Posts
BUDGET HEARING TODAY
Today, June 21, 2016, is our annual budget hearing at 6:00 pm at the district office in American Fork. A public hearing will take place for 1) the final budget for 2015-2016 and 2) the proposed budget for 2016-2017. Most of the time, very few people come to comment on the budget unless there is a tax increase proposed. But if you have comments about the budget, you can comment at the appropriate time. If you have comments on other issues, there will be a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, as well. Here is a link to the budget: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4LZ8teFSo0fNUd1WEVYZzZRekFLQ1JSQ3hQWXU2U1BlSUZj/view
A few things to note:
p. 8: Great Graph on 1) Where the money comes from and 2) How it is spent. Total federal funding this year is 6.32% ($39 million total federal revenues)
p. 15: General Fund: This is where most of the 'school-related' activities are funded: teachers, principals, etc.
p.23: District Leadership: The board and other district leadership have their association dues paid for by you. The vast majority of this total amount ($57,999) is for dues for the Board's Utah School Boards' Association. (Note: Only teachers do not have their dues paid for by the taxpayers.)
p. 23: District Leadership Supplies and Materials: This amount is significantly higher than last year because we will be including the Superintendent's discretionary spending fund (for items that arise during the year that only he can approve) here for greater transparency.
p. 39: Nutrition Services: This is where a huge chunk of our federal revenues come in. 51.74% ($11.472 million) of our food budget is federal. Note also, this pays for the free school lunches in the summer, as well.
p. 51: Tax Increment Fund (RDA's): This is the amount of taxation that is being diverted to developers under the RDA sections of state code, to incentivize development in exchange for reduced tax rates to those entities that can successfully lobby us to give them tax breaks. This is a new requirement from the State Auditor's office. This year, $15 million is projected to be given back to developers.
p. 57: Alpine self-insures for medical workers' compensation. This outlines the spending and revenues for that program.
Non-budget items that may be of interest:
p. 66: Enrollment projections through 2020 (hint: 80,885 students by 2020)
p. 71: Actual employee counts, per department, over the last several years.
p. 73: New employee counts for this year specifically.
BOND DISCUSSION--JUNE 27 @ 12:00pm
Additionally, on June 27 @ 12:00 pm at the District Office, the Board will meet to discuss the various bond projects that we would like to see on the upcoming bond. The vote on the bond will take place at the August board meeting. If you have bond projects that you support, want to see included, or want to see removed, please let me (and the rest of the board) know before the 27th. This is the time to weigh in. If you wait till August on your opinion of the bond, it will be too late, in all practicality, to influence it.
TECHNOLOGY and BONDING
My personal opinion is we should not include technology infrastructure in the bond. Most infrastructure for technology has a short 'useful life' and should not be financed over 17 - 20 years. It was included, in part, because the bond survey indicated a strong preference for increased use of technology, especially from our male respondents. We have put the cart way before the horse in thinking technology is the silver bullet of education. We are not fully aware of the vast implications of so much technology use in our children's lives.
As an example, here is an article that every parent needs to read. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201508/screentime-is-making-kids-moody-crazy-and-lazy?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost) The American Academy of Pediatrics advises no more than 2 hours per day of screen time for kids up to age 18. I think technology can be useful in some circumstances, but it is by no means the end-all, be-all of improving education and our children's lives. And, in fact, might be harmful, depending, as always, on its use.
And one more about how we are creating children who can't disagree. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-admits-on-education-tech-we-really-havent-changed-outcomes/) “The digital delivery of teaching materials across Australia has had a powerful normative effect,” he [Dr. John Vallance, Headmaster, Sydney Grammar School] observed. “It’s making it quite difficult for children to learn how to disagree, how not to toe the party line, because they can’t question things – the possibility of questioning things has been taken away from them.”
Please share this information with your friends and neighbors. We are only 7 board members, and we need your input on how you would like to see our district managed.
Showing posts with label Public Hearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Hearings. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Walks and Talks like National Science Standards But....Really an Ostrich
Come Wednesday, May 6 @ 7pm to the public comment meeting for Utah's Newly Proposed Science Standards being held at Provo School District Office, 280 West 940 North, Provo, Utah, 84604.
The new science standards are All That and a Kit-Kat. (or that's what you're supposed to believe). In point of fact, there are a lot of problems with the standards...starting with the fact that they are a cut-and-paste version of a set of national science standards (designed to not be exactly Common Core science, hence the new name, but created by the same organization anyway.) This is the chance to make a difference. In a couple of years, when you see the problem, it will be much harder to fix.
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are the next set of 'state-led, not national, but adopted by lots of states, nationally, standards' that aren't really Common Core; although, they were developed by the same organization (Achieve, Inc) that started us off on the Common Core standards for English and Math. (If you call them Common Core Science Standards, you will be ridiculed. They changed the name....walks like a duck, talks like a duck...Ostrich--with webbed feet and much smaller!)
In May, 2009, a concern was raised by State Board Member Kim Burningham, that the adoption of a national set of standards (Common Core) in a couple of subjects (English and math) would lead to subsequent adoption of additional subjects. (Audio, May 1, 2009, National Common Standards)
In July, 2011, this same concern was raised at our Alpine School Board retreat, after the adoption of Common Core. I was, personally assured we wouldn't adopt another set of national standards, by then-Curriculum director at the State Office, Sydnee Dickson, "I do want to address, Wendy, one of the comments you made about science and social studies. Our board has been very clear, that if national standards are developed, or even a consortium of states come together that we will not adopt those because there are just too many philosophical variances within those, and so, they've just been really clear, up front, that we're not going there." (1st Audio file @ 38:45: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=850)
At the beginning of the Common Core implementation process, we were repeatedly assured, from all sides, that national science and social studies standards would never be adopted by Utah...until now.
While there are several concerns about the parent panel not knowing that these standards were, in fact, the NGSS, and how long it took to figure out that the 'science writing team' was really the science 'cut and paste from the NGSS document' team, the bigger issues are:
1) Parental Control: Parents, during the public comment meetings, were told that not everything that exists in the NGSS has been presented to the public. The teachers will get much more detail on what the standards actually are. "It would be too overwhelming" for parents to actually see and know and understand what their kids are being taught.
2) Lower standards: Fordham Foundation rated Utah's current science standards 'Clearly Superior' to the NGSS standards. Utah has B-rated science standards and NGSS are C-rated. Why would we exchange our locally-developed/controlled, better standards for something sub-par, just to stay behind with other states? (Sarcasm alert!) Clearly, we wouldn't want to be known for our better standards and our superior science education, when we could have students held back to be common and below what they could be. This way, we don't make the other states feel bad.
From Fordham's review:
3) Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House that the NGSS will create students who have an appreciation for science but who can't do science. His conclusion states:
4) Slanted perspectives: And our own State Superintendent, Brad Smith, at an educational forum held at Westlake HS last Friday said that some of the topics in these standards present a one-sided view of an issue. He is hoping to 'tweak' these standards to make them acceptable.
5) Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State last fall to receive training in these new science standards. Why train teachers/curriculum directors on something that might not happen? Why are these standards so incredible that it requires a full-day seminar, before the fact, to properly train everyone? Something smells like a duck too.
6) Controversial: A group in Kansas has filed a lawsuit, and is now appealing on the basis that these standards prohibit a worldview that is compatible with a belief in God. Wyoming's legislature has blocked the adoption of NGSS. This is not a basic set of science standards without controversy. Could that explain the need for a Utah writing team and a different name?
Please come tomorrow and comment. Contact the State board and ask them to scrap this attempt at giving us lower standards in the interest of being the same as other states. Please do not accept the idea that we can tweak standards we don't want.
A friend of mine who analyzed textbook bias in college indicated that the hardest form of bias to spot is the one of omission. You can see what is there, but you have to step back and see what is missing. What is the picture of the world these standards are painting? According to Mr. Wurman, one where kids are consumers of science, but don't have the abilities to be scientists, themselves....
Oh, and they're not a duck....I mean NGSS or national standards or ....!
The new science standards are All That and a Kit-Kat. (or that's what you're supposed to believe). In point of fact, there are a lot of problems with the standards...starting with the fact that they are a cut-and-paste version of a set of national science standards (designed to not be exactly Common Core science, hence the new name, but created by the same organization anyway.) This is the chance to make a difference. In a couple of years, when you see the problem, it will be much harder to fix.
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are the next set of 'state-led, not national, but adopted by lots of states, nationally, standards' that aren't really Common Core; although, they were developed by the same organization (Achieve, Inc) that started us off on the Common Core standards for English and Math. (If you call them Common Core Science Standards, you will be ridiculed. They changed the name....walks like a duck, talks like a duck...Ostrich--with webbed feet and much smaller!)
In May, 2009, a concern was raised by State Board Member Kim Burningham, that the adoption of a national set of standards (Common Core) in a couple of subjects (English and math) would lead to subsequent adoption of additional subjects. (Audio, May 1, 2009, National Common Standards)
In July, 2011, this same concern was raised at our Alpine School Board retreat, after the adoption of Common Core. I was, personally assured we wouldn't adopt another set of national standards, by then-Curriculum director at the State Office, Sydnee Dickson, "I do want to address, Wendy, one of the comments you made about science and social studies. Our board has been very clear, that if national standards are developed, or even a consortium of states come together that we will not adopt those because there are just too many philosophical variances within those, and so, they've just been really clear, up front, that we're not going there." (1st Audio file @ 38:45: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=850)
At the beginning of the Common Core implementation process, we were repeatedly assured, from all sides, that national science and social studies standards would never be adopted by Utah...until now.
While there are several concerns about the parent panel not knowing that these standards were, in fact, the NGSS, and how long it took to figure out that the 'science writing team' was really the science 'cut and paste from the NGSS document' team, the bigger issues are:
1) Parental Control: Parents, during the public comment meetings, were told that not everything that exists in the NGSS has been presented to the public. The teachers will get much more detail on what the standards actually are. "It would be too overwhelming" for parents to actually see and know and understand what their kids are being taught.
2) Lower standards: Fordham Foundation rated Utah's current science standards 'Clearly Superior' to the NGSS standards. Utah has B-rated science standards and NGSS are C-rated. Why would we exchange our locally-developed/controlled, better standards for something sub-par, just to stay behind with other states? (Sarcasm alert!) Clearly, we wouldn't want to be known for our better standards and our superior science education, when we could have students held back to be common and below what they could be. This way, we don't make the other states feel bad.
From Fordham's review:
"Among the shortcomings of the NGSS is its acute dearth of math content, even in situations where math is essential to the study and proper understanding of the science that students are being asked to master." [emphasis mine]Oh, and Fordham LOVES national standards and Bill Gates' money. These standards are so bad, that even they are not willing to endorse them for states like Utah.
3) Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House that the NGSS will create students who have an appreciation for science but who can't do science. His conclusion states:
"The proposed New Generation Science Standards are flawed and aimed at preparing science and technology consumers rather than technology creators. They offer a false promise of enhancing STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] preparedness..."
4) Slanted perspectives: And our own State Superintendent, Brad Smith, at an educational forum held at Westlake HS last Friday said that some of the topics in these standards present a one-sided view of an issue. He is hoping to 'tweak' these standards to make them acceptable.
5) Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State last fall to receive training in these new science standards. Why train teachers/curriculum directors on something that might not happen? Why are these standards so incredible that it requires a full-day seminar, before the fact, to properly train everyone? Something smells like a duck too.
6) Controversial: A group in Kansas has filed a lawsuit, and is now appealing on the basis that these standards prohibit a worldview that is compatible with a belief in God. Wyoming's legislature has blocked the adoption of NGSS. This is not a basic set of science standards without controversy. Could that explain the need for a Utah writing team and a different name?
Please come tomorrow and comment. Contact the State board and ask them to scrap this attempt at giving us lower standards in the interest of being the same as other states. Please do not accept the idea that we can tweak standards we don't want.
A friend of mine who analyzed textbook bias in college indicated that the hardest form of bias to spot is the one of omission. You can see what is there, but you have to step back and see what is missing. What is the picture of the world these standards are painting? According to Mr. Wurman, one where kids are consumers of science, but don't have the abilities to be scientists, themselves....
Oh, and they're not a duck....I mean NGSS or national standards or ....!
Friday, March 13, 2015
Superintendent Search
Superintendent Search Open House:
Saturday, March 14, 2015
9-11 am
Lone Peak HS's Little Theater
All residents of Alpine, Cedar Hills, and Highland are invited to an Open House tomorrow, Saturday, as well as the faculty and staff of all our Lone Peak area schools. This Open House will allow for the public to comment on the selection of our next Alpine School District Superintendent. Please think about what K-12 education means to you and what characteristics and experience in a Superintendent would bring that about.
Our official public input will be limited to an input panel composed of 3 appointees by each Board member (1 parent, 1 city leader, 1 business leader). The rest of the panel will consist of appointees from the following organizations: 3 from the Alpine Administrators Association (AAA), 3 from the Alpine Educators Association (AEA), 3 from the Alpine Educational Support Services Personnel (AESP), 2 from the District Community Council, 2 from the PTA, 1 from the UVU K-12 Alliance, and 1 from the BYU Public School Partnership. This input panel will be formally appointed on April 3 in an open meeting. Their responsibilities will be to read through all the applications and score them according to a Board-created rubric sometime in April. They will be required to sign a non-disclosure document to protect the identities of the applicants.
While I appreciate the role our input panel will play, I think the appointment of a new Superintendent will have a huge impact on our community going forward. So, I think it is only fair that there be a more extensive process, at least for me, personally, in hearing from those of you who live and the teachers who work in our Lone Peak area community. At the end of the day, I believe that our Board fairly represents the diverse views of the people who live in Alpine School District.
I ask that you take time right now to invite 2 of your neighbors. This is not to be a political meeting, just an information gathering meeting. So, every person in our community should feel welcome.
The Process
Starting Monday, March 16, our notice and requirements will be sent out to various colleges and other employment agencies announcing the opening of the Superintendency. The Board has created a list of desired Leadership Characteristics (see below) that will form the basis of the rubric used in scoring the applicants.
April 3: The Board will appoint, by name, in an open meeting, the members of the input panel described above. The selections for this panel have already been made. It is scheduling alone that requires the delay till April 3.
April 13: Applications are due (postmark acceptable) in the offices of the Board's attorney, Brinton R. Burbidge.
One comment on confidentiality. While I would like this process to be as open and transparent as possible, we also want to have many qualified candidates apply. Oftentimes, candidates won't apply if the knowledge of their application could cause problems with their current employer. We need to provide those applicants who will not be selected with a level of confidentiality, so that their current employment is not jeopardized.
April 14, 16: The input panel will sign non-disclosure agreements. Input panel will come to the district office to review and score the applications. Each member of the input panel will work on his/her own. The results of the panel will be given to the Board.
April/May: The Board will review applications and interview candidates. There may be multiple interviews scheduled for some of the top-tier candidates. All these proceeding will be held in closed session, as allowed by State law, in order to protect the candidates' confidentiality.
The formal appointment and vote on the next Superintendent will be done in an open Board meeting. We anticipate that the next Superintendent will assume the post on July 1, 2015.
Leadership Characteristics
Saturday, March 14, 2015
9-11 am
Lone Peak HS's Little Theater
All residents of Alpine, Cedar Hills, and Highland are invited to an Open House tomorrow, Saturday, as well as the faculty and staff of all our Lone Peak area schools. This Open House will allow for the public to comment on the selection of our next Alpine School District Superintendent. Please think about what K-12 education means to you and what characteristics and experience in a Superintendent would bring that about.
Our official public input will be limited to an input panel composed of 3 appointees by each Board member (1 parent, 1 city leader, 1 business leader). The rest of the panel will consist of appointees from the following organizations: 3 from the Alpine Administrators Association (AAA), 3 from the Alpine Educators Association (AEA), 3 from the Alpine Educational Support Services Personnel (AESP), 2 from the District Community Council, 2 from the PTA, 1 from the UVU K-12 Alliance, and 1 from the BYU Public School Partnership. This input panel will be formally appointed on April 3 in an open meeting. Their responsibilities will be to read through all the applications and score them according to a Board-created rubric sometime in April. They will be required to sign a non-disclosure document to protect the identities of the applicants.
While I appreciate the role our input panel will play, I think the appointment of a new Superintendent will have a huge impact on our community going forward. So, I think it is only fair that there be a more extensive process, at least for me, personally, in hearing from those of you who live and the teachers who work in our Lone Peak area community. At the end of the day, I believe that our Board fairly represents the diverse views of the people who live in Alpine School District.
I ask that you take time right now to invite 2 of your neighbors. This is not to be a political meeting, just an information gathering meeting. So, every person in our community should feel welcome.
The Process
Starting Monday, March 16, our notice and requirements will be sent out to various colleges and other employment agencies announcing the opening of the Superintendency. The Board has created a list of desired Leadership Characteristics (see below) that will form the basis of the rubric used in scoring the applicants.
April 3: The Board will appoint, by name, in an open meeting, the members of the input panel described above. The selections for this panel have already been made. It is scheduling alone that requires the delay till April 3.
April 13: Applications are due (postmark acceptable) in the offices of the Board's attorney, Brinton R. Burbidge.
One comment on confidentiality. While I would like this process to be as open and transparent as possible, we also want to have many qualified candidates apply. Oftentimes, candidates won't apply if the knowledge of their application could cause problems with their current employer. We need to provide those applicants who will not be selected with a level of confidentiality, so that their current employment is not jeopardized.
April 14, 16: The input panel will sign non-disclosure agreements. Input panel will come to the district office to review and score the applications. Each member of the input panel will work on his/her own. The results of the panel will be given to the Board.
April/May: The Board will review applications and interview candidates. There may be multiple interviews scheduled for some of the top-tier candidates. All these proceeding will be held in closed session, as allowed by State law, in order to protect the candidates' confidentiality.
The formal appointment and vote on the next Superintendent will be done in an open Board meeting. We anticipate that the next Superintendent will assume the post on July 1, 2015.
Leadership Characteristics
- Accepts the collaborative governance model in working with the Board of Education and is committed to doing whatever possible to assist the board as a body as well as to assist individual board members.
- Demonstrates high moral character, integrity and good judgment.
- Promotes instructional excellence and high student achievement and a commitment to collaboration through Professional Learning Communities.
- Understands the unique culture of the district and respects the role of parents in the education of their children.
- Communicates well and is able to build trust with employees, families, and community members. Listens to and understands different points of view. Shares a clear vision of educational excellence and inspires and motivates all stakeholders.
- Models and applies instructional leadership and best practices.
- Works with all stakeholders to increase student engagement and achievement.
- Inspires teamwork through collaboration and consensus building with various groups inside and outside the District.
- Advocates for the school district and its children in the community and at the state level.
- Uses data systematically to track student progress, inform instructional organizational decisions, and communicate district progress regularly to the Board of Education.
- Knows the legislative process and is able to develop an effective working relationship with the Utah Legislature, Utah State School Board, Utah State Office of Education and other state entities.
- Will manage the resources of the District in a manner that assures adherence to the budgetary provisions and the maximum effectiveness and efficiency in their use for promoting excellence in teaching and learning.
- Possesses leadership skills, including articulation of the vision and mission of the school district, exceptional ability to problem solve and make decisions, effectively delegate
- authority, collaborate with various stakeholder groups, and to inspire and gain the trust and confidence of others.
- Demonstrates the ability to listen, understand and respect differences of opinion.
- Develops and maintains mutually beneficial partnerships between the school district and local governments, business community and other educational institutions.
- Possesses experience collaborating with employee groups, associations and unions.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Campaign in Favor of the Bond
Important Note: Public Hearing on the Bond. Tuesday, Sept. 13, @ 6pm at the district office.
70% of your friends and neighbors believe that going into debt, via the bond, is a good idea. I don't.
"But you voted for the bond!"
I voted to give you the opportunity to debate this issue and to give our school district a clear mandate: do we continue with the debt cycle, or do we make difficult choices but prevent further debt? I am one of seven on the board. The rest of the board members are clearly in support of the bond. Some have a desire for a concrete plan to get out of debt. Some have a desire to get out of debt as soon as circumstance allows us to do so. With 70% of the people in favor of the bond, it doesn't make sense for the board, politically, to want to go a different direction. Without a clear mandate from you, via an election, the debt cycle will continue.
Whether you favor the bond, unequivocally, favor with a firm debt-reduction plan, or want a complete divestiture of debt, you need to speak up. You need to talk to your neighbors and come to one of the roughly 192 meetings planned in the next 2 months (see below for some dates and times).
If you are opposed to the bond and you don't speak up, you need to understand that 70% of the people in this area will out-vote you. If you support the bond, you are equally obligated to speak up and not let others carry your water. What if the non-bond people win?
One of the more frequent comments I hear is, "What are the options without the bond?" In short, there is a Plan B, but it hasn't really been talked about. The bond is the familiar, easy, and preferred option. This is "business as usual" for school districts (not just Alpine, by the way). The board is promoting it because they don't think you are willing to do the hard things, the principled things to get out of debt. And, according to the Bond Survey, they are correct.
The Bond Survey mentioned options like satellites, double sessions, reduction in programs, etc. What it didn't mention is a slew of creative ideas that people in the community have mentioned and could come up with to deal with some of these issues. Also, the survey didn't say that some bonding could be done without a tax increase. If the total bond amounts were phased down every time, that would be a great start in reducing debt at the outset. And honestly, without meaning to discredit myself or my fellow board members, the seven of us are not as creative and innovative as all of you.
I, personally, would like to see more parental involvement...and about 51% of the people in my area seemed to agree (based on the last election results). One of the options would be to have more work at home and online as opposed to 'at school', reducing the hours sitting in class. This allows parents greater involvement with their kids' education, and reduces the 'at school' time. But what about those kids whose parents can't or won't do this? We seem to worry about those who can't, but what about those that can? Let's assume that 10% , 25% or even 50% of our parents were willing and able to be involved to that degree, and then we provided for the others who are not able to. That would increase our capacity in all of our schools by that amount. For those who can't or won't, we are Utahns. We'll make sure everyone is taken care of.
In Utah County, we emphasize families and the parent-child relationship. We don't, truly, want our children raised by the state. We want the public educated, and we have decided to band together to accomplish that goal. However, in doing so, are we really willing to say, as parents, we want a very limited role in our kids' education? I know, in many cases, we have grown accustomed to it. But in the ideal, don't we want an increased role in our kids' lives, including their education?
A specific application of using double sessions would be to reduce the amount of hours to 4 and use the teachers as mentors. With 4 hour days, you might need 2 hours of parent/homework time to make up the difference. Alternatively, you use parent-time in preparation for the class the next day.
If an elementary teacher were to teach two 4-hours sessions/day, we then increase the total number of students taught by the teacher, increase the amount of money available to pay the teacher, and reduce the class sizes for that teacher. For example, if a third-grade class currently has 30 kids in it, what if we had two sessions of 15 students? The teacher would teach the same class, so (s)he would prep once, teach twice.
I'm not saying this is how it has to be. I'm just illustrating some of the options. If the board decided to implement these changes without a clear mandate from the people, I'm afraid we'd see an Investigations Math-like mutiny. But WITH the support of the people, we would see amazing things, including the most important element of all...parents helping their kids take control of their own education. And teachers would be freed up to do what they do best--teach, with parental support.
So what do you do now?
First, an official Public Hearing on the bond will take place Tues, Sep. 13, @ 6:00 pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E. AF). No matter where you stand, please come and bring 2 friends with you to comment. It is assumed that either there won't be anyone who will come, or else the same people who commented last meeting will be there to repeat their concerns. Ask your friends and neighbors what they would want to do with $210M, and invite them to come to the meeting.
Second, the board will be voting to change the board meeting from Nov. 29 to Nov. 22. We are required, by law, to canvass the bond election results within 2 weeks of the election. This new date is the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving. Since all board meetings are open, public meetings, you would be invited to attend this meeting as well.
Finally, the district must publish and send an informational notice to all patrons about the logistics of the bond: how much? what will it be used for? what's the need? how will it impact me? This notice is to be "the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
You also need to be aware of the following.
Friends of Alpine Organization
Friends of Alpine is a 501(c)3 organization that has been set up to accept donations to publicize and encourage the bond effort. In the past, district-affiliated non-profits like the Alpine Foundation were able to accept monies to promote the bond. The legislature changed that recently, and so a separate organization must be used. A few members of the Board of Education are on the Board of Friends of Alpine. There are also parents, and other interested people. Friends of Alpine can seek donations and run whatever marketing and advertising, including signs, it would like to promote adoption of the bond.
Employee and PTA/SCC Meetings
Between September 14 and the November election, there will be 192 meetings conducted by administrative staff. Some of these meetings will be for employees only. But, the rest are for the PTA/SCC organizations at each of the 79 schools in the district. This is similar to the PTA/SCC meetings held last October at each of the schools. It is important to know that, even though the meetings are listed as PTA/SCC meetings, they are open to the public. Again, your attendance and comments are important and make a difference. The employee meetings, I believe, will be limited to just employees of the district. Board members are encouraged to attend the meetings held in their respective areas. The Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills schools' meetings are listed at the end of this post. The entire list will appear on the district's website, once finalized.
Public Input Meetings
In addition, there were be three public meetings held to discuss the bond. The dates for these meetings are Oct. 6, 13, 27 at 7pm. In addition to information on the bond, these meetings are an opportunity for the district to "tell our story".
Pamphlet
At each of the public meetings, a pamphlet will be distributed. It will contain information about the bond, Common Core, and the Mission, Vision, Values and Goals (MVVG) of the district. I assume since all three items will be on the pamphlet, that the input meetings can be used to provide input on any of those three issues. However, it may be limited to just the bond.
In short, please attend at least one of the public meetings and comment. We get the government we deserve. If we are passive about a $210M bond, what will it take to compel us to be involved?
******************************
SCC/PTA Bond Meetings for this area:
Sept. 13 @ 10am: Mountain Ridge JH
Sept. 20 @ 10am: Timberline
Sept. 27 @ 10am: Deerfield
Oct. 4 @ 10am: Alpine
Oct. 4 @ 1pm: Ridgeline
Oct. 6 @ 1pm: Lone Peak HS
Oct. 11 @ 1pm: Highland
Oct. 11 @ 1pm: Westfield
Plus don't forget the Public Input Meetings on Oct. 6, 13, 27
70% of your friends and neighbors believe that going into debt, via the bond, is a good idea. I don't.
"But you voted for the bond!"
I voted to give you the opportunity to debate this issue and to give our school district a clear mandate: do we continue with the debt cycle, or do we make difficult choices but prevent further debt? I am one of seven on the board. The rest of the board members are clearly in support of the bond. Some have a desire for a concrete plan to get out of debt. Some have a desire to get out of debt as soon as circumstance allows us to do so. With 70% of the people in favor of the bond, it doesn't make sense for the board, politically, to want to go a different direction. Without a clear mandate from you, via an election, the debt cycle will continue.
Whether you favor the bond, unequivocally, favor with a firm debt-reduction plan, or want a complete divestiture of debt, you need to speak up. You need to talk to your neighbors and come to one of the roughly 192 meetings planned in the next 2 months (see below for some dates and times).
If you are opposed to the bond and you don't speak up, you need to understand that 70% of the people in this area will out-vote you. If you support the bond, you are equally obligated to speak up and not let others carry your water. What if the non-bond people win?
One of the more frequent comments I hear is, "What are the options without the bond?" In short, there is a Plan B, but it hasn't really been talked about. The bond is the familiar, easy, and preferred option. This is "business as usual" for school districts (not just Alpine, by the way). The board is promoting it because they don't think you are willing to do the hard things, the principled things to get out of debt. And, according to the Bond Survey, they are correct.
The Bond Survey mentioned options like satellites, double sessions, reduction in programs, etc. What it didn't mention is a slew of creative ideas that people in the community have mentioned and could come up with to deal with some of these issues. Also, the survey didn't say that some bonding could be done without a tax increase. If the total bond amounts were phased down every time, that would be a great start in reducing debt at the outset. And honestly, without meaning to discredit myself or my fellow board members, the seven of us are not as creative and innovative as all of you.
I, personally, would like to see more parental involvement...and about 51% of the people in my area seemed to agree (based on the last election results). One of the options would be to have more work at home and online as opposed to 'at school', reducing the hours sitting in class. This allows parents greater involvement with their kids' education, and reduces the 'at school' time. But what about those kids whose parents can't or won't do this? We seem to worry about those who can't, but what about those that can? Let's assume that 10% , 25% or even 50% of our parents were willing and able to be involved to that degree, and then we provided for the others who are not able to. That would increase our capacity in all of our schools by that amount. For those who can't or won't, we are Utahns. We'll make sure everyone is taken care of.
In Utah County, we emphasize families and the parent-child relationship. We don't, truly, want our children raised by the state. We want the public educated, and we have decided to band together to accomplish that goal. However, in doing so, are we really willing to say, as parents, we want a very limited role in our kids' education? I know, in many cases, we have grown accustomed to it. But in the ideal, don't we want an increased role in our kids' lives, including their education?
A specific application of using double sessions would be to reduce the amount of hours to 4 and use the teachers as mentors. With 4 hour days, you might need 2 hours of parent/homework time to make up the difference. Alternatively, you use parent-time in preparation for the class the next day.
If an elementary teacher were to teach two 4-hours sessions/day, we then increase the total number of students taught by the teacher, increase the amount of money available to pay the teacher, and reduce the class sizes for that teacher. For example, if a third-grade class currently has 30 kids in it, what if we had two sessions of 15 students? The teacher would teach the same class, so (s)he would prep once, teach twice.
I'm not saying this is how it has to be. I'm just illustrating some of the options. If the board decided to implement these changes without a clear mandate from the people, I'm afraid we'd see an Investigations Math-like mutiny. But WITH the support of the people, we would see amazing things, including the most important element of all...parents helping their kids take control of their own education. And teachers would be freed up to do what they do best--teach, with parental support.
So what do you do now?
First, an official Public Hearing on the bond will take place Tues, Sep. 13, @ 6:00 pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E. AF). No matter where you stand, please come and bring 2 friends with you to comment. It is assumed that either there won't be anyone who will come, or else the same people who commented last meeting will be there to repeat their concerns. Ask your friends and neighbors what they would want to do with $210M, and invite them to come to the meeting.
Second, the board will be voting to change the board meeting from Nov. 29 to Nov. 22. We are required, by law, to canvass the bond election results within 2 weeks of the election. This new date is the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving. Since all board meetings are open, public meetings, you would be invited to attend this meeting as well.
Finally, the district must publish and send an informational notice to all patrons about the logistics of the bond: how much? what will it be used for? what's the need? how will it impact me? This notice is to be "the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
You also need to be aware of the following.
Friends of Alpine Organization
Friends of Alpine is a 501(c)3 organization that has been set up to accept donations to publicize and encourage the bond effort. In the past, district-affiliated non-profits like the Alpine Foundation were able to accept monies to promote the bond. The legislature changed that recently, and so a separate organization must be used. A few members of the Board of Education are on the Board of Friends of Alpine. There are also parents, and other interested people. Friends of Alpine can seek donations and run whatever marketing and advertising, including signs, it would like to promote adoption of the bond.
Employee and PTA/SCC Meetings
Between September 14 and the November election, there will be 192 meetings conducted by administrative staff. Some of these meetings will be for employees only. But, the rest are for the PTA/SCC organizations at each of the 79 schools in the district. This is similar to the PTA/SCC meetings held last October at each of the schools. It is important to know that, even though the meetings are listed as PTA/SCC meetings, they are open to the public. Again, your attendance and comments are important and make a difference. The employee meetings, I believe, will be limited to just employees of the district. Board members are encouraged to attend the meetings held in their respective areas. The Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills schools' meetings are listed at the end of this post. The entire list will appear on the district's website, once finalized.
Public Input Meetings
In addition, there were be three public meetings held to discuss the bond. The dates for these meetings are Oct. 6, 13, 27 at 7pm. In addition to information on the bond, these meetings are an opportunity for the district to "tell our story".
Pamphlet
At each of the public meetings, a pamphlet will be distributed. It will contain information about the bond, Common Core, and the Mission, Vision, Values and Goals (MVVG) of the district. I assume since all three items will be on the pamphlet, that the input meetings can be used to provide input on any of those three issues. However, it may be limited to just the bond.
In short, please attend at least one of the public meetings and comment. We get the government we deserve. If we are passive about a $210M bond, what will it take to compel us to be involved?
******************************
SCC/PTA Bond Meetings for this area:
Sept. 13 @ 10am: Mountain Ridge JH
Sept. 20 @ 10am: Timberline
Sept. 27 @ 10am: Deerfield
Oct. 4 @ 10am: Alpine
Oct. 4 @ 1pm: Ridgeline
Oct. 6 @ 1pm: Lone Peak HS
Oct. 11 @ 1pm: Highland
Oct. 11 @ 1pm: Westfield
Plus don't forget the Public Input Meetings on Oct. 6, 13, 27
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)