Posts
In September, we've had two board meetings. In summary, this blog will touch on these issues:
Sunday Competition
Community Input Meetings: We NEED YOU!
RDAs (Redevelopment Plans): Your Tax Dollars at Work
Audio for Sept. 11, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1223
Audio for Sept. 25, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1245
Sunday Competition
The most recent issue was an inquiry into a "new policy" forbidding Sunday competitions in the district. The short answer is the Board has no policy (new or old) regarding Sunday competitions. In the past, some teams have asked students to commit to competing on Sundays, should they rise to a national level of competition. Our administration has recently reiterated that this practice is not allowed. Because of some of the requirements at national competitions, the lack of participation by one or more of the team would disqualify the entire team. Coaches and principals have been asked to work together with parents and students to find options for this Catch-22 situation. By way of information, individual schools, as long as sufficient public input has been sought, can establish a practice of forbidding school competitions on Sundays. This is what Lone Peak has done, but it has been done at a school, not a district, level.
PTA/SCC Meetings: ACTION ITEM!!!
We hear a lot about government being by "We, the People". Well, this is your chance to have a direct impact on your school district! District administrators (and, when feasible, board members) will be at combined School Community Council/PTA meetings for the next 4 weeks or so. These meetings are open to the public, and every school will host one. You can attend any one that you choose, even if you don't have kids in the school. They will be addressing Common Core, our Mission Vision Values and Goals (MVVG), and any other issue you would like to discuss. I would recommend you attend and share your thoughts and observations. This is your opportunity to give direct input on the things that are important to you in our schools. Bring a friend with you. Here is a partial list:
Oct 3:
10:00 am Westfield
1:30 pm Mountain Ridge
Oct 4:
9:30 am Alpine
Oct 10:
1:00 pm Lone Peak
Oct 16:
3:40 pm Highland
Oct 17:
9:30 am Cedar Ridge
Oct 18:
1:00 pm Ridgeline
1:30 pm Timberline
Oct 23:
3:45 pm Deerfield
Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs: Your Tax Dollars at Work)
Many of you remember the Vineyard Redevelopment from last year. For more detailed information, please go here. As a quick refresher, RDAs are an arrangement where a portion of the additional taxes that will be coming to the district (and other agencies) from increased property values on a development are not collected by the district for a set period of time, but returned to the developer for aid to move more quickly. The thinking is that, over time and with the tax incentives, additional businesses will come and the development will progress more rapidly. The end goal is to increase the overall tax base faster than would have otherwise happened. The district has several criteria used to determine whether or not an RDA is something to consider. It's important to remain consistent with each entity asking for this type of tax-incentive/deferral. The district has the opportunity to participate in two additional RDAs, currently.
The first one is with Eagle Mountain City and is called an Economic Development Agency (EDA). As far as I can tell, this one requires our participation by state law. It will help develop infrastructure in Eagle Mountain City so a business park can be established and the anchor client can begin operations. The advantage to this agreement is a cap on the amount of tax dollars to be reinvested, as well as the time commitment. So, if the tax dollars allocated are spent prior to the 20-year time frame, the district (and the other taxing agencies) start receiving 100% of their tax dollars at that time. The Board's overall feeling is they want to help Eagle Mountain City with their infrastructure, and this seems to be a reasonable way to do so.
The second one is an optional situation where we are asked to return a portion of tax revenue for a business park located between Adobe and IM Flash. The appeal is for the higher tax base that comes with HighTech jobs. The question is whether or not those jobs would come anyway.
I thought, with Vineyard, this wasn't something that happened very often. I am finding this is really a fairly common occurrence. The question for you is what do you think of this kind of practice? At best, it is the way things are done, and brings additional jobs into our local community. At worst, it is crony capitalism--government giving incentives to select businesses for some pay-off down-the-road.
Additionally, the legislature changed the laws on RDAs this past session. It used to require 2/3 vote of the taxing entities to go forward with a plan. This put the district (with 2 votes) in a position to lobby the State Board's rep (1 vote) to block anything unfavorable to the school district. (In the case of Vineyard, the State Board rep voted AGAINST Alpine, as did Commissioner Larry Ellertson, increasing your taxes last year, but that's another story.) Now, with a simple majority, any taxing plan can be approved without buy-in from the district, even though our tax-incentive will comprise roughly 60% of the total. I find this change egregiously unfair, because it allows taxation without proper representation. The legislature makes changes to these rules, by my count, on almost an annual basis. This is something with great potential impact on all taxpayers, but it doesn't register on the average person's radar. It would be good to contact your legislators and ask that a proportional representation on these committees (called TECs: Taxing Entity Committees) be put into law, instead of one that allows everyone else to run roughshod over the school district. Also, the 2/3 majority seems like a better threshold for providing tax-incentives that will impact the local taxpayers.
I don't think this is the proper role of government--determining winners and losers. I am sympathetic to the argument that some of this helps to bring in new businesses and increase our tax base. However, a lower tax rate, treating all people and businesses the same, should accomplish the same goal. So, on the promise of a greater tax base, in say twenty years, our kids now will not reap the benefit of increased development that might have come anyway. Of course, all this requires a crystal ball, so it's anyone's guess whether the tax-dollar investment will be worth it. But, as stated in our Board Study Session, we are never presented a proposal where the district isn't supposed to get more money in the long run.
If you support RDAs, you need to let the local governments know, as well as the legislature. If you do not support them, you need to get involved in changing the laws at the state level, and lobbying your local government agencies to stop approving them. If a majority of the entities doesn't vote in favor of the RDA, it doesn't happen. But, how often does this become an election issue so our officials are held accountable? It hasn't been, but it should be.
Next blog: New Assessment/Accountability Requirements from the State/Feds, Differentiated Diplomas and State Textbook Reviews
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
SBAC: Adoption process...my letter
Dear State Board Members:
I want to start out by thanking you for your hours of
service and for taking the time to read this letter. You have received many communications about
Common Core, and although this letter will touch on that, my overriding concern
is with process and not with specifics.
I have to admit that this letter is written as a criticism, but not of
any individuals. Please accept it in the
spirit it is written, as working to improve our governing process.
I have attached two documents: 1.) the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Utah and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC), and 2.) the Cooperative Agreement between SBAC and the US Dept of Ed. (If you can’t download the attachments, you
can find them here:
https://keepeducationlocal.com/~keepeduc/export/documents/sbac_mou.pdf and
here: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf.)
I hope you have read both of these agreements, and if not, please do so. As you may know, both a retired appellate
judge and the Sutherland Institute have determined these agreements directly
lock the State of Utah into Common Core standards and testing arrangements
overseen by the Federal Government, above what we already have via ESEA,
etc.
Additionally, in reading the minutes from your meetings from
Jan. 2010 – Jun. 2010, I understand that the MOU was never presented to the
board for a discussion, a review or a vote, and it was never reviewed, at least
publicly, by legal counsel. In June,
2010, State Board President Roberts indicated to the Board that she had signed
the application for membership in SBAC.
There was no indication she believed that application (which was in
reality the MOU) to be a legally-binding contract. From discussions with USOE staff and various
board members, I was continually assured there was no Federal involvement and
our agreement was just an MOU, nothing legally binding. However, in addition to requiring US Dept of
Ed approval in order to exit the consortium (MOU) and full implementation of
the assessments (MOU), the Cooperative Agreement requires the consortium to
“Work with the Department [of Ed] to develop a strategy to make student-level
data…from the assessment system available on an on-going basis…(p.11)” There does seem to be quite a bit of Federal
involvement in the assessment piece of this equation.
I would submit that the people of Utah expect those in
elective office to have thoroughly vetted any and all contracts and
legally-binding agreements prior to those documents being enacted. We, the people, would have liked to have been
party to the discussion among several board members who may have found some of
the SBAC agreement to infringe on Utah’s State Sovereignty and the ability of
our teachers to teach beyond the tests that are funded by the Federal
Government. Would some of you have been
concerned with the data sharing outlined in the Cooperative Agreement between
SBAC and the Feds?
I know, as an elected official, the amount of information
and paperwork that comes to me at times is overwhelming. I know we hire good people on our staff, and
we trust them to do the job they were hired to do. I also know that the buck stops with me. So, anything that I agree to, whether I
looked into it or not, I am accountable to the people for.
By the same token, I know you have hired good people and you
trust them. However, when you agree to
sign onto something it must be read and reviewed, if you are to be accountable
to the people for that action. I am
asking you to review the process whereby a legally-binding document was signed
and executed without the full board’s vetting, review, and vote, and by
extension, without the public’s input.
We look to you to attend to the details and make the very best decisions
on our behalf. But, once those decisions
are made, it is up to you to be able to explain to us and to be accountable for
those actions. It appears, in the case
of the SBAC agreement, this did not occur.
It appears that too much was done under the flag of trust, without the
proper level of verification. People are
human and fallible. This is why we have the
different structures in government set up to check and balance each other. Please look into this process and work to
balance the trust with the verification.
Sincerely,
Wendy K. Hart
Mother and Utah Citizen
Board Member, Alpine School District
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Common Core: When Does Voluntary Become Involuntary?
(This is sixth in the series. Click to read the other posts on Common Core: Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.)
If Utah is committed to a legally-binding agreement, should those elected officials who made that agreement have read it? Should they have submitted it to legal counsel for a review? Should they have voted, in a public meeting, debating the merits of the contract PRIOR to having their representative sign it?
If so, you need to contact ALL the members of the State Board of Education BEFORE Friday, Aug. 3. Here is a link to their email addresses. Read on for more information.
For fifteen months, since I found out about the Feds funding the Common Core tests (assessments), I have been very concerned with Common Core. To me, the lynch pin of the entire thing rests on the testing. Those of us who bring up the loss of local control and giving greater power to the Feds are always told something like: Common Core is voluntary. The Feds aren't involved. We can get out anytime we want. Since I started all my research on Common Core, some additional pieces of information/evidence have come to light. The most important piece of this evidence is the contract Utah has signed with the testing consortium, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
From the beginning of Common Core in 2009, the State Board and State Office of Ed (USOE) have been involved in a consortium of states writing the standards, and then deciding between the two testing consortia. Some of our USOE employees have been involved on committees and as consultants in these endeavors. In every instance I have found, there has been discussion about maintaining Utah's independence and sovereignty. However, this has been weighed against the desire to get additional funds, tests, not reinventing the wheel, etc. as Common Core has been rolled out across the nation. In my personal discussions with staff and State Board Members, they are consistently pointing to their desire to maintain Utah's independence, and I believe them. However, I have read other documents that indicate this independence has been compromised, and, it has been done without the direct consent and/or knowledge of our elected representatives.
In January, 2010, Utah applied to receive money from the 2009 stimulus package under the Federal Race to the Top program. We didn't qualify for the funds, so we submitted our application again for Phase 2 in June, 2010. We didn't receive any of those funds either. However, in the Phase 2 application, we replaced a non-binding agreement with SBAC with a legally-binding agreement* that was signed by the Governor, the State Superintendent, and the State Board President. This past April, State Board President Debra Roberts said the agreement was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. Other board members believe it is legally binding. Within that document, we agreed to several things. Some of those are:
1. Adopt Common Core standards for the state (p.3).
2. Implement the full complement of SBAC tests by 2014-15 school year (p.3).
3. Determine and work to change any state laws that would prevent the use of the SBAC tests or any other part of our agreement (p.3).
4. Abide by the governance and agreements of SBAC (p.3).
5. To exit SBAC, receive approval of our request from the US Department of Education (p.12).
Additionally, SBAC, upon receiving $159 million from the Federal government, signed a Cooperative Agreement that commits SBAC (and its members) to an on-going relationship with the Feds for testing development and reporting student data. Because of our involvement with SBAC, we are equally constrained by this agreement with the Feds. So, even though Utah never signed or agreed to anything from the Feds, our agreement with SBAC does so on our behalf.
A retired appellate court judge, Norman Jackson, reviewed these documents at the request of some parents. He concluded that the US Dept of Ed does not have to grant any state's request to exit the consortium. He also stated that the agreements legally bind Utah to implementing the testing and the standards, as dictated by the Federal Government.
In no board meeting minutes is there evidence that the actual SBAC agreement was discussed or legal issues raised. No vote, no contractual review, just general info on SBAC. Based on this lack of information in the minutes, the Board was not aware of the implications of this agreement. In short, it appears that many of the State Board Members had not read this contract prior to its signing, and may not have even known of its existence, until concerned citizens found it.
Having said that, some of these members want to exit SBAC completely. A vote to withdraw from SBAC was taken in Feb., 2012, and failed 4 -10. On Aug. 3, the board is scheduled to vote again on our association with SBAC. I would like to encourage you to encourage them to withdraw completely from this association. While the Board's desire to withdraw will trigger a letter to SBAC, our formal withdrawl will be contingent on approval from the US Dept of Ed. I assume that just prior to an election, there would not be any reason for the Dept of Ed to hold Utah to an agreement it wishes to exit. After November, I would be less certain. In short, we voluntarily entered a prison of our own (and other states') making. How easy will it be to withdraw? Much more so, if we show our support to our State Board members who are willing to exit this agreement with SBAC, and, by association, the Feds. Please ask them to review the two contracts (Utah and SBAC and SBAC and the Feds), and to commit to voting to get out of that agreement.
*The Race to the Top application on the US Dept of Ed website is the only place I have found a copy of the SBAC agreement (although I requested it from the USOE in November, 2011). It can be found on pages 286-302 of a nearly 500-page application. The 500-page application is too large to email. The Keep Education Local site just pulled those 17 pages from the RTTT application obtained from the US Dept of Ed site. I have linked to both sites, so you can see them for yourself.
If Utah is committed to a legally-binding agreement, should those elected officials who made that agreement have read it? Should they have submitted it to legal counsel for a review? Should they have voted, in a public meeting, debating the merits of the contract PRIOR to having their representative sign it?
If so, you need to contact ALL the members of the State Board of Education BEFORE Friday, Aug. 3. Here is a link to their email addresses. Read on for more information.
For fifteen months, since I found out about the Feds funding the Common Core tests (assessments), I have been very concerned with Common Core. To me, the lynch pin of the entire thing rests on the testing. Those of us who bring up the loss of local control and giving greater power to the Feds are always told something like: Common Core is voluntary. The Feds aren't involved. We can get out anytime we want. Since I started all my research on Common Core, some additional pieces of information/evidence have come to light. The most important piece of this evidence is the contract Utah has signed with the testing consortium, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
From the beginning of Common Core in 2009, the State Board and State Office of Ed (USOE) have been involved in a consortium of states writing the standards, and then deciding between the two testing consortia. Some of our USOE employees have been involved on committees and as consultants in these endeavors. In every instance I have found, there has been discussion about maintaining Utah's independence and sovereignty. However, this has been weighed against the desire to get additional funds, tests, not reinventing the wheel, etc. as Common Core has been rolled out across the nation. In my personal discussions with staff and State Board Members, they are consistently pointing to their desire to maintain Utah's independence, and I believe them. However, I have read other documents that indicate this independence has been compromised, and, it has been done without the direct consent and/or knowledge of our elected representatives.
In January, 2010, Utah applied to receive money from the 2009 stimulus package under the Federal Race to the Top program. We didn't qualify for the funds, so we submitted our application again for Phase 2 in June, 2010. We didn't receive any of those funds either. However, in the Phase 2 application, we replaced a non-binding agreement with SBAC with a legally-binding agreement* that was signed by the Governor, the State Superintendent, and the State Board President. This past April, State Board President Debra Roberts said the agreement was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. Other board members believe it is legally binding. Within that document, we agreed to several things. Some of those are:
1. Adopt Common Core standards for the state (p.3).
2. Implement the full complement of SBAC tests by 2014-15 school year (p.3).
3. Determine and work to change any state laws that would prevent the use of the SBAC tests or any other part of our agreement (p.3).
4. Abide by the governance and agreements of SBAC (p.3).
5. To exit SBAC, receive approval of our request from the US Department of Education (p.12).
Additionally, SBAC, upon receiving $159 million from the Federal government, signed a Cooperative Agreement that commits SBAC (and its members) to an on-going relationship with the Feds for testing development and reporting student data. Because of our involvement with SBAC, we are equally constrained by this agreement with the Feds. So, even though Utah never signed or agreed to anything from the Feds, our agreement with SBAC does so on our behalf.
A retired appellate court judge, Norman Jackson, reviewed these documents at the request of some parents. He concluded that the US Dept of Ed does not have to grant any state's request to exit the consortium. He also stated that the agreements legally bind Utah to implementing the testing and the standards, as dictated by the Federal Government.
In no board meeting minutes is there evidence that the actual SBAC agreement was discussed or legal issues raised. No vote, no contractual review, just general info on SBAC. Based on this lack of information in the minutes, the Board was not aware of the implications of this agreement. In short, it appears that many of the State Board Members had not read this contract prior to its signing, and may not have even known of its existence, until concerned citizens found it.
Having said that, some of these members want to exit SBAC completely. A vote to withdraw from SBAC was taken in Feb., 2012, and failed 4 -10. On Aug. 3, the board is scheduled to vote again on our association with SBAC. I would like to encourage you to encourage them to withdraw completely from this association. While the Board's desire to withdraw will trigger a letter to SBAC, our formal withdrawl will be contingent on approval from the US Dept of Ed. I assume that just prior to an election, there would not be any reason for the Dept of Ed to hold Utah to an agreement it wishes to exit. After November, I would be less certain. In short, we voluntarily entered a prison of our own (and other states') making. How easy will it be to withdraw? Much more so, if we show our support to our State Board members who are willing to exit this agreement with SBAC, and, by association, the Feds. Please ask them to review the two contracts (Utah and SBAC and SBAC and the Feds), and to commit to voting to get out of that agreement.
*The Race to the Top application on the US Dept of Ed website is the only place I have found a copy of the SBAC agreement (although I requested it from the USOE in November, 2011). It can be found on pages 286-302 of a nearly 500-page application. The 500-page application is too large to email. The Keep Education Local site just pulled those 17 pages from the RTTT application obtained from the US Dept of Ed site. I have linked to both sites, so you can see them for yourself.
Monday, June 18, 2012
To Tax or not to Tax: Budget 2012-13
On Tuesday, June, 19, the board will have a public hearing on our proposed budget for this coming fiscal year. Please attend at 6pm and comment at the district office in American Fork.
Budget 2012-13: Increase Tax Rates? Don't Increase Tax Rates.
First, I would highly recommend reading the first few pages of the budget, found here. Using the pdf pages, go to pg. 9 - 10 to read the summary on the tax rates, and then 11 - 14 to see the "Big Picture" of the overall budget. It should take you less than 10 minutes. If you are interested in the employee changes, see pg. 82. Pg. 83-88 contain a glossary. You can also see the Board, Superintendent and total principal salaries and benefits outlined on pg. 26. We are planning on an additional 2,076 students this fall, and adding 66 full-time employee positions and 3.5 counselors to accommodate that growth. (Incidentally, the state has mandated a certain counselor to student ratio. Alpine is behind on this ratio, and we send a letter every year telling the state we are working on complying with their mandate. I, personally, would err on the side of having more teachers, but that decision isn't in my hands.)
At the board meeting, last month, we reviewed the proposed budget which included an increase in property tax rates. This would require a Truth in Taxation hearing in August. The rationale behind the increase was to "recoup" the property tax amount that goes to charter schools in our area. About 4 or 5 years ago, the legislature changed charter school funding from entirely income-tax based to getting a portion from local property taxes. The actual funding formula (other than overall increase in per pupil funding for ALL public school students), as far as I can tell, hasn't changed; just the combination of pots has changed. At the time of this change, many school districts increased their property tax amount to accommodate the loss of property tax revenue. Alpine did not. We were planning on a bond, and we try to be more conservative in our approach to taxation. At the time, the amount deferred from property taxes was $500,000. It is now up to $1.2 million. (It is based on the number of students going to charter schools, and the payout is 25% of the per student--including charter students--property tax amount. Email me if you want more details.) Our administration and most of the board found the argument compelling that the money should have been ours and wasn't anymore. In my opinion, the money is the taxpayers' and whether or not we pull from one pot or another doesn't necessarily entitle us to that money. I do agree with the idea that the amount of property taxes sent to charter schools should be clearly identified on the property tax notice (which was a bill that never came before the State Senate this year but passed in the House). I also find property tax the least fair and the most egregious method of taxation. For that reason, I would be opposed to a property tax increase except as a last resort. I wouldn't base it on an appeal to fairness.
That being said, in the last month, our budget staff, Jim Hansen and Teresa Newman, and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith, have received more concrete information from the county. It appears that due to 1)increased property values, 2) more people paying their taxes, and 3) the legislature consolidating property tax revenues and shifting from one pot of property tax to another pot, the district will be receiving $1.5M additional revenue from the state over our originally proposed budget. Due to this increase, they are recommending that we not increase the current property tax rates. (The board could, at any time, still decide to increase rates, but, most likely, won't without the recommendation of our administration.) However, despite a lack of tax rate increases, we have budgeted for 30 full-time teaching positions. There may be some flexibility in this: more teachers that are part-time or whatever is seen as necessary. The Obama EduJobs program from two years ago, allowed us to hire 26 teaching positions. That money is no longer available, and so those 26 positions were to be eliminated. Due to some good budget work and the reasons I mentioned above, we will be able to retain all 26 positions and add 4 more, in addition to the teachers required by additional student growth. This is phenomenal! In January, the board expressed a desire to reduce class sizes. We have had several parents (and less publicly, teachers and administrators) comment on the need to reduce class sizes. The original, original budget included only 8 additional teaching positions. But, since this has been a high priority for the board, I have been impressed with the ability to come up with 30 positions. With 79 schools in the district, it is a drop in the bucket, but, like anything, it is a big step in the right direction. I would recommend an email or a comment at the budget hearing, if you are pleased with the reduction in class sizes and/or the static property tax rate. I can't thank our business office enough for all their hard work on the budget and for looking for ways to not increase property tax rates, but to decrease class sizes. Our business department has very good people, and I appreciate their efforts on our behalf.
Some additional items on the budget that might be of interest.
1. Health care costs went up nearly 16%, which would have added $8.6M to our budget. The collective bargaining agreements (also on this meeting's agenda: See Action Items: Certified, Classified, and Administrative Agreements) include five different health plans, ranging from current-level coverage (that would have increased the district's costs $8.6M) to a Health Savings Account. Employees requesting the current level of coverage will need to pay a portion of the premium. Those opting for the Health Savings Account will receive the difference between their reduced premium amount and the amount the district is paying for everyone else into their Health Savings Account. The other three plans fit in between those two extremes. As is, our health care costs didn't increase very much. I applaud our administration and our associations for their creative approach in solving this dilemma.
2. Federal Revenues make up 8.2% of our total budget. For our general fund (day-to-day maintenance and operations), it is only 7%, or $28M out of $377M. Due to the failure of the Congressional Super Committee, overall Federal Revenues will be cut 9% in January. So, Federal Revenue is a figure we need to keep an eye on. For Nutrition Services, Federal Revenues make up nearly 48% of of the budget, or $10.9M out of $22M. A lot of this money is for Free and Reduced lunches, but all student lunch are subsidized, either by the state or the Feds, or both. I was unaware of this information until a year ago.
3. Pg. 18 shows a pie chart of the expenditures in the General Fund. You can see that 70% of our expenses are on Instruction.
4. Our collective bargaining agreements include funding "step and lane" which is the salary schedule. As employees get more education and are with the district longer, their salaries are increased. This requires an increase in the budget to accommodate those increases. Also, there will be a 2%, one-time bonus given to all employees out of last year's budget, which came in under projected expenses.
5. The Common Core math textbook purchase is being taken out of Fund Balance (essentially our savings) from this past fiscal year (2011-12). It will be about $1.2 - $1.5 M.
6. The Collective Bargaining Agreements change our requirement to negotiate with the associations from them needing to have a majority of employees (State Law) to having the "greatest number".
7. And lastly, the budget includes $1.5 M for the purchase and implementation of a new financial/purchasing system. Our current system is 30-years old and has been modified in-house multiple times. Those who are familiar and comfortable with the system are few and far between. The financial system will be discussed and voted on in the July board meeting.
Superintendent Reappointment
The Agenda includes the reappointment of our superintendent, Dr. Vernon Henshaw, for another two years. There is no formal contract, but the benefits include the same health and retirement benefits as our other employees. The budget includes a raise for both Dr. Henshaw and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith. Dr. Henshaw is a very good and competent administrator. I have seen him ably implement whatever direction he is given from the board.
Common Core/State Board of Ed Update
The State Board of Education will be voting in August on whether or not to remain a governing member, to change to advisory member or to withdraw completely from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC), which is creating the state tests all Utah public school students (district and charter) will take come 2014-15, along with 30 other states. (What is tested is what will be taught.) Our original agreement with SBAC, as included in our federal Race to the Top application, Phase 1, was just a non-binding memorandum. In the Race to the Top, Phase 2 application, this non-binding memorandum was replaced with a signed, legally-binding contract. (See page 286 for the signed contract with SBAC.) Additionally, the SBAC consortium signed a legally-binding cooperative agreement with the Federal Department of Education. So, via our contract with SBAC and their agreement with the Feds, our state tests are subject to Federal control and supervision. Interestingly, the state board never discussed or voted on this contract with SBAC. State Board President, Debra Roberts stated in a public forum on April 26 that the contract was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. However, it was signed by the Board President, the Governor, and the State Superintendent.
It was suggested during the June meeting that a letter be sent changing Utah's status from Governing Member to Advisory Member. The Board was told that Advisory status would alleviate our obligations to the consortium. State Board Member Dave Crandall read the contract and indicated that our obligations would be the same with the exception of losing our vote in the consortium. Based on Member Crandall's information, Board President Roberts declined to sign the letter, since there was no apparent advantage. Kudos to Mr. Crandall for his follow-up! Because of this, the full board will be voting on whether to withdraw completely from SBAC this August. Without the direct obligation from the consortium to the Dept of Ed, Utah can adopt the Common Core standards and still determine it's own tests. Currently, there are no financial penalties for this course of action. There is, however, concern that we may not receive our (illegal) No Child Left Behind waiver if we pull out of the testing consortium. Once we are granted the No Child Left Behind waiver, we are obligated, as far as I can tell, to maintain the Common Core standards and SBAC testing until such time as the Federal government determines we need to do something ELSE in education.
Additionally, the State Board is reviewing Social Studies standards. If you are like me, you will want to pay close attention to this process and give a lot of input.
Budget 2012-13: Increase Tax Rates? Don't Increase Tax Rates.
First, I would highly recommend reading the first few pages of the budget, found here. Using the pdf pages, go to pg. 9 - 10 to read the summary on the tax rates, and then 11 - 14 to see the "Big Picture" of the overall budget. It should take you less than 10 minutes. If you are interested in the employee changes, see pg. 82. Pg. 83-88 contain a glossary. You can also see the Board, Superintendent and total principal salaries and benefits outlined on pg. 26. We are planning on an additional 2,076 students this fall, and adding 66 full-time employee positions and 3.5 counselors to accommodate that growth. (Incidentally, the state has mandated a certain counselor to student ratio. Alpine is behind on this ratio, and we send a letter every year telling the state we are working on complying with their mandate. I, personally, would err on the side of having more teachers, but that decision isn't in my hands.)
At the board meeting, last month, we reviewed the proposed budget which included an increase in property tax rates. This would require a Truth in Taxation hearing in August. The rationale behind the increase was to "recoup" the property tax amount that goes to charter schools in our area. About 4 or 5 years ago, the legislature changed charter school funding from entirely income-tax based to getting a portion from local property taxes. The actual funding formula (other than overall increase in per pupil funding for ALL public school students), as far as I can tell, hasn't changed; just the combination of pots has changed. At the time of this change, many school districts increased their property tax amount to accommodate the loss of property tax revenue. Alpine did not. We were planning on a bond, and we try to be more conservative in our approach to taxation. At the time, the amount deferred from property taxes was $500,000. It is now up to $1.2 million. (It is based on the number of students going to charter schools, and the payout is 25% of the per student--including charter students--property tax amount. Email me if you want more details.) Our administration and most of the board found the argument compelling that the money should have been ours and wasn't anymore. In my opinion, the money is the taxpayers' and whether or not we pull from one pot or another doesn't necessarily entitle us to that money. I do agree with the idea that the amount of property taxes sent to charter schools should be clearly identified on the property tax notice (which was a bill that never came before the State Senate this year but passed in the House). I also find property tax the least fair and the most egregious method of taxation. For that reason, I would be opposed to a property tax increase except as a last resort. I wouldn't base it on an appeal to fairness.
That being said, in the last month, our budget staff, Jim Hansen and Teresa Newman, and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith, have received more concrete information from the county. It appears that due to 1)increased property values, 2) more people paying their taxes, and 3) the legislature consolidating property tax revenues and shifting from one pot of property tax to another pot, the district will be receiving $1.5M additional revenue from the state over our originally proposed budget. Due to this increase, they are recommending that we not increase the current property tax rates. (The board could, at any time, still decide to increase rates, but, most likely, won't without the recommendation of our administration.) However, despite a lack of tax rate increases, we have budgeted for 30 full-time teaching positions. There may be some flexibility in this: more teachers that are part-time or whatever is seen as necessary. The Obama EduJobs program from two years ago, allowed us to hire 26 teaching positions. That money is no longer available, and so those 26 positions were to be eliminated. Due to some good budget work and the reasons I mentioned above, we will be able to retain all 26 positions and add 4 more, in addition to the teachers required by additional student growth. This is phenomenal! In January, the board expressed a desire to reduce class sizes. We have had several parents (and less publicly, teachers and administrators) comment on the need to reduce class sizes. The original, original budget included only 8 additional teaching positions. But, since this has been a high priority for the board, I have been impressed with the ability to come up with 30 positions. With 79 schools in the district, it is a drop in the bucket, but, like anything, it is a big step in the right direction. I would recommend an email or a comment at the budget hearing, if you are pleased with the reduction in class sizes and/or the static property tax rate. I can't thank our business office enough for all their hard work on the budget and for looking for ways to not increase property tax rates, but to decrease class sizes. Our business department has very good people, and I appreciate their efforts on our behalf.
Some additional items on the budget that might be of interest.
1. Health care costs went up nearly 16%, which would have added $8.6M to our budget. The collective bargaining agreements (also on this meeting's agenda: See Action Items: Certified, Classified, and Administrative Agreements) include five different health plans, ranging from current-level coverage (that would have increased the district's costs $8.6M) to a Health Savings Account. Employees requesting the current level of coverage will need to pay a portion of the premium. Those opting for the Health Savings Account will receive the difference between their reduced premium amount and the amount the district is paying for everyone else into their Health Savings Account. The other three plans fit in between those two extremes. As is, our health care costs didn't increase very much. I applaud our administration and our associations for their creative approach in solving this dilemma.
2. Federal Revenues make up 8.2% of our total budget. For our general fund (day-to-day maintenance and operations), it is only 7%, or $28M out of $377M. Due to the failure of the Congressional Super Committee, overall Federal Revenues will be cut 9% in January. So, Federal Revenue is a figure we need to keep an eye on. For Nutrition Services, Federal Revenues make up nearly 48% of of the budget, or $10.9M out of $22M. A lot of this money is for Free and Reduced lunches, but all student lunch are subsidized, either by the state or the Feds, or both. I was unaware of this information until a year ago.
3. Pg. 18 shows a pie chart of the expenditures in the General Fund. You can see that 70% of our expenses are on Instruction.
4. Our collective bargaining agreements include funding "step and lane" which is the salary schedule. As employees get more education and are with the district longer, their salaries are increased. This requires an increase in the budget to accommodate those increases. Also, there will be a 2%, one-time bonus given to all employees out of last year's budget, which came in under projected expenses.
5. The Common Core math textbook purchase is being taken out of Fund Balance (essentially our savings) from this past fiscal year (2011-12). It will be about $1.2 - $1.5 M.
6. The Collective Bargaining Agreements change our requirement to negotiate with the associations from them needing to have a majority of employees (State Law) to having the "greatest number".
7. And lastly, the budget includes $1.5 M for the purchase and implementation of a new financial/purchasing system. Our current system is 30-years old and has been modified in-house multiple times. Those who are familiar and comfortable with the system are few and far between. The financial system will be discussed and voted on in the July board meeting.
Superintendent Reappointment
The Agenda includes the reappointment of our superintendent, Dr. Vernon Henshaw, for another two years. There is no formal contract, but the benefits include the same health and retirement benefits as our other employees. The budget includes a raise for both Dr. Henshaw and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith. Dr. Henshaw is a very good and competent administrator. I have seen him ably implement whatever direction he is given from the board.
Common Core/State Board of Ed Update
The State Board of Education will be voting in August on whether or not to remain a governing member, to change to advisory member or to withdraw completely from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC), which is creating the state tests all Utah public school students (district and charter) will take come 2014-15, along with 30 other states. (What is tested is what will be taught.) Our original agreement with SBAC, as included in our federal Race to the Top application, Phase 1, was just a non-binding memorandum. In the Race to the Top, Phase 2 application, this non-binding memorandum was replaced with a signed, legally-binding contract. (See page 286 for the signed contract with SBAC.) Additionally, the SBAC consortium signed a legally-binding cooperative agreement with the Federal Department of Education. So, via our contract with SBAC and their agreement with the Feds, our state tests are subject to Federal control and supervision. Interestingly, the state board never discussed or voted on this contract with SBAC. State Board President, Debra Roberts stated in a public forum on April 26 that the contract was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. However, it was signed by the Board President, the Governor, and the State Superintendent.
It was suggested during the June meeting that a letter be sent changing Utah's status from Governing Member to Advisory Member. The Board was told that Advisory status would alleviate our obligations to the consortium. State Board Member Dave Crandall read the contract and indicated that our obligations would be the same with the exception of losing our vote in the consortium. Based on Member Crandall's information, Board President Roberts declined to sign the letter, since there was no apparent advantage. Kudos to Mr. Crandall for his follow-up! Because of this, the full board will be voting on whether to withdraw completely from SBAC this August. Without the direct obligation from the consortium to the Dept of Ed, Utah can adopt the Common Core standards and still determine it's own tests. Currently, there are no financial penalties for this course of action. There is, however, concern that we may not receive our (illegal) No Child Left Behind waiver if we pull out of the testing consortium. Once we are granted the No Child Left Behind waiver, we are obligated, as far as I can tell, to maintain the Common Core standards and SBAC testing until such time as the Federal government determines we need to do something ELSE in education.
Additionally, the State Board is reviewing Social Studies standards. If you are like me, you will want to pay close attention to this process and give a lot of input.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Invictus: Unconquered
I had the great opportunity to attend two graduation ceremonies this past week. I am excited for the Class of 2012!!
The first graduation was for Lone Peak High School. There were approximately 600 graduates, and Lone Peak has performed phenomenally in sports, music, academics, etc. The parental involvement is very high. The kids are wonderful! It brought back fond memories of my high school and the great friendships I developed (and still cherish). I envy those students of Lone Peak, and, in fleeting moments, yearn to return to those wonderful high school years.
The second was for Summit High School. Until I became a member of the board, I was unaware of Summit High. Because of this, I'd like to give you a little more information. When we think of high school, most of us will think of our fun, unruly, and exciting experiences. Lone Peak reflects those memories most closely for the vast majority of us.
In contrast, Summit High is there to serve "students who are in the custody of the State of Utah for reasons of neglect or delinquency and non-custody students who are at-risk of educational failure....A positive relationship with each student is the first order of business." There were 31 graduates who overcame very difficult circumstances: homelessness, addiction, abuse, neglect. The road has been very difficult for them, and yet, they have not given in. Instead, they have achieved greatness. One graduate shared the poem, "The Race", which says: "all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall." This concept these students have had to learn repeatedly. Instead of a traditional band or orchestra, Summit has a wonderful rock band, Invictus. If you ever get to hear them perform, I'd take advantage of the opportunity. We heard one of the best renditions of Pachelbel's Cannon in D, as well as What a Wonderful World. The faculty and staff are very devoted to their students, and the students are, as well, to them. This year, the faculty (and some private organizations) donated enough money to give a total of $55,500 to be split between the 31 graduates, allowing them each to attend college or a vocational school of their choosing. I was impressed with the caliber of the students, who have risen above so much, as well as their mentors and friends that they found in the faculty of Summit High.
Each Summit graduate must memorize the poem, Invictus, which means, "unconquered".
The first graduation was for Lone Peak High School. There were approximately 600 graduates, and Lone Peak has performed phenomenally in sports, music, academics, etc. The parental involvement is very high. The kids are wonderful! It brought back fond memories of my high school and the great friendships I developed (and still cherish). I envy those students of Lone Peak, and, in fleeting moments, yearn to return to those wonderful high school years.
The second was for Summit High School. Until I became a member of the board, I was unaware of Summit High. Because of this, I'd like to give you a little more information. When we think of high school, most of us will think of our fun, unruly, and exciting experiences. Lone Peak reflects those memories most closely for the vast majority of us.
In contrast, Summit High is there to serve "students who are in the custody of the State of Utah for reasons of neglect or delinquency and non-custody students who are at-risk of educational failure....A positive relationship with each student is the first order of business." There were 31 graduates who overcame very difficult circumstances: homelessness, addiction, abuse, neglect. The road has been very difficult for them, and yet, they have not given in. Instead, they have achieved greatness. One graduate shared the poem, "The Race", which says: "all you have to do to win is rise each time you fall." This concept these students have had to learn repeatedly. Instead of a traditional band or orchestra, Summit has a wonderful rock band, Invictus. If you ever get to hear them perform, I'd take advantage of the opportunity. We heard one of the best renditions of Pachelbel's Cannon in D, as well as What a Wonderful World. The faculty and staff are very devoted to their students, and the students are, as well, to them. This year, the faculty (and some private organizations) donated enough money to give a total of $55,500 to be split between the 31 graduates, allowing them each to attend college or a vocational school of their choosing. I was impressed with the caliber of the students, who have risen above so much, as well as their mentors and friends that they found in the faculty of Summit High.
Each Summit graduate must memorize the poem, Invictus, which means, "unconquered".
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
--William Ernest Henley
May we each be the master of our fate and the captain of our soul.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Money and Management
The Board Meeting this Tuesday, May 15, will have far-reaching implications. See the agenda here.
Budget and Tax Rates
First, we will be reviewing the proposed Maintenance and Operations (M&O) budget (everything except buildings, buses, long-term stuff). This is really the only time the budget will be discussed in depth and allow you the opportunity to weigh in on it PRIOR to its adoption on June 19. During the June meeting, we will have a formal, public budget hearing. However, if you have suggestions or comments, they will have greater impact prior to the hearing, not during. I have been told that in the past 10 years, no one has commented on the budget.
*Note: Boring, but important, stuff to follow.
During the campaign, I had a few people make comments on property tax hearings. Truth in Taxation is a legal hearing the district must engage in to raise our property tax rate. Taxes vary based on what your property is worth in any given year. Every year, the County determines what the tax rate for the district will be, based on how much our collective properties are worth. If the district accepts that tax rate or lowers it, there is no Truth in Taxation hearing. If, however, the district decides to raise that tax rate, the law requires a Truth in Taxation hearing. The main complaint I received was that, during the hearing, the public was given the impression that the tax rate increase had already been decided and the hearing was just a formality.
When I attended a District Finances 101 course at a conference, the presenter explained why the complaint I heard is mostly accurate, and it has to do with state laws. By law, our budget for July 2012 - June 2013 must be approved by June 22. As we approve that budget, we also accept the tax rate from the county. That allows us to project how much money we will receive, from property taxes, during the coming year. If we decide we need to increase the amount coming in, we will include the increase in the proposed budget. When the budget is approved in June, the increased tax rate is, also, approved. So, even though we are required by law to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing in August or September, by then, we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the spending has been going on, as per the June budget. In reality, the only opportunity to influence the budget, and any proposed tax rates, is BEFORE the approval in June. I think the system is messed up, but that's the law. I would like to see us hold a budget Open House (like Highland City does) in May. However, since no one has yet commented on the budget, there really doesn't seem to be a reason to take the time.
Superintendent Evaluation
This Tuesday, in a closed session, we will be evaluating our Superintendent, Dr. Vern Henshaw. Superintendents and Business Administrators are given two-year contracts. So, every two years, it is the board's responsibility to evaluate their performance and decide whether to renew those contracts and under what conditions. In Alpine, we review our Business Administrator's appointment six months before the Superintendent's. This allows us to have more continutity in case one of them were leaving.
We have asked Richard Stowell, Executive Director of the Utah School Boards Association (USBA), to assist us with this process. A few months ago, we reviewed some of the things we would like to see in the evaluation. My main focus was on concrete, measurable objectives. We each met with Mr. Stowell to relate both what the superintendent does well and where we would like to see improvement. That information was put together in a survey form, and each board member picked so many in each area as the most important items. The compiled information will be presented to us this evening for our discussion and for our formal evaluation. Additionally, we have received a report from the Superintendent of his goals and accomplishments over the past two years. Mr. Stowell will be providing comparables in salary, as well. We will be able to discuss the evaluation, as well as any proposed contractual changes for both the Supertintendent and the Business Administrator. The closed session allows for discussion only. Any action (approval of contract, etc) will be voted on in an open meeting.
Common Core Update
During the State School Board meeting this month, Superintendent Larry Shumway told the board he would be submitting a letter to the testing consortium (Smarter Balanced or SBAC) to switch Utah's status from a governing member to an advisory member. The reason was our State Board decided to issue an RFP (request for propsal) for different entities to bid on creating our own state tests, instead of adopting those funded by the Federal Government. Our agreement with SBAC REQUIRES us to implement their tests in the 2014-15 school year. This means it would be hard to have any company want to bid on creating tests, if we are legally obligated to adopt someone else's tests. It was assumed a change to advisory status would allow us to stay in the consortium and still issue the RFP. However, a change to advisory status does not change the testing requirement. It only forfeits our single vote in the consortium. Many state board members were opposed to this action. Some I've spoken with think there will be a complete withdrawl from the consortium. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Budget and Tax Rates
First, we will be reviewing the proposed Maintenance and Operations (M&O) budget (everything except buildings, buses, long-term stuff). This is really the only time the budget will be discussed in depth and allow you the opportunity to weigh in on it PRIOR to its adoption on June 19. During the June meeting, we will have a formal, public budget hearing. However, if you have suggestions or comments, they will have greater impact prior to the hearing, not during. I have been told that in the past 10 years, no one has commented on the budget.
*Note: Boring, but important, stuff to follow.
During the campaign, I had a few people make comments on property tax hearings. Truth in Taxation is a legal hearing the district must engage in to raise our property tax rate. Taxes vary based on what your property is worth in any given year. Every year, the County determines what the tax rate for the district will be, based on how much our collective properties are worth. If the district accepts that tax rate or lowers it, there is no Truth in Taxation hearing. If, however, the district decides to raise that tax rate, the law requires a Truth in Taxation hearing. The main complaint I received was that, during the hearing, the public was given the impression that the tax rate increase had already been decided and the hearing was just a formality.
When I attended a District Finances 101 course at a conference, the presenter explained why the complaint I heard is mostly accurate, and it has to do with state laws. By law, our budget for July 2012 - June 2013 must be approved by June 22. As we approve that budget, we also accept the tax rate from the county. That allows us to project how much money we will receive, from property taxes, during the coming year. If we decide we need to increase the amount coming in, we will include the increase in the proposed budget. When the budget is approved in June, the increased tax rate is, also, approved. So, even though we are required by law to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing in August or September, by then, we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the spending has been going on, as per the June budget. In reality, the only opportunity to influence the budget, and any proposed tax rates, is BEFORE the approval in June. I think the system is messed up, but that's the law. I would like to see us hold a budget Open House (like Highland City does) in May. However, since no one has yet commented on the budget, there really doesn't seem to be a reason to take the time.
Superintendent Evaluation
This Tuesday, in a closed session, we will be evaluating our Superintendent, Dr. Vern Henshaw. Superintendents and Business Administrators are given two-year contracts. So, every two years, it is the board's responsibility to evaluate their performance and decide whether to renew those contracts and under what conditions. In Alpine, we review our Business Administrator's appointment six months before the Superintendent's. This allows us to have more continutity in case one of them were leaving.
We have asked Richard Stowell, Executive Director of the Utah School Boards Association (USBA), to assist us with this process. A few months ago, we reviewed some of the things we would like to see in the evaluation. My main focus was on concrete, measurable objectives. We each met with Mr. Stowell to relate both what the superintendent does well and where we would like to see improvement. That information was put together in a survey form, and each board member picked so many in each area as the most important items. The compiled information will be presented to us this evening for our discussion and for our formal evaluation. Additionally, we have received a report from the Superintendent of his goals and accomplishments over the past two years. Mr. Stowell will be providing comparables in salary, as well. We will be able to discuss the evaluation, as well as any proposed contractual changes for both the Supertintendent and the Business Administrator. The closed session allows for discussion only. Any action (approval of contract, etc) will be voted on in an open meeting.
Common Core Update
During the State School Board meeting this month, Superintendent Larry Shumway told the board he would be submitting a letter to the testing consortium (Smarter Balanced or SBAC) to switch Utah's status from a governing member to an advisory member. The reason was our State Board decided to issue an RFP (request for propsal) for different entities to bid on creating our own state tests, instead of adopting those funded by the Federal Government. Our agreement with SBAC REQUIRES us to implement their tests in the 2014-15 school year. This means it would be hard to have any company want to bid on creating tests, if we are legally obligated to adopt someone else's tests. It was assumed a change to advisory status would allow us to stay in the consortium and still issue the RFP. However, a change to advisory status does not change the testing requirement. It only forfeits our single vote in the consortium. Many state board members were opposed to this action. Some I've spoken with think there will be a complete withdrawl from the consortium. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Alpine's Implementation of Common Core
As I've mentioned previously, I am very grateful to our district administrators who decided to delay implementation of Common Core a year. We have been able to learn from other districts and have more resources available to us than we would have. Unfortunately, it is still rushed in some areas, and that isn't something that our district has any control over. The implementation schedule was set by the State Board of Education. Here is what you need to know about Alpine's implementation.
First, every school in the district will be having a parent information meeting about Common Core. Here is the link to the times and locations. I encourage everyone to attend to find out the district's perspective on Common Core, and the local School Community Council's selection of math texts. The district's math committee has been reviewing the available math texts this past month. I have heard very positive things from those on the committee. I know they have worked long and hard to come up with the best options available. They have narrowed down the selections and will be presenting those options to the School Community Councils. The School Community Councils will make their decisions this month, and the textbooks will be ordered in April. The cost for these textbooks is estimated to be $1.5M for this year, and about the equivalent amount next year.
Utah is the only state to select the "integrated" math approach. This approach incorporates elements of Algebra and Geometry in every year, instead of separating them out into Algebra I, Geometry, etc. Additionally, seventh-graders currently can take Math 7, Pre-Algebra or Algebra I, depending on their test scores. With Common Core implementation, Math 7 and Pre-Algebra students will be in the Intermediate II math course. Here is a link to the math implementation schedule, if you want to see where your student will end up. There are, essentially, three paths students can take through math. To see this plan, click here. It is significant to mention that not a single 9th-grade math textbook was reviewed because there aren't any that are aligned to Common Core with the "integrated" math approach available at this point in time. That is a concern to me, but I am told we are going forward.
Second, math will switch to Common Core for those going into 6 - 8 (and some 9th) grades this Fall. Language Arts will switch to Common Core for K - 5 and 7 - 12. Next year (2013-14), the elementary grades, 9th and 10th will implement math, and the 6th grade will implement Language Arts. Our teachers will undergo training this Spring and Summer to be prepared for the switch. The teachers who deal with the "Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects" will also receive training before school starts in the Fall. (In last year's budget, $860,000 was allocated for Common Core training.)
Third, Common Core Language Arts has an increased emphasis on informational text (information-based readings) over literature. In elementary, 55% of the curriculum should be informational, increasing to 70% by high school. The complexity of a text (reading) is supposed to increase. According to the formula, a narrative (story) is easier to read, and so would be considered a lower complexity than a similarly worded information-based reading. (In fact, the Grapes of Wrath is said to be a Grade 2-3 complexity level, but is "upgraded" to high-school level, based on "qualitative measures".) Since we are not adopting new textbooks for Language Arts, there isn't anything concrete upon which parents may provide input for this aspect of the Common Core implementation.
The Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (a consortium of 31 states) is currently providing our state with the Common Core tests in English and Math, starting in 2014-15. However, Alpine is requesting to be one of the pilot districts for the assessments (tests), which would start in 2013-14. We are assured that since we have a representative from the Utah State Office of Education, we will be able to control the content of the assessments (tests). The tests will drive the curriculum, especially as envisioned by the US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "Hopefully, some day, we can track children from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career. We must track high growth children in classrooms to their great teachers and great teachers to their schools of education." If teachers are being tracked, based on student performance, they will be teaching to the test.
Additionally, Utah is one of 6 states Secretary Duncan praised for our data-tracking system. He says, "The Data Quality Campaign, DQC, lists 10 elements of a good data system. Six states, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah, have all 10 elements. Other states are also making progress. For example, Arkansas has a data warehouse that integrates school fiscal information, teacher credentials, and student coursework, assessments, and even extracurricular activities." [emphasis mine] I would recommend you read the entire speech, as linked above.
Finally, as time goes on, there will be more online and digital texts and readings than before. We are in a transitional phase, and many of the districts that have already implemented Common Core have done so without any formal textbook adoption--just online. This has been successful for those teachers who haven't relied on textbooks, but it has been difficult for those who have. Additionally, I'm unsure how we maintain transparancy to the public, as to our curriculum in a digital age. This is another area that will need to be addressed going forward.
In conclusion, I applaud our district for waiting to implement and for providing parents with the opportunity to provide input on Common Core. I just wish we had more local control over the entire thing. If we, as parents or as a board, were to decide on a different set of standards, there are no options for doing so. The State Board has already decided for you and for our board. If the playing field were wide open, would we have decided to change and adopt these standards and assessments at this point in time? I, honestly, don't know, but we weren't given that choice, and neither were you.
First, every school in the district will be having a parent information meeting about Common Core. Here is the link to the times and locations. I encourage everyone to attend to find out the district's perspective on Common Core, and the local School Community Council's selection of math texts. The district's math committee has been reviewing the available math texts this past month. I have heard very positive things from those on the committee. I know they have worked long and hard to come up with the best options available. They have narrowed down the selections and will be presenting those options to the School Community Councils. The School Community Councils will make their decisions this month, and the textbooks will be ordered in April. The cost for these textbooks is estimated to be $1.5M for this year, and about the equivalent amount next year.
Utah is the only state to select the "integrated" math approach. This approach incorporates elements of Algebra and Geometry in every year, instead of separating them out into Algebra I, Geometry, etc. Additionally, seventh-graders currently can take Math 7, Pre-Algebra or Algebra I, depending on their test scores. With Common Core implementation, Math 7 and Pre-Algebra students will be in the Intermediate II math course. Here is a link to the math implementation schedule, if you want to see where your student will end up. There are, essentially, three paths students can take through math. To see this plan, click here. It is significant to mention that not a single 9th-grade math textbook was reviewed because there aren't any that are aligned to Common Core with the "integrated" math approach available at this point in time. That is a concern to me, but I am told we are going forward.
Second, math will switch to Common Core for those going into 6 - 8 (and some 9th) grades this Fall. Language Arts will switch to Common Core for K - 5 and 7 - 12. Next year (2013-14), the elementary grades, 9th and 10th will implement math, and the 6th grade will implement Language Arts. Our teachers will undergo training this Spring and Summer to be prepared for the switch. The teachers who deal with the "Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects" will also receive training before school starts in the Fall. (In last year's budget, $860,000 was allocated for Common Core training.)
Third, Common Core Language Arts has an increased emphasis on informational text (information-based readings) over literature. In elementary, 55% of the curriculum should be informational, increasing to 70% by high school. The complexity of a text (reading) is supposed to increase. According to the formula, a narrative (story) is easier to read, and so would be considered a lower complexity than a similarly worded information-based reading. (In fact, the Grapes of Wrath is said to be a Grade 2-3 complexity level, but is "upgraded" to high-school level, based on "qualitative measures".) Since we are not adopting new textbooks for Language Arts, there isn't anything concrete upon which parents may provide input for this aspect of the Common Core implementation.
The Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (a consortium of 31 states) is currently providing our state with the Common Core tests in English and Math, starting in 2014-15. However, Alpine is requesting to be one of the pilot districts for the assessments (tests), which would start in 2013-14. We are assured that since we have a representative from the Utah State Office of Education, we will be able to control the content of the assessments (tests). The tests will drive the curriculum, especially as envisioned by the US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "Hopefully, some day, we can track children from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career. We must track high growth children in classrooms to their great teachers and great teachers to their schools of education." If teachers are being tracked, based on student performance, they will be teaching to the test.
Additionally, Utah is one of 6 states Secretary Duncan praised for our data-tracking system. He says, "The Data Quality Campaign, DQC, lists 10 elements of a good data system. Six states, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, and Utah, have all 10 elements. Other states are also making progress. For example, Arkansas has a data warehouse that integrates school fiscal information, teacher credentials, and student coursework, assessments, and even extracurricular activities." [emphasis mine] I would recommend you read the entire speech, as linked above.
Finally, as time goes on, there will be more online and digital texts and readings than before. We are in a transitional phase, and many of the districts that have already implemented Common Core have done so without any formal textbook adoption--just online. This has been successful for those teachers who haven't relied on textbooks, but it has been difficult for those who have. Additionally, I'm unsure how we maintain transparancy to the public, as to our curriculum in a digital age. This is another area that will need to be addressed going forward.
In conclusion, I applaud our district for waiting to implement and for providing parents with the opportunity to provide input on Common Core. I just wish we had more local control over the entire thing. If we, as parents or as a board, were to decide on a different set of standards, there are no options for doing so. The State Board has already decided for you and for our board. If the playing field were wide open, would we have decided to change and adopt these standards and assessments at this point in time? I, honestly, don't know, but we weren't given that choice, and neither were you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)