No on HB118: Just Say No to Legal Bullying Incentives

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

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


#UTPOL #NOHB118

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

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

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

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

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

Some concerns with HB118:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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.