Claims: Board Meeting Jan. 10, 2012

In this blog:
Claims and the 1/10/12 board meeting review
Mountain Ridge SCC: Math Meeting: Update: Math Meeting now tentatively scheduled for March 29
Board priorities from the 1/6/12 retreat: The direction we are going this year
Links to legislation on claims and an example of a claim.

Jan. 10, 2012 Board Meeting: Claims
There was no study session this week, and the board meeting was very short.  The only non-standard issue was a concern I raised about how we approve claims. 

Approval, to me, indicates I have thoroughly reviewed, understood, and agree with whatever the motion is.  So, in the case of the claims, my voting to approve would indicate I have given my consent and agreement to every expenditure on your behalf.  To read my post from last year on the claims, please go here.  After that post and subsequent discussions with the superintedent, I have been abstaining from the claims vote. 

For a district, the size of Alpine, thorough review of the claims is all but impossible.  The claims for the previous month are placed on the website about three or four days prior to the business board meeting.  There are roughly 400 pages containing about fifteen transactions per page.  Even if there were enough information on each line item to indicate the exact purpose and description of each item, it would be daunting to go through all 6000 transactions in that amount of time. 

Instead, the board has approved policies and procedures, specifying who can approve which purchases and for what amounts.  See the manual here.  We have internal and external auditors who verify these procedures are being followed, according to common auditing standards.  So, unless something meets the threshhold of needing specific board approval, everything in the claims has already been budgeted, approved, and paid for under our current guidelines.

My fellow board members do not see a conflict in voting for approval.  They have stated the guidelines are being followed.  We hire good people, and we trust them to follow those procedures.  I concur, all except for the approval part.  If the motion were to approve our procedures every month, I could vote yes.  If the motion were to trust our current administrators to follow those procedures, I could vote yes.  But, the vote is to approve the expenditures.  I cannot approve of something on your behalf without sufficient information for that approval. 

This week, I informed our board president, I would be voting no on the claims from this point forward.  I, then, requested we find a way of handling the claims to accurately reflect, not detailed, individual board approval, but rather the actual process of accepting the report of the business administrator or some system of placing the information into the public record.  (If you are interested, I have listed the links to the applicable legislation below.)  In short, I have not found a reason why the claims need formal approval.  The board will address this issue in a study session.  But in the meantime, I will vote no on the claims, and you will understand why.

Mountain Ridge SCC: Math Meeting
I attended the Mountain Ridge SCC where the Common Core Math process was discussed.  The current plan is to hold a parent meeting on March 29 (orignally said: March 22, updated 1/19/12) at 7pm to discuss Common Core, the options for the math curriculum, as well as, to give the parents information on which curriculum the SCC is selecting/has selected.  Most of the SCC members were intent on having textbooks for the curriculum, providing they were happy with one of the options selected by the district committee.  Having textbooks is an important thing for many parents at MRJH.  Also, the SCC created a PR committee for the purpose of getting the parents involved in this decision.  If you have reports on math/Common Core information from other SCC's, I'd be happy to share them.  I want to make sure this information gets out to as many parents as possible.  It is a fast timeline, and we don't want people who are interested to not be involved. 

Board Priorities
In my previous post, I outlined our procedure for defining the board priorities for the upcoming year.  Here is the official, prioritized list from the Jan. 6, 2012 meeting, as rated by the board, the superintendent, and the business administrator.

1. Support the list of Superintendent and Cabinet Focus items for the next 6-12 months
2. Continue to recruit quality teachers and administrators and retain them. Mentor and train leadership
3. Filter out low-performing teachers and administrators
4. Address class-size issue (especially elementary and possibly subject)
5. Increase the use of technology in instruction
6. Have plan to reduce debt
7. Recognize "super stars"
8. Achieve Master Boards Award from the Utah School Boards Association
9. Find ways for the average person to become more aware of the role SCC's play in getting public feedback
10. Find alternative ways to involve parents in the actual education
11. Increase incentive pay
12. Find ways for the committees to be more effective
13. Allow the student body to directly elect the student body officers

Claims Example and Links to Legislation
Here's an example from Dec. 2011 claims:
AMS Products $440.32 Desc: WO 45309/AMS.  It's billed to the General Fund, Materials and Supplies, District, Support Services.  

1) The Business Administrator is required to present the claims information to the board each month. 
2) The monthly budget report must be presented to the board by state law, as well.  We also approve this each month.  I'm not sure formal approval for it is necessary either. 
3) Claims must be itemized. 
4) Board may approve identified purchases within the budget.  Anything else must be specifically approved by the board.  This last item, after discussion with some legislators, seems to indicate the board may set a policy that all amounts in the budget over, say $10,000, must come to the board.  Other than that, if it's within the budget, we give the administration authority to purchase whatever is necessary.  Outside of the budget, requires specific board approval.

Happy 2012: Where Are We Going This Year?

In this blog:
Math Committee for Common Core (Hint: School Community Councils)
Review of Board Training
Agenda for Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012.

Math Committee for Common Core Curriculum
The district has established a math committee to review curriculum for the Common Core. We will be implementing grades 6 -8 (some 9) this Fall. Those currently in 9 - 12, will continue with the current standards throughout their high school careers. The rest of the grades will implement in 2013. There are members of the district community council (Bruce Armstrong, Kim Paulson, and Melanie Westcott, among others), teachers, and staff that will be on this committee. Sometime before April 15, when textbooks need to be ordered, the math committee will make several recommendations. Then, the School Community Councils (SCC's) will decide on the curriculum their school will use. There will be school community council meetings where this information will be presented to the parents and the community at large.

In short, you need to get involved with the district community council members on the district committee, as well as make sure your views are reflected in your local school's community council. If you have an opinion, this is the point you get to provide feedback, and it is done via the SCC's.

I would appreciate information about the school community council meetings in your school (dates/times, etc), and would be happy to post any and all information on this blog, as well as Facebook. This is being done at a local level, so you must be the one to attend school community council. All SCC's are public meetings and open to everyone. The SCC's, in theory, should print their meeting notices on the Utah Public Notice website.

Board Training
The board met for our semi-annual board retreat/training.  We reviewed the board handbook and processes, and then set priorities for the coming year for the district staff.  This may sound boring, but this is the meeting where the board provides formal, overall direction to the administration and staff.

Priorities
Every year, the board creates a list of Basket Items to give specific direction to the staff about our priorities for the district overall.  Each board member takes a turn, lists a priority, and then it is discussed.  After that, each board member, the superintendent, and the business administrator assign a priority to each item (1 -5, 5 being the highest priority).  The top five or six priorities are those that will be worked on.  The others will be done, if there are sufficient resources.

I suggested:

1) Put a plan in place to reduce our debt, so that when we bond next time, the bond amount will be less and our overall debt is less--not just reduced by the required amount of principal.  Some options presented were:

• Create a fund where money is saved for future building needs and/or to reduce debt by paying some debt off sooner
• Limit the amount of bonding to maybe just a high school next time, or to a specific, lesser amount. 
• Instead of reducing some of the taxes that naturally go down as debt is paid off, go through a truth in taxation hearing every year to maintain the level of taxation to either pay off more of the debt or to fund additional buildings directly, instead of through debt.

2) Make sure we are emphasizing the role of the School Community Councils (SCC) as the "vehicle" through which the board requests feedback from the local community. The board currently receives feedback on everything from the bond, the math curriculum to the mission, visions, values and goals through School Community Council and PTA meetings.  During the bond process, every school's SCC/PTA received a presentation about the bond.  This was also one way for the public to indicate which projects they wanted to see included, to comment on the amount of the bond and the taxing implications, etc.  The SCC's will be used this spring to decide on a math curriculum to accommodate the new Common Core standards and assessments that the State Board of Education has imposed on each school district in Utah.  See the above section on the Math Committee.

3) Find ways to involve parents more in the actual education of their child.  I believe we have a large, untapped and very beneficial resource in having parents involved, directly, in their child's education.  This would require some thinking out of the box because we have been accustomed, for nearly 100 years, of sending our kids to school, and just making sure they do their homework.  Being able to use technology to customize the education for each child would allow parents the opportunity to be more involved in seeing and experiencing what their child is learning.  We know that parental involvement is the leading indicator of a child's academic success.  Unfortunately, we justify leaving this aside because "some parents can't or won't be involved".  As I've mentioned previously, there is no reason to penalize those families where the parents can be involved because some parents can't.  Why not focus, instead, on what we can do in those situations where parents do want to be more involved.  For myself, I'd be happy to mentor and oversee more of my children's work, alleviating that responsibility from the teachers, and freeing them up to accommodate more students or more involved learning/mentoring, etc.

One item that received quite a lot of discussion was reducing class sizes.  Everyone is in favor of this. However, to reduce class size by a single student across the board would cost $3.2M in on-going expenses.  Some teachers and parents prefer having aids to reduce the adult to student ratio, but leaving a larger class.  Targeted reductions (e.g. K-3 grades) were also discussed. A proposed bill that will be going through the legislature will limit class sizes.  ASD's impact would be $20M plus 10 new schools, to accommodate the new class size mandate, if passed.  One of the options we are using is the extended day in elementary schools, where the teacher only has half the class in the morning for reading and the other half in the afternoon.  That allows a smaller class size with limited resources, but targeted to the most important skills.

Another issue was incentive pay and recognizing "super stars" in our teachers.  There are two schools of thought on the incentive pay.  Currently, ASD rewards teacher teams (e.g. the 3rd grade at one school or the Math Dept. at another school) with incentive pay.  Alpine Foundation rewards individual teachers, but, starting this year, will also recognize one outstanding teacher team.  The concern about rewarding individuals for their work is it might limit teachers' desire to collaborate in our Professional Learning Communities (PLC's).  So, the desire is to reward an effective team for their collaboration.  The difficulty is by not rewarding (either monetarily or by some sort of recognition) truly outstanding performers, you are either ignoring those people or rewarding them along with those they are bringing along.  In short, you are rewarding non-performers for being part of a high-performing team.  The other concern brought up was who should decide.  Logically, the principals would decide, but like any organization, administration has its favorites.  It is an imperfect system.  Still, I would favor rewarding individuals for high performance, and that high performance would also include collaborating with and mentoring their fellow teachers.  I am uncomfortable with the idea of mandating a group reward, over individual recognition. 

Here is the list of basket items (in the order they were suggested), and the first two--according to memory--are the ones that took top priority.  I will post the actual priority when I receive it.

• Continue to recruit quality teachers and administrators and retain them.  Mentor and train in leadership.
• Support the list of Superintendent and Cabinet focus areas for the next 6-12 months*
• Address class size issue (especially elementary and possibly by subject)
• Increase incentive pay
• Have plan to reduce debt
• Recognize "super stars"
• Filter out low-performing teachers and administrators
• Achieve Master Boards Award (new award presented by the Utah School Boards Association)
• Allow the student body to elect the student body officers
• Increase the use of technology instruction
• Find ways for the average person to become more aware of the role SCC's play in getting public feedback
• Find ways for the committees to be more effective
• Find alternative ways to involve parents in the actual education

* Superintendent and Cabinet Focus Areas for Jan - July/Dec. 2012 (Italicized indicate the Areas of Focus)
1. Gifted and Talented program shift -- Question four (what we do if they already know it), ALL classes, Gifted classes (Student Achievement)
2. Language Immersion classes-Expansion (Chinese and Portuguese) (Comprehensive Curriculum)
3. Utah Core (Common Core) training and implementation for Math and Language Arts. (Hold community meetings at the school level this spring to educate parents and patrons.)  Train principals to engage the public in Utah Core implementation. (Teacher Quality)
4. Math committee at district level to review materials and recommend list for school selection. {Community Relations and Resources)
5. Training of Collaboration Team Leaders (CTL's) to continue support of PLC process with a focus on the four essential questions to improve Student Learning. (Leadership, Quality Teaching, & Student Achievement)
6. Refocus of East Shore High School.  (Comp. Curriculum and Student Achievement)
7. Expansion of online school and options (K-12). (Comprehensive Curriculum)
8. Extended year school (credit recovery at local high school during the year and at East Shore during the summer). (Student Achievement)
9. Evaluate program effectiveness -Using Hanover Research and BYU/Partnership to evaluate (double dosing, PLC's, summer collaboration, effective instructional techniques, etc.) (Teacher Quality)
10. Transition of AS400 System to new financial program - Review and focus technology to support student learning.  Unlock more features of Skyward. (Resources and Student Achievement)
11. Administrative appoints for July of 2012 (New Junior High, Diversity Specialist, Online School) (Leadership)
12. Facilities plan for expansion of Dream School, Summit, ATEC, Food Services, Media, Bus Garage, Technology and Maintenance. (Resources)
13. Bond implementation and purchase of additional land for schools - Plans for new high school design. (Resources and Community Relations)
14. Review the location formula for the distribution of ASD resources - new schools vs. Title 1 schools vs. schools in the middle. (Resources)
15. Keep Employee Morale High / Negotiation Process. (School and District Culture)

Board Handbook and Processes
The board has a handbook, outlining our processes and responsibilities.  Included in this is our Code of Conduct.  I have updated the Code of Conduct page on this blog to reflect the changes that were made at last year's meeting.  No changes were made this year. 

Some discussion took place on our collaborative governance model.  I asked for clarification on what other governance models there were and how they would differ from our current one.  The main difference was board members are invited to be on committees that the administration would have with or without our involvement, e.g. curriculum, technology, PR.  In the past, decisions were made that the board was unaware of (including Investigations Math).  This governance model allows for more involvement between the board and the administration than a traditional model.  The only difficulty I have with it, is the lines are sometimes too blurred.  It can be difficult to know when we are being provided information, just so we know, and when the information will come back later, like in the budget, for formal approval.  If there is not sufficient discussion because we don't want to micromanage, it may be assumed we are in agreement.  One of the board members said that over time these things would become clear to those of us who are still new. 

Another discussion involved the committees.  (See above for our role in the committees.)  The board members report on their committee meetings during the formal board meeting.  However, some have felt the committees aren't very effective.  Also, sometimes, the board presentation is almost the same as that made in the committee meeting.  In the interest of streamlining and to provide information to all board members, we will be receiving agendas for these committees in advance.  This will allow other board members to convey their thoughts to committee members prior to the discussion.  The committees are for the staff and the board to vet ideas before being presented to the full board for discussion and possible implementation. 

 We also discussed some tweaking on the superintendent and business administrator evaluations process.  The Board Handbook says in March the board selects an evaluation instrument.  Then, in April, that tool is used to evaluate the Superintendent.  My emphasis was on selecting the evaluation instrument at the time the superintendent or the business administrator is appointed, and that tool should be in effect, unless formally modified by both parties, until the subsequent evaluation (two years later).  I was told the instrument had, in fact, been selected, and the four new board members would be provided with this information. 

Jan. 10, 2012 Board Meeting Agenda
There will not be a study session prior to the regular board meeting.


BOARD MEETING:
575 NORTH 100 EAST
AMERICAN FORK


6:00 P.M.


PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR DECEMBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report

2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases - JB, CC, EH, BH, AH

SH, AI, AJ, MK, JL, EL, IM, NM, SP

KP, CS, CT, JV, AV

5. Student Expulsion - JH

REPORT

1. Membership Report

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Bond, Emergency Procedures and More: Nov/Dec 2011 Board Meetings

Alpine School District is Officially the largest school district in Utah
The State Office of Education has received all the Oct. 1 enrollment data across the state.  ASD is now the largest school district in the state.  There are just under 1400 public school districts in the US.  The average size is somewhere between 2500 and 5000 students.  Last Spring, Alpine was around 64th in size in the nation. 

Nov 3/9: Common Core Meetings:
I will do a separate post on this topic.  (Otherwise, this blog would be soooo long, you could use it to cure insomnia.) I do want to thank all those who attended both meetings.  The Nov. 3 meeting had more than 30 attendees.  I have heard, now other schools are requesting a similar presentation.  Additionally, there will be a math committee.  I have no details on it, yet. However, stay tuned.  I will let you know how to be involved in that discussion.


Nov 8 Board Meeting:
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Alpine School District: The CAFR
We discussed accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).  This report is created by the Superintendent and the Business Administrator and is an annual accounting and summary of the fiscal state of the school district.  It is reviewed by the district's external auditors, and they found no inconsistencies between their audits and the assertions made in the report.  I was amazed by the detail and information available in that report.  When you hear comments about how much is spent per child ($5145, p. 109) or how much teachers make (p.119), all that information is available in the CAFR report on the district website.  Most of the really interesting stuff is listed toward the end of the report.  We also have how much ASD spends on instruction (71%) vs administration (p.108), property tax amounts for the past 10 years (p.96).  By the way, ASD has the lowest administrative costs, per capita, in the state, and the highest instructional--teacher/books--expenses in the state, as per the Utah Taxpayers Association.  So, we spend more on teachers, and less on administration.  I'm good with that.

New Directions: Alternative School, et. al.
Some new alternative education ideas that would lead to higher graduation rates were discussed.  Some of these are as follows.
1. Online Classes
2.Credit Recovery: additional help for students who need to make up credits in order to graduate
3. Extended Year High School (Summer): Some of the high schools are open during the summer for students who need to catch up and for those who want to accelerate.
4. Summer Packets: Packets of work for classes that student can use to make up additional credits
5. Alternative School: Students who are Juniors and Seniors in High School and who are not in a position to graduate may transfer to East Shore High School.  Currently, most coursework is done via packets and some online courses.  The students have to come to East Shore to take tests and do any labs associated with their coursework.  Students who graduate from East Shore (or this new proposed alternative option) will only need 24 credit hours, the state graduation minimum.  ASD requires 28 of our other high schools. Some of our administrators have visited other alternative high schools in the state.  They found higher graduation rates from some of these programs that require much stricter attendance, but they had greater "attachment" to the school.  It is proposed that we follow these other districts in creating stricter attendance for an alternative high school. 

Additional programs discussed were:
1. More language immersion in the north and west areas (Chinese and Portuguese)
2. Gifted and Talented magnet classes: If a student scored in at least the 93rd percentile on the standardized tests (used for this purpose), they would be invited to attend a magnet school where more challenging work would be provided to accommodate them.  This would be in addition to the ALL classes.

There would be additional expense for these programs.  We will have a price tag that is firm by January, but the numbers being bounced around are in the range of $500,000 to start up these programs. 

Nov. 22 Board Meeting:
The Bond Results
• Total number of votes cast: 31,340


• Total number of affirmative votes: 17,934

• Total number of negative votes: 13,406

• Total number of challenged voters: 111

• Total number of challenged voters issued provisional ballots: 111

• Total number of provisional ballots issued: 642

• Total number of provisional ballots counted: 486
 
New Policies
Also discussed were head-injury and service animal policies.  These policies were later approved at the Dec. 13 meeting.
 
 
Dec. 13 Board Meeting:
Emergency Preparedness
During the work session, we heard about the district's plan for emergencies, including school closings in case of snow or what-have-you.  Each school must review their emergency plans annually, and train their staff.  The district provides guidelines on this, but the schools are able to customize their plans as they see fit.  Additionally, district personnel are involved in meetings with other emergency responders throughout the cities.  For example, Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills police and fire meet with ASD personnel once/month to discuss emergency needs and plans.  These meetings, incidentally, are not open to the public, since they may deal with security and emergency situations.
 
Alternative Education Plans
Also, we were told that the alternative education plans, immersion and gifted and talented programs presented in the past (see Nov. 8 meeting above) were going forward.  If the board had any concerns we should let them know, but things were headed in that direction. 
 
During the board meeting, recognitions were made for the Friends of Alpine directors and the coaches who won championships this Fall.
 
Business Administrator
The most significant item of business was reappointing Rob Smith as the district's Business Administrator.  Our district appoints the Business Administrator 6 months prior to the Superintendent, so that we aren't losing one or the other at the same time.  Any salary adjustments, if approved, would not be decided or take effect until the next fiscal year.  These would also be part of the 2012-13 budget process.  From where I sit, the good financial state our district is in is a direct result of the oversight and fiscal planning of Mr. Smith.  As Board Member Mark Clement stated, "Many people don't know that one of the greatest taxpayer advocates we have is Rob Smith."  Rob often says to us, "We can do virtually anything you want, we just can't do everything you want."
 
Governor's Budget
Board Member JoDee Sundberg is involved in the Governor's Education Commission.  She briefly reviewed the Governor's proposed budget as it relates to education.  The Governor's top education priority is to fund growth.  However, Mrs. Sundberg said the $40M (roughly) proposed to fund growth in the state doesn't include some aspects of property tax equalization that will negatively impact growing districts like Alpine.  I don't quite understand it yet, but I will get you more information.  I'm told it's between $23 and $40M short of fully funding growth in education for this next year.
 
I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Annual Financial Audit: Board Meeting Nov. 8, 2011 Agenda

Two items of note for the board meeting on Tuesday: 1) CAFR report--annual audit/financial report and 2) school closings.  Also, don't forget to vote on Tuesday whether you are for or against the bond.

Award-Winning CAFR (Finanical Report)
Don't tune out yet, just because it has to do with finances.  Every year, the district is required to have an independent audit.  The auditors found no concerns with the books or our compliance with Federal and State requirements for certain monies that come with strings and hoops.  Evidently, we are very good at jumping as high as necessary.  An interesting point was emphasized (which I've heard from other auditor-types).  That is the audit takes the policies of the district and uses them to make sure the proper procedures are being followed.  For example, if the district's policy is to have a principal sign off on a purchase for a $7000 video camera, the audit will make sure that the video camera does exist, was properly signed for and receipted, and placed on the books accurately, for example, as instructional use equipement.  What an audit doesn't do is decide whether or not the item should have been purchased in the first place. 

The CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) report is 120+ pages long and is quite involved for those without an auditing background.  It is the required annual report that documents all the finances for the district from July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011.  I have some background with accounting and finance, having had to deal with these in my business.  However, I received the report last Tuesday, and have successfully gone through only half of it so far.  I would GREATLY appreciate any and all accountant/auditor types who are interested in giving me some pointers on what items to focus on.  You can find the report here.  ASD's CAFR report has won awards for 28+ years. 

School Boundary Restrictions 2012-13 School Year
Another item on the agenda has to do with restricting some schools to out-of-area students.  The board can decide to restrict schools to just a specific geographic area.  In Utah, most schools are 'open', meaning that if you want to drive your kid there and register them, they can attend.  Each local school board has the option of restricting enrollment at a given school for a few specific reasons.

The most common reason is enrollment.  For example, Lone Peak's enrollment is at 2171.  The suggestion to close the school is a result of not having enough teachers, rooms, etc for additional students.  In this instance, those who were granted exceptions, e.g. North of Canyon Road in Cedar Hills, will need to apply for an out-of-area exception by March, 2012 (I think).  The next most common reason has to do with program protection.  As I understand it, the concern is if a School A is open, those in a neighboring School B may come to School A, leaving School B without enough students for certain programs.  This is the case with Lakeridge Jr. High and Orem Jr. High.  I would welcome your feedback on these issues, especially from those in the affected areas.  For a list of proposed schools, please go here.  All other schools in the district (not on the closed list) are open, and you can go there and register, if you so choose. 

Board Meeting Agenda
STUDY SESSION


4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to review the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), and to receive an update regarding the focus and direction of language immersion and gifted programs, East Shore High School and alternative education programs.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING

6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR OCTOBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases - KB, MC, MGC, CD, KD

JMD, JD, JLD, ED, BE, EG, KH, CJ, DJ, KK

NL, RO, JR, TS, JS, RT, VV, MW, BW

5. Student Expulsions - DB, AB, CF
6. Career and Technical Education (CTE) National Competition


ACTION ITEMS
1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and External Audit

2. Schools Closed to Out-of-area Attendance for the 2012-2013 School Year

3. Board Meeting Schedule for 2012

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Policy No. 5550 – Head Injuries
2. Policy No. 5320 – Service Animals

REPORT

1. Membership Report

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Oct. 25 Board Meeting Agenda

The board will have the second work session each month dedicated to board training ("How to be a better board member") and a discussion of various topics.  The last discussion item was math and was met with concern from The Daily Herald.  See here.  Because of this, we will not be having just open discussions on any items board members wish to discuss.  Instead, we will receive a presentation of information on a particular topic and then discuss that topic. 

The topic for the 25th concerns "The Four Essential Questions".  In the district, teachers are given four essential questions to use in determining their direction with their students.  Those questions are:
1. What do we want student to know?
2. How will we know that they know it?
3. What do we do if they don't know it?
4. What do we do if they already know it?
Some board members are particularly interested in the fourth question.  There are a lot of incentives, both state and federal, that address question 3, but we want to make sure there are options and challeges for kids who already "get it".

Here is the agenda for the meeting.

AGENDA . . . TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011


HILLCREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

651 EAST 1400 SOUTH

OREM

STUDY SESSION


4:00 P.M.

A study session will be held prior to the regular board meeting. The purpose of the study session

will be for (1) professional development for the Board, and (2) to discuss the “four essential

questions” focused on student learning.

BOARD MEETING


6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

STUDENT RECOGNITIONS

ALPINE FOUNDATION RECOGNITIONS

PRINCIPAL, PTA AND SCHOOL

COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORTS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

ACTION ITEM

1. Utah Consolidated Application
BOARD MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS
CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Oct. 11, 2011 Board Meeting Agenda

Oct. 11, 2001 Board Meeting
District Office: 575 N. 100 E., American Fork, UT 84003

To see the supporting documentation, please go here.

STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to (1) discuss the future focus and direction of East Shore High School, (2) to review the bond brochure to be mailed to the public, and (3) to discuss other current issues for future meetings.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR SEPTEMBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases – MB, MB, CD, MD, AH, FJ, ML, TM, JM, BM, AR, SS, AT, JW, KW

5. Student Expulsion – HT

6. School Clubs


ACTION ITEM

1. Student Travel Requests
DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Utah Consolidated Application
2. Schools Closed to Out-of-area Attendance for the 2012-2013 School Year

3. Board Meeting Schedule for 2012

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Math, Math, and More Math: Board Meeting 9/27/2011

Work Session
Note: The Board Training took place prior to the math discussion.  I am putting the report of the math discussion first, as that is the main topic of interest. 

Math
Board Member Mark Clement was interested in discussing math in the district, especially in light of the new Common Core Curriculum starting in 2012.  You can read the Daily Herald's report on it here.  

For those of you new to this discussion, in about 2000, ASD implemented Investigations Math, a constructivist philosophy.  The emphasis is on children discovering math concepts for themselves without an emphasis on standard algorithms and memorization of math facts like Traditional Math (or instructivist) methods (e.g. Saxon, Singapore).

Many parents, like me, were upset with this approach.  Most of the concern was their kids didn't know basic math facts.  Also, when parents tried to help with homework, the parents weren't able to either 1) understand the homework or 2) the standard algorithms (that parents learned as kids) were not acceptable.  This situation created a disconnect between parent and child, where the parent is portrayed  (whether intentionally or not) to be inferior to the teacher. And while we want our children to respect and learn from their teachers, it is never acceptable to use education to create a wedge between parent and child.  Additionally, some parents were instructed not to help their kids with math homework because "they'd just mess it up."  So, we created a situation for parents to be less involved with their kids' education.  Understandably, this didn't go over well with many parents. 

The district implemented Investigations Math because the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) was planning to encourage all schools in the state to use this program.  ASD had some funding available and made the switch a year or so early.  However, due to the large amount of parental backlash, the USOE never did request other districts to make the switch.

After 6 or 7 years, ASD revisited math, and suggested four math programs for each elementary school to decide between.  (Investigations was put on a 'secondary curriculum' list by the USOE, so it couldn't be used without another curriculum to supplement.)  Most schools decided on Scott-Foresman, three stayed with Investigations (needing to supplement in some fashion), and one picked something else.  The secondary schools used Connected Math and Interactive Math, as part of the Investigations implementation.  The secondary schools were not focused on during the 2007 change in math curriculum.  However, the district did adopt a Balanced Math Approach that would allow teachers to use a mix of traditional and constructivist curricula. 

The first thing we found out was, since the secondary schools set their own budgets, they decide which curricula they will be implementing.  The district doesn't know which curricula they are using--"Everything from soup to nuts."  The elementary schools do get their math purchases through the district, so that is why we know which schools are using which textbooks.  The Scott-Foresman texts come (from the publisher) with a little insert on using Investigations.  Board Member Paula Hill suggested a survey on what programs the schools are using to facilitate a more informed discussion.

My points are as follows.

1. Whenever I have been in meetings, it is stated or implied that Traditional Math is simply rote memorization and that there is no deeper understanding taught of math concepts.  In using Saxon and Singapore Math with my own kids, I have not found this to be the case.  Both have done a fine job explaining, through concrete examples and manipulatives, why, for example, you carry or borrow when adding or subtracting numbers.  An employee of the USOE, Brenda Hales, told Mr. Clement that when implementing the Common Core Standards, there will be more of a concrete emphasis in the lower grades, but more "critical thinking" in the upper grades.  Again, we see the prejudice against traditional math: Traditional equals rote memorization without understanding; Constructivist equals critical thinking and greater understanding.

My personal experience, as a mathematician, is that without the foundation of mathematical relationships between numbers (2 x 3 = 6), the brain is unable to grasp higher-level concepts because it's bogged down on something that should be automatic.  This is comparable to playing the piano, where your fingers literally memorize the note combinations, so when you go to play, compose, or improvise, your brain (and your ear) are able to concentrate on the creative aspects, and not on the mundane.  So, when we say, "Balanced Math Approach", we are implying that a traditional approach is insufficient and must be combined with a constructivist approach.  I would disagree with this.  As far as I have been able to find, there is no independent, third-party research to back up the constructivist Investigations approach to math.  (The one study, cited in favor of Investigations, was funded by interested parties.)  In contrast, Saxon provides standardized test scores of before and after Saxon implementation.  And Singapore (the country, which developed and continues to use Singapore Math) consistently scores at the top of the international TIMSS test. 

2. It was stated that we want to give teachers the flexibility to use whatever methods they are comfortable with, and that not all children respond to the same methods.  However, if we want to allow teachers that flexibility, then we need to allow parents the flexibility to select the teachers that match their preferences for what they know is best for their own child. 

3. It is important for parents to have more specific information about the main textbooks/curricula their kid's teacher is using.  I would like to see this information readily available to parents.  Getting information to parents should always be paramount.  Board Member Paula Hill repeatedly took a stand for 'information rich', giving as much background as possible to all stakeholders.  Her stand was that as we educate parents, we involve them more and more in the process.  However, this wasn't something the board, as a whole, supported.

4. The Colleges of Education seem to be teaching more constructivist approaches to math.  Even when I took math education courses in the late eighties, the math ed courses were constructivist and the ones I took for my degree were traditional.  I didn't know the names or that there were even different 'types' of math, but I do remember a different approach in the math ed courses.  Given that approach hasn't lessened in the last 20+ years, our teachers are being shown the advantages of constructivism.  Board Member Paula Hill said we should be giving our teachers the upside to the traditional approach, as well.  (In our district, 35% of our teachers have five or less years of experience.)  When Investigations was introduced, the veteran teachers were the ones who, by and large, refused to use it.  There needs to be some sort of 'equal time' for the traditional approach. It is hard to decided between two things, when only one choice is presented and is shown to be the best option.  Without actual experience with different methods, why wouldn't you choose the one you were familiar with?

5. UVU has a math remediation rate of 64 -72% over the last 5 years for first-time college students. (2005: 64%, 2006: 72%, 2007: 70%, 2008: 69%, 2009: 68%, 2010: 69%, UVU Institutional Research & Information, Aug 2011) I was told ASD had met with UVU administrators a while ago.  UVU was not concerned with the preparation of ASD students.  UVU said a lot of this remediation stems from missionaries who have taken a few years "off" before going to college.  Still, it seems like a high number.  I would like to see a greater emphasis on traditional math.  I suspect a stronger ASD approach to math would reduce the need for UVU to remediate our former students. 

6. Mr. Clement suggested we get parents involved in discussing math (via public meetings) prior to implementation of the Common Core.  Dr. Barry Graff (head of district curriculum) said it would be difficult because there are no textbooks currently developed for Common Core math.  The publishers are "cutting and pasting" from their existing texts to accommodate the Common Core.  As we implement it next year, our teachers will have to 'get by'.  However, Mr. Clement suggested that now is probably the best time for parental input since nothing is set in stone.  I am in full agreement and will encourage meetings with all of you for your input on math and the Common Core.  Waiting until "down the road" will only put texbook authors in a position of driving the curriculum.  Veteran teachers may be able to cobble together a variety of approaches based on their experience, but the 35% of our teachers who are new will probably rely heavily on the textbook.

Additionally, there was a concern that the math terminology has become quite charged.  Most board members would like to use less emotional words, and not have teachers label what they are doing as traditional or investigations.  However, these are the words parents know.  Giving parents a choice would be a great first step.  For myself, I don't care what method a teacher uses or that another parent likes a method I don't care for, as long as I can make that choice for my kids. I hope with this discussion, things will move more toward that end. 

I'm sure this will not be the last math discussion we have as a board.  I am grateful we were able to have an open discussion about a topic of such interest in our district.  The board seemed to agree on a specific direction.  The principals need to be more flexible with parents making requests based on 'Investigations vs Traditional Math'.  The idea of putting a teacher's math philosophy "out there" for all to see wasn't supported.  So, for the majority of parents who 'trust the system', there needs to be a vehicle to help them see the choices they could be making.  We can actually draw more parents into the discussion as we educate them on what options are available.

This discussion is not just for educators, it is for all of our stakeholders.  Right now, as a parent, you have to dig the information out for yourself.  If you do have a preference and want to have your child in a specific math program, you will need to meet with the principal and specifically request this.  We were told that this is something that has rarely happened, but Mrs. Hill said, if parents didn't have the information, it isn't surprising they didn't make requests in this manner.  It is assumed that not many people will care about which curriculum is being used, and there won't be so many requests that going to the principals will become burdensome. 

I'm not sure I agree.  I, personally, would have felt uncomfortable going directly to a principal about something like this.  I would have assumed if it were an option, there would be an easier way of handling it.  However, this is the procedure the board has suggested.  So, if you have a preference, you may now contact your principal and ask to have your child in the math approach of your choice. 

Note: One recommendation from a reader was to create two tracks: constructivist vs traditional.  Parents could choose which track they wanted their kids on, and then the teachers would be able to find consistency in approach from one grade to the next. 

I welcome all your comments.  I know this has been a hot topic, and is one I am very interested in.  What approaches or recommendations do you have?

Board Training
Once a month, the board members will trade off and present an in-service training message from one of our board publications, e.g. American School Board Journal (published by the NSBA), etc. John Burton conducted this month's training. The topic was "Tell Your Story", something Board Member JoDee Sundberg has been working on for quite some time. Some of the highlighted concepts are as follows.

"Every school board, and every school board member, has a story to tell--and it's a story this country desperately needs. Right now, the very concept of public schools that are free and open to all is under attack--and the wrong side is winning the debate."
"We need to take more pride in our accomplishments and more care in how we conduct the public's business. Rhetoric matters. School board members need to choose their words carefully. Take time to craft memorable sound bites and analogies for complex issues and topics."

"Find a way to salt meetings, public forums...and elevator rides with your key messages. Stay on top of district news and take every opportunity to share just those nuggets that illustrate how well public schools are doing, or why we need their help to make sure all students succeed."
Some positive things mentioned about the district were:
1. Collaboration (Early-Out) Monday--First in the state to use structured time for collaboration.

2.Collaboration Incentive--Teachers use a rubric to improve their collaboration effectiveness. This is TEAM merit pay and includes a parent evaluation of the team.

3. Extended Year High Schools--Two High Schools sponsor two block terms in June and July for credit recovery and acceleration. Hundreds of students are attending this program. It is the only one like it in the state.

4. Alpine has the lowest administrative costs in the state of Utah, and Utah had the lowest in the nation.

5. Leadership Development with BYU--ASD developed a master's degree in conjunction with BYU that takes Alpine people interested in administration with a two-year comprehensive master's degree.

6. STARS Summer Reading--Alpine Foundation generates $80,000 annually to put STARS summer reading in the 10 schools with the highest number of first grade students reading below grade level. Gains of 4 months are average.

7. K-12 Online School--Over 400 home school students are registered and use an online curriculum provided by the district. ASD provides computers and two teachers to consult with home school parents.

8. What Counts--Over 2,000 people throughout the district participated in providing input on what they value about public schools and what Alpine can do to improve. (Areas of Focus)

9. District Community Council (DCC)--ASD was the first district in the state to organize a DCC. The council meets regularly with the superintendent and board members to provide feedback from the schools and community.

10. MORALE--In spite of budget challenges, morale among teachers and administrators is exceptionally high. There is a belief that the district is going in a very positive direction and there is great confidence in the leadership of the district.


Board Meeting
The Board Meeting was held at Barratt Elementary.  The school choir performed, and students, parents, teachers, and staff were recognized.  The board approved a revised resolution for poll watchers for the upcoming Bond Election.  Please make sure to attend one of the meetings on the bond and bring 2 neighbors with you.  For a list of dates and times, please go here.  When the board meeting adjourned, we actually saw daylight. ;-)