE testing as a condition of the Waiver would, itself, violate NCLB.

Additionally, some State Board members have met with legislative leaders who were supportive about allocating an additional $26 million to the schools to offset the amount schools would lose in having to accommodate those NCLB requirements.  The only downside is that the schools would need to have enough in their savings to cover that amount until the legislature can make that change in their next session in January.  So, for Alpine School District, we would need to allocate $1.8 million from our savings to our Title 1 schools to make up that difference.  Then the expectation is that the State would reimburse us in June or July of next year.  Since we finished off our fiscal year with almost $10 million in savings in our general fund, this would be do-able.

My Analysis:

I am very opposed to NCLB.  I opposed it in 2001, when I first heard of it.  It is a classic case of federal overreach, unintended consequences, and quite probably, a violation of the Tenth Amendment. But, I do not want the State Board to extend our NCLB Waiver for another year.  So if NCLB is so horrible, why would I possibly want to not get a waiver and go back to NCLB?

Here is my answer, and it's based on principle, not on practicality.

Principle
: a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions
: a basic truth or theory : an idea that forms the basis of something

: a law or fact of nature that explains how something works or why something happens

 

Practical

: likely to succeed and reasonable to do or use

: appropriate or suited for actual use

 

Politics is interesting.  Too often, we focus more on what is practical than what is the principle behind the issue.  Many times in life, we find that sticking to principle is much more difficult than just doing what is practical, at the time.  Ideally, it would be great to always have principle and practicality linked.  But, that is what makes standing on principle so difficult--they are often on opposing sides of many things.  As the definitions above highlight, principle is about truth, about right and wrong.  It is the guide that is to direct your actions and your decision-making.  Practicality is about what is most likely to succeed; it's about results, possibly only short-term results.  In the end, you will usually find that violating principle leads to long-term consequences and only short-term benefits. 

 

 

The waiver, as it currently exists, dictates that Utah will do 4 things

1) adopt the Common Core standards* and a form of statewide testing, acceptable to the Dept of Ed,

2) adopt a system of school grading (accountability system),

3) adopt a system of teacher and principal grading tied to test scores,

4) reduce duplication, e.g. create a statewide database for students, teachers, test scores, etc. 

 

In exchange, Utah receives a waiver from many of the egregious penalties in NCLB, including the repercussions if all schools don't have 100% of their students proficient by this year. 

 

So, why is this even an issue?

 

1.) The first principle is Separation of Powers.  As Americans, we have been raised with the concept that all power in government should not be centralized, but divided into many hands.  This prevents any one group of people from taking control and power away from the people.  Thomas Jefferson said, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body." (1816)

 

But isn't NCLB a classic concentration of powers?  Yes, it is.  But it contains a few things that draw a line that cannot be crossed.  In NCLB there is a section called: Prohibitions on Federal Government and Use of Federal Funds (Sec. 9527).  NCLB (as well as a couple of other federal laws) says that despite giving us federal funds, the US Government cannot dictate, sanction, determine curriculum, standards, teaching materials, or tests.  What standards we teach, what materials we use, and what tests we use to determine if we are successful, those things are NOT ALLOWED under federal law.  It is this line that the Waiver crosses.  While it is true that our State Board adopted Common Core (which they are, arguably, allowed to do), we have seen in other states, like Indiana and Oklahoma, that when they have tried to back out of Common Core standards, their Waivers have been threatened.  Washington State just lost their Waiver because of the teacher evaluation piece.  In short, the Waiver gets rid of penalties from NCLB in a classic Faustian bargain, in exchange for the soul of our education system--what it is we teach and how that will be tested.

 

2.) The second principle is Representative Government.  The Waiver essentially transfers power over what Utah does in education, not to elected representatives in Congress, but to unelected bureaucrats in the US Department of Education.  All it requires for us to shift power from elected people to unelected people is for us to go along with the waiver.  We then show the Dept of Ed that we are willing to be led around by the nose, as long as we get some relief from NCLB.  Additionally, there has been a lessening of the outcry for Congress to repeal NCLB.  With the waivers, the Dept of Ed has done an end run around Congress, and if, at some future date, we don't like what they dictate to us, we will be stuck.  It is a complete power grab.  It goes from elected people to the unelected in one fell swoop.  And that, should be something we should all be opposed to.   

 

3.) And finally, and probably most important, Local Control.  Parents need to be primarily in charge of their children's education.  This is in State Law.  It is Natural Law.  Working with teachers who see their kids every day, parents and teachers will make the best decisions about a child's education. It's bad enough if the state dictates to us, but when decisions are made from a top-down perspective, parents and local teachers are left completely out of the loop.  Local school districts become the implementation arm of federal programs decided by some people with Washington connections who have never spent time in a classroom.  At the end of the day, the ideas and perspectives of our teachers and parents will give way to what we need in order to go along with the waiver.  As long as we can work within their requirements, all will be well.  But as soon as we step outside what they are willing to allow, we will be punished.

 

In conclusion, we need to draw the line in the sand over how much control we are willing to give to the Department of Education.  Just because we can live with their requirements now doesn't mean it will go well in the future.  We give that power away under somewhat favorable circumstances, but it will be very hard to get it back once it's gone.

 

If you would like to oppose the Waiver, please sign the letter at: http://bit.ly/XFQkxG

 

If you agree with the Waiver, please contact the State Board and express your opinion.

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

Text of my comments to the State Board on July 17, 2014

 

While my comments do no reflect the Alpine School District's Board of Education, they do reflect the thoughts of myself, and my fellow board members, Brian Halladay and Paula Hill.
 

We are asking you to not renew the NCLB Waiver. The decision you have before you is really about who will control education in Utah. A prisoner has complete freedom to walk wherever he chooses, as long as he stays within the confines of his prison cell. So too, we have been promised complete freedom over education in Utah, as long as we stay within the confines of the dictates of the US Department of Ed. With each iteration of the waiver, the Department of Ed can change Utah's education system unilaterally. Also, there is little motivation to fix NCLB, since the Waiver is seen as an acceptable Band-Aid. More importantly, however, the Waiver empowers the Department of Ed to dictate education policy directly to the states, completely independent of Congress. All it takes is for us to voluntarily comply with their power-grab. 
 

Whether you agree or disagree with the intent, outcomes, or motivation of the Department of Ed, providing this amount of power over the education of students in Utah to an unelected body is not something any American should be comfortable with. 
 

For Alpine school district, Title 1 funding is 1.7% of our budget. From NCLB, it appears we would still receive all Title 1 monies. We would lose flexibility in spending 20% of it, or 0.3% of our total budget. Just three-tenths of one percent! This amount isn't lost, merely reallocated. Due to great management in our district, we finished the fiscal year with 2.5% of our general fund budget remaining--more than 5 times what we would need to allocate to comply with NCLB. Would we like the flexibility to spend that three-tenths? Yes. But not at the cost of abdicating our responsibility for educating our kids to the whims of the US Department of Ed.
 

One of the fears in standing up against this waiver is the threatened loss of additional federal funds. However, recently the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the federal government could not withhold funding from other programs if a state refuses one particular program. Chief Justice John Roberts ruled, “The states are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

We are asking you to help us act like a sovereign state. Reject the encroachment of the federal Department of Ed on Utah's children. Why do we assume that they know better what the children in Utah need than those of us sitting here, and their parents and teachers? To be blunt, they don't. We shouldn't give them the power act like it.

 

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

*Yes, I know it doesn't actually say 'Common Core standards', it says college- and career-ready standards common to a significant number of states.  Or Option B, which we haven't selected, says we would adopt college and career-ready standards certified to prevent remediation by our institutions of higher ed.  Either way, the Waiver is dictating what standards are acceptable and which ones aren't.  This is a direct violation of the Prohibitions for the Federal Government section (9527) of NCLB.