Posts
When I gave my husband a draft of this post to proof-read, he said he felt like Marlin in "Finding Nemo" when the little turtle, Squirt, is explaining the proper exiting procedure from the EAC. He said, "I know you are telling me something really important, I just don't understand a word you're saying." So, I will give you the Reader's Digest Version, and then the full Geek/Accountant-type version. Hopefully, one of them will appeal to you.
School Finance: Reader's Digest Version
Every year by June 22, the board must approve a budget, essentially allocating different money into different categories (think envelopes). After the budget is set, the district has flexibility in spending the money within each category, according to the policies and procedures the board has already outlined. Starting on June 1, the proposed budget is available from the Business Administrator to anyone who wants to see it. ASD has past budgets on the website, in case you are really interested.
The district receives money from 3 sources: local taxes (including property taxes), state taxes (100% of your income tax goes to public education), and federal taxes. Each of these taxing sources comes with some strings and/or limitations. The state provides a set amount per student, called the WPU (weighted pupil unit). In addition, if there are certain programs the legislature wants to fund, certain amounts are allowed for those programs. Of course, if you wanted to use that money for something else, you can't. The Feds, of course, have their own set of strings. ASD gets about 7% of its budget from the Feds.
Every year, the County sets a specific tax rate for the district, called the Certified Tax Rate. If the district wants to increase that rate, there will be a public hearing for that purpose in August or September. Of course, since the fiscal year started back in July, the public hearing is more of a formality than anything else. The board can, at any time in the year, amend the budget in an open board meeting. But, unless something major occurs, that probably won't happen.
On your property tax notice, you will see 2 line items for Alpine School District: Basic and Other. The Basic rate is set by the state. The Other is a combination of all the taxes (leeways, bonds, etc) set by the local school board. Bear in mind, that property taxes can only go to pay for capital items. All operational costs come from the state via WPU and specific programs/items or from the Feds (with their specific programs).
I would appreciate your looking at the budget and giving me feedback. I will see if there is a link on the district's website and will post it here after June 1st.
School Finance: Accountant's Version
Schools get revenue from local, state, and federal sources.
Local:
Local funds come in the form of property taxes and other fees. There are 2 line items on your property tax statement: Basic and Other.
Other Property: Other property taxes are leeway, capital, transportation, debt service, tort, and recreation. All primary residential property is taxed at 55%. For example, if your home is worth $200K, whatever the property tax rate is you pay taxes on only 55% or $110K. Commercial property is taxed at 100% of the property value. The school board sets the tax rate. If the tax rate goes above the Certified Tax Rate the county sets, you must have a truth in taxation hearing. It isn't as logical as it sounds either. Here is an example:
Say in 2010 your property is worth $1000 and the certified tax rate is 10%, so you pay $100 in taxes. In 2011, your property value increases 5% to $1050. 10% of that would be $105. Since $105 is more than the $100 you paid in 2010, the board would need to hold a truth in taxation hearing. Even though the tax rate remained the same, the amount of taxes received increases. Hence, the hearing. In order to avoid a hearing, the tax rate would need to be adjusted in 2011 to 9.5%, so that 9.5% of $1050 = $100. All new buildings and new growth are exempt from the truth in taxation hearing, and the taxes are county- or district-wide, so it is possible for your individual property taxes to go up without a hearing. However, it means that somewhere else, someone is paying less for their property taxes, and it all balances out across the district. Just by way of information, in 1980, the average property tax rate in Utah was 0.004534. In 2009-10, it was 0.001433. So, the rates have gone down, but values and growth have increased.
There are other local revenues that come from investment income, inter-district billings (e.g. some of our kids go to Provo and some Provo kids go to ASD, so we pay each other for those kids), school lunch fees, and community education programs.
Basic Property: The basic property tax rate is the only local tax that is NOT set by the local school board, but by the state legislature. This basic amount is currently 10% of the property value that is able to be taxed (e.g. 55% on a primary residence). This is the other line item on your property tax statement that says Alpine School District: Basic.
State Funds:
WPU: The weighted-pupil unit is an amount set by the legislature for each student that attends class for 180 days (membership or enrollment). This year, the WPU is $2577. The WPU is given to districts/schools based on the difference between last year's membership and this year's membership as of Oct. 1. For example, if on Oct. 1, 2010 there are 5% more kids in ASD than there were from Aug. 2009- May. 2010, then there will be a 5% increase in WPU funds. (I think.)
Other State Funds: The state tries to equalize the amount spent, per student, across the state in some fashion. Here is my attempt at explaining this. Let's say we have two districts (A and B), each with 5000 students. District A has property tax values of $100 million. District B has property tax values of $40 million. Each district will receive $12.885 million in WPU funds ($2577 x 5000 students). They will also get 10% of the property values in the form of the Basic school levy. District A will receive $10 million, and District B will receive $4 million. Because of the $6 million deficit for District B, the state will kick in $6 million more in state funds to District B, than to District A from their pool of state income taxes, etc.
Additionally, the state gives extra funds for the following:
Professional staff (more higher degrees)
Special Ed
Career Tech Ed
Class Size Reduction (one time money)
*WPU Flexible (SS, Medicare, and Retirement)
Transportation
Other
*The WPU Flexible is for SS, Medicare, and Retirement for staff. It used to be that the state reimbursed the districts for all of the amount they spent on these items. After that, they reimbursed a percentage of these amounts. Now, there is just a line item in the budget, called WPU Flexible; it is a fixed amount. The board can use whatever amount is in here to pay for SS, Medicare, and Retirement, but these amounts have to be paid by law.
Federal funds:
Federal funds are given, based on different programs. These are:
Title I: Poverty, Mobility, ESL
Title 2: Quality Teaching
Special Ed
School Lunch (free or reduced lunches)
ARRA (Obama's Stimulus)
Edujobs
The biggest issue with federal funds is that the money must not supplant existing funds and there needs to be MOE (Maintenance of Effort). For example, if you spent $1000 on special ed last year, you can't reduce the amount this year and still get federal funds--regardless of the reason. You also can't take the $1000 of special ed monies that you were going to use, spend it somewhere else, and finance special ed with ONLY the federal funds. Federal funds must be used IN ADDITION to state and local funds.
Expenditures:
85-90% of general fund expenses are salaries and benefits. Currently, 18% of salary goes to retirement, 7.65% SS/Medicare, and 30% Health Insurance.
Other expenses are: professional services like nursing, utilities, textbooks/library books, instructional supplies and equipment.
Accounting:
Think of accounting funds as budget envelopes. A board sets certain amounts for each envelope (fund). Within that fund, the district has some discretion, but moving money between funds is not usually allowed.
In general the funds are:
General (operational costs)
Capital (things that last for 1 year or more: furniture, buildings, computers, etc)
Non-K-12
Debt Service
Lunch Service
The board must have the budget set by June 22 of each year, but the public attends a hearing in Aug or Sept. if the tax rate (see above) is greater than the certified tax rate from the previous year. The difficulty is the budget is already set and started on before the public is involved in the hearings. It would make more sense for the public to get involved in the budget process during April, May and June of each year. The superintendent is ultimately responsible for the budget, and you CANNOT (by law) budget a surplus.
Audits:
Annual audits are done by independent third parties. They look at whether you are following your district policies, how you are allocating revenues, state compliance issues, federal law or grant compliance, and payments, especially to the board, superintendent, and business administrator. They do not tend to audit how the money is spent other than on a general level of following policies.
At the end of this class, we were given a quiz. The first person who finished with 100% got a box of M&M's. They were yummy! (smile)
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Bond Dilemma and Board Meeting 5/17/11
As you probably know, Alpine School District will, most likely, be asking you to approve a $210M bond in November. Before you continue reading, I hope you will take the time to watch the online bond presentation, if you didn't attend one of the meetings. This way, I know you will have all the basic information and assumptions: the whys, the hows, and the how much. The bond is divided into growth, renovations/additions, seismic retrofitting, and additional projects. The additional projects will probably take a back seat to everything else.
New Lehi High
The biggest change from the original draft proposal is a new high school for Lehi at the "Micron property" that the district already owns. The estimated cost is $56M, but construction won't begin until 2014 at the earliest. In that period of time, Lehi High will grow to almost 2500 students. Part of the reason for the delay is the overall cost. The bonds will be issued in phases to take advantage of the amount of current debt being paid off every year. We attempt to keep our debt pretty much level; so as we pay off some debt, we don't go into so much more debt that it spikes both the debt ratio and the taxes.
Seismic Issues
In 2006, Reaveley Engineering did a very in-depth study of seismic issues in the district. From that report, the district has been going down a path of seismic retrofitting. The 2006 study didn't include some additional items that the district has included like high, unreinforced chimneys (all of which have been replaced). Also, at the time of the study, there were projects already in process, and they were simply completed. This is why some projects of a lower priority were done prior to others. Also, our experience with having corrected some of the seismic issues is that the overall $54M price tag was way too low. For example, Reaveley estimated the cost to fix Orem HS at $8M. When we had actual bids from two different firms, they said the amount was closer to $16M. It was the $16M price tag that encouraged the district to tear Orem down and rebuild a new school on the same site. Before the final bond decision in August, the board should have additional information on the most "problematic" areas with better estimates from the companies that would actually be hired to do the retrofitting. My personal thought is we are responsible to correct seismic (and any other obvious safety issues) in our schools before worrying about additional things like multi-purpose rooms, weight rooms, or the space center. One of my colleagues clarified that having too many kids in a weight room can pose a safety risk as well. Additionally, the difficulty with seismic issues is they are so dependent on so many unknowns. I applaud the district for commissioning this study five years ago, and for embarking on a long journey to correct these issues across the district. If there were a way to correct all the major seismic issues throughout the district on this bond, I'd be happy to do that.
Renovations and Additions
Some of the renovations and additions patrons discussed during the bond meetings were additional classrooms, weight rooms, PE rooms, tennis courts, etc. An interesting comment at one meeting about how great Lone Peak's weight room isand how other schools in the district couldn't compete with them. Then, at another meeting, people commented how Lone Peak's weight room needed improvements. As one person put it, the process is really like a moving jigsaw puzzle. We need to keep in mind that with limited resources, everyone can't have everything all at once. And by the time one area is improved, another is going to need it.
Eagle Mountain Junior High
Another bond project is building a new junior high in the Eagle Mountain area. Westlake High will be growing to 4000 students by about 2016 if they continue to house 9th - 12th grades. The plan is to open a new junior high in Eagle Mountain by Fall 2013, taking students from Vista Heights and bringing the 9th grade back there from Westlake. The district is hoping to secure property this summer and have the architechtural work and builders all set to begin work by Feb. 2012. Before the property is purchased, the terms of the purchase will be made public, and the board will approve the purchase in an open board meeting.
Other Thoughts on the Bond
As someone who is very concerned with additional debt, I would love to find a way to pay off our existing debt and finance these new buildings and improvements with cash. And if it couldn't be done with this bond (because of the immediate needs), maybe we could put something in place to start down the road of pay-as-you-go for the next set of projects in five years. However, it seems that most people are fine with the way things are. About every 5 years, the district will go out for another bond, and build new schools, as well as renovate older schools. The debt level will remain roughly the same, and the bonds will be aggressively financed for 15 years or less. In order to do something other than "the way it's always been done", the changes would need to be very dramatic, very "outside the box". Those ideas could be: modifications to the school year/calendar/attendance time, more online/distance learning classes, additional credits allowed for private lessons (e.g. music credits for private music lessons), a change in scope of the state core and graduation requirements, building smaller schools with less amenities, etc. One of the concerns about building smaller, less fancy schools is they are also to double as community centers. If one community gets all the bells and whistles, the other communities are concerned that they helped fund bells and whistles for someone else but didn't get any at their own schools.
Another consideration, that has been absent in these discussions, is the impact of the Vineyard URA. As I write, the URA is still going forward. SB70 was passed this last legislative session, and it changes the vote on something like Vineyard from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority. In effect, the school districts will be required to go along with every URA without a chance at stopping them. Since the districts, on average, make up about 65-70% of the tax revenue collected from an area, there is no reason for any other taxing entity (city, county, etc) to not vote to support URA's. The districts will make up the majority of the tax deferral, and the local community will benefit. The schools and taxpayers throughout the district will be taken along for the ride by financing the bulk of these developments. So, having said that, the URA, absent something dramatic to stop it, will impact you whether or not there is a bond. Your property taxes will be increased, and it will look as if the district increased them. So, when we talk about the property taxes going up $12 the first year and as much as $36 the fourth or fifth year, that is just the impact of the bond. Vineyard will impact you the full $36 or more starting this first year.
In short, I am very uncomfortable with debt, and incurring more is doubly difficult for me. The district currently has $389M in debt, being paid off at the rate of $30M+ in principal and $15M in interest every year. If there were a good way of eliminating our debt and applying that $15M in interest toward future projects, that is how I'd like to see things done. However, as is, the debt is phased in, and its level is maintained. If we must have debt, I think we are doing a good job at maintaining fiscal discipline on that front. Additionally, we are obligated to the families in our district to provide a good, safe learning environment for the kids in our schools. To delay addressing current growth and safety concerns just exacerbates the problem. The current method is to bond every five years to fund the seismic/safety retrofitting, as well as new schools for population growth. It is not my preferred method of operation, but until there is a better alternative, this is the system we have.
New Lehi High
The biggest change from the original draft proposal is a new high school for Lehi at the "Micron property" that the district already owns. The estimated cost is $56M, but construction won't begin until 2014 at the earliest. In that period of time, Lehi High will grow to almost 2500 students. Part of the reason for the delay is the overall cost. The bonds will be issued in phases to take advantage of the amount of current debt being paid off every year. We attempt to keep our debt pretty much level; so as we pay off some debt, we don't go into so much more debt that it spikes both the debt ratio and the taxes.
Seismic Issues
In 2006, Reaveley Engineering did a very in-depth study of seismic issues in the district. From that report, the district has been going down a path of seismic retrofitting. The 2006 study didn't include some additional items that the district has included like high, unreinforced chimneys (all of which have been replaced). Also, at the time of the study, there were projects already in process, and they were simply completed. This is why some projects of a lower priority were done prior to others. Also, our experience with having corrected some of the seismic issues is that the overall $54M price tag was way too low. For example, Reaveley estimated the cost to fix Orem HS at $8M. When we had actual bids from two different firms, they said the amount was closer to $16M. It was the $16M price tag that encouraged the district to tear Orem down and rebuild a new school on the same site. Before the final bond decision in August, the board should have additional information on the most "problematic" areas with better estimates from the companies that would actually be hired to do the retrofitting. My personal thought is we are responsible to correct seismic (and any other obvious safety issues) in our schools before worrying about additional things like multi-purpose rooms, weight rooms, or the space center. One of my colleagues clarified that having too many kids in a weight room can pose a safety risk as well. Additionally, the difficulty with seismic issues is they are so dependent on so many unknowns. I applaud the district for commissioning this study five years ago, and for embarking on a long journey to correct these issues across the district. If there were a way to correct all the major seismic issues throughout the district on this bond, I'd be happy to do that.
Renovations and Additions
Some of the renovations and additions patrons discussed during the bond meetings were additional classrooms, weight rooms, PE rooms, tennis courts, etc. An interesting comment at one meeting about how great Lone Peak's weight room isand how other schools in the district couldn't compete with them. Then, at another meeting, people commented how Lone Peak's weight room needed improvements. As one person put it, the process is really like a moving jigsaw puzzle. We need to keep in mind that with limited resources, everyone can't have everything all at once. And by the time one area is improved, another is going to need it.
Eagle Mountain Junior High
Another bond project is building a new junior high in the Eagle Mountain area. Westlake High will be growing to 4000 students by about 2016 if they continue to house 9th - 12th grades. The plan is to open a new junior high in Eagle Mountain by Fall 2013, taking students from Vista Heights and bringing the 9th grade back there from Westlake. The district is hoping to secure property this summer and have the architechtural work and builders all set to begin work by Feb. 2012. Before the property is purchased, the terms of the purchase will be made public, and the board will approve the purchase in an open board meeting.
Other Thoughts on the Bond
As someone who is very concerned with additional debt, I would love to find a way to pay off our existing debt and finance these new buildings and improvements with cash. And if it couldn't be done with this bond (because of the immediate needs), maybe we could put something in place to start down the road of pay-as-you-go for the next set of projects in five years. However, it seems that most people are fine with the way things are. About every 5 years, the district will go out for another bond, and build new schools, as well as renovate older schools. The debt level will remain roughly the same, and the bonds will be aggressively financed for 15 years or less. In order to do something other than "the way it's always been done", the changes would need to be very dramatic, very "outside the box". Those ideas could be: modifications to the school year/calendar/attendance time, more online/distance learning classes, additional credits allowed for private lessons (e.g. music credits for private music lessons), a change in scope of the state core and graduation requirements, building smaller schools with less amenities, etc. One of the concerns about building smaller, less fancy schools is they are also to double as community centers. If one community gets all the bells and whistles, the other communities are concerned that they helped fund bells and whistles for someone else but didn't get any at their own schools.
Another consideration, that has been absent in these discussions, is the impact of the Vineyard URA. As I write, the URA is still going forward. SB70 was passed this last legislative session, and it changes the vote on something like Vineyard from a 2/3 majority to a simple majority. In effect, the school districts will be required to go along with every URA without a chance at stopping them. Since the districts, on average, make up about 65-70% of the tax revenue collected from an area, there is no reason for any other taxing entity (city, county, etc) to not vote to support URA's. The districts will make up the majority of the tax deferral, and the local community will benefit. The schools and taxpayers throughout the district will be taken along for the ride by financing the bulk of these developments. So, having said that, the URA, absent something dramatic to stop it, will impact you whether or not there is a bond. Your property taxes will be increased, and it will look as if the district increased them. So, when we talk about the property taxes going up $12 the first year and as much as $36 the fourth or fifth year, that is just the impact of the bond. Vineyard will impact you the full $36 or more starting this first year.
In short, I am very uncomfortable with debt, and incurring more is doubly difficult for me. The district currently has $389M in debt, being paid off at the rate of $30M+ in principal and $15M in interest every year. If there were a good way of eliminating our debt and applying that $15M in interest toward future projects, that is how I'd like to see things done. However, as is, the debt is phased in, and its level is maintained. If we must have debt, I think we are doing a good job at maintaining fiscal discipline on that front. Additionally, we are obligated to the families in our district to provide a good, safe learning environment for the kids in our schools. To delay addressing current growth and safety concerns just exacerbates the problem. The current method is to bond every five years to fund the seismic/safety retrofitting, as well as new schools for population growth. It is not my preferred method of operation, but until there is a better alternative, this is the system we have.
Friday, May 13, 2011
May 17, 2011 Board Meeting Agenda
Please go to the district website to download the documentation for the meeting here. The meeting will be at the district office. All are welcome to attend both sessions.
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to (1) review assignments and protocol for the upcoming high school graduations and protocol for board members, (2) review feedback from the bond meetings, and (3) discuss other current issues. Read more info on the bond, including the seismic information here.4:00 P.M.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
RECOGNITIONS
COMMUNITY COMMENTS*
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR MARCH AND APRIL
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports “
3. Alpine Foundation Report “
4. Student Releases - KA, BA, CA, BB, GB, CB “
MC, TC, JD, MD, NF, NG, WG, CG, JH, MH
TH, ZH, RK, AK, ML, TM, AO, KP, TR, CS
SS, KV, WW, TW, CW, LY “
5. Student Expulsion – ND “
6. Student Reinstatements – MB, DG
7. Investment Report
8. Property Items A. Resolution #2011-007 - Purchase of Old Cedar Fort School
B. Resolution #2011-008 - MATC Lease and Easement Agreement
ACTION ITEMS
1. Resolution 2011-003 – Dissolution of ATEC Fund
2. Resolution 2011-004 – Investment Changes “
3. Resolution 2011-005 – Fund Balance “
4. Resolution 2011-006 – Approval of Architect Firms “
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
1. Parameters Resolution for Refinancing Bonds
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. 2013-2014 School Calendar
REPORTS
1. Membership Report
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S
INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
*Time set aside for community comments is not a time to discuss specific personnel issues. Personnel issues are not appropriate discussion items for an open-meeting environment. If you have a personnel concern, we ask that you contact a member of the administration or put your concern in writing and address it to the Board of Education.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Common Core: Funding and Teaching to the Test
I have just returned from the National School Boards Association Convention. In my last class on tests and assessments, the presenter said something very interesting. The US Department of Education has set aside $330 Million for the creation of assessments for the Common Core Standards. I had heard of the consortia for the assessment piece of the Common Core. However, I had not heard the US Department of Education was involved in any way with them.
Throughout this Common Core discussion, it has been repeated ad infinitum that the Common Core is NOT a national standard. Instead, it is a collection of states coming together, voluntarily, to create a core curriculum. During my initial introduction to the Common Core, a fellow board member was immediately interested in who would be doing the assessments. At the time, she said something like, "We all know that teachers have to teach to the test, so it's important to know who will be creating the tests." The presenter discussed how, when a new test is introduced, the scores drop. As teachers get more information about the test and what's on it, they modify their teaching to help their students have greater achievement on the test. He said, "This isn't cheating." It's just that more information and more data yields better preparation. In short, we teach to the test. The question is whether what we are measuring is the information we want our students to learn.
Alpine School District is required to follow the core curriculum as established by the State Office of Education. The State Office has decided to require the Common Core, and all school districts in Utah will need to implement the Common Core by 2012-2013. The State Office recommended that we start this coming year, but ASD's administration has wisely opted to delay a year to properly train our teachers. And, I would add, to learn from the mistakes of others. My concern with the Common Core is not the standards themselves. My concern is it violates the principle of local control. What our schools and students need should be managed by the people of our area and not dictated from on high. Certainly we can learn from others, but where the rubber meets the road, it is our parents, our teachers, and our principals who can best determine what our students need.
So, following the money, the $330 Million was split between two assessment organizations, Smarter Balance (SBAC) and PARCC. Utah's State Office of Education has elected to be involved with the Smarter Balance Consortium. I am mostly unfamiliar with them, but I was able to attend a conference where the researcher for Smarter Balance, Linda Darling-Hammond, spoke. I attended her lectures for the express purpose of getting more information on her, her perspectives, and the Common Core. (I will post that information in a subsequent blog.) Ms. Darling-Hammond was rumored to be on the short list for US Secretary of Education, but declined due to a new Policy Center opportunity "that will examine a variety of education redesign issues, including standards and assessments". Could she have meant the Common Core? In the meantime, I'd like to issue a call to action for you to find out what you can about these two consortia and their assessment philosophy.
A concern I found on the web states:
Both consortia appear poised to develop subjective assessments rather than objective tests. SBAC plans to assess deep disciplinary understanding and higher-order thinking skills. Will either PARCC or SBAC test student content knowledge and skill?
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said:
As I travel around the country the number one complaint I hear from teachers is that state bubble tests pressure teachers to teach to a test that doesn't measure what really matters... Both of these winning applicants are planning to develop assessments that will move us far beyond this and measure real student knowledge and skills.
The issue isn't the bubble tests, it's what is actually assessed, and what teachers will be teaching their students to help them achieve favorable results on these tests.
Recently, I received some communication from parents who are concerned with the Common Core. The concerns come down to two issues. 1) This is brand new. Textbooks haven't been created. Tests haven't been created. No one has done this before, and yet, we are jumping in with both feet across the nation. 2) The whole idea of local control is gone. These standards were created with no public input. They were adopted by states, without public input. And the local school districts must implement the Common Core, without public input.
These concerns were similarly reflected in the above-referenced article:
The CCSS [Common Core] represents a massive unevaluated experiment with our students for which they and their parents have been ill informed and have had no opportunity for input. The CCSS are untested and unevaluated in the classroom. The proposed CCSS should undergo rigorous testing in a limited number of districts before adoption and implementation statewide or nationwide.
And
Adopting the CCSS takes control of educational content and standards away from parents, taxpayers, local school districts, and states. The CCSS were produced by a closed group and conditionally approved by many states without public review. The NGA and CCSSO, both non-government groups, own the copyright protected CCSS. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in the hands of so called “experts” outside local school district, state, and the federal government jurisdiction. [emphasis in the original]
Public education is a state responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the federal government. States should not turn over their rights or responsibilities to the direction and influence of non-government organizations or the federal government. [emphasis mine]
I am not opposed to the Common Core standards, per se. But I am opposed to such a lack of local control. Given the Common Core, it seems unnecessary to have local school boards other than to allocate the funds for a pre-determined project.
However, I can't emphasize the following point enough. I am SO appreciative to our district administration for delaying implementation of the Common Core for a year. I think it is a difficult line they walk when there is a top-down mandate and our kids' education hangs in the balance. I only wish we could delay it further. Unfortunately, that would require a change in standards and implementation goals from the Utah State Office of Education or State School Board policy.
In conclusion, please find out all you can about Smarter Balance and PARCC, and the US Department of Education's investment in the assessment plans. Also, I would welcome any thoughts on how to delay the implementation further than the one year we are allowed by the State Office of Education.
Throughout this Common Core discussion, it has been repeated ad infinitum that the Common Core is NOT a national standard. Instead, it is a collection of states coming together, voluntarily, to create a core curriculum. During my initial introduction to the Common Core, a fellow board member was immediately interested in who would be doing the assessments. At the time, she said something like, "We all know that teachers have to teach to the test, so it's important to know who will be creating the tests." The presenter discussed how, when a new test is introduced, the scores drop. As teachers get more information about the test and what's on it, they modify their teaching to help their students have greater achievement on the test. He said, "This isn't cheating." It's just that more information and more data yields better preparation. In short, we teach to the test. The question is whether what we are measuring is the information we want our students to learn.
Alpine School District is required to follow the core curriculum as established by the State Office of Education. The State Office has decided to require the Common Core, and all school districts in Utah will need to implement the Common Core by 2012-2013. The State Office recommended that we start this coming year, but ASD's administration has wisely opted to delay a year to properly train our teachers. And, I would add, to learn from the mistakes of others. My concern with the Common Core is not the standards themselves. My concern is it violates the principle of local control. What our schools and students need should be managed by the people of our area and not dictated from on high. Certainly we can learn from others, but where the rubber meets the road, it is our parents, our teachers, and our principals who can best determine what our students need.
So, following the money, the $330 Million was split between two assessment organizations, Smarter Balance (SBAC) and PARCC. Utah's State Office of Education has elected to be involved with the Smarter Balance Consortium. I am mostly unfamiliar with them, but I was able to attend a conference where the researcher for Smarter Balance, Linda Darling-Hammond, spoke. I attended her lectures for the express purpose of getting more information on her, her perspectives, and the Common Core. (I will post that information in a subsequent blog.) Ms. Darling-Hammond was rumored to be on the short list for US Secretary of Education, but declined due to a new Policy Center opportunity "that will examine a variety of education redesign issues, including standards and assessments". Could she have meant the Common Core? In the meantime, I'd like to issue a call to action for you to find out what you can about these two consortia and their assessment philosophy.
A concern I found on the web states:
Both consortia appear poised to develop subjective assessments rather than objective tests. SBAC plans to assess deep disciplinary understanding and higher-order thinking skills. Will either PARCC or SBAC test student content knowledge and skill?
Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, said:
As I travel around the country the number one complaint I hear from teachers is that state bubble tests pressure teachers to teach to a test that doesn't measure what really matters... Both of these winning applicants are planning to develop assessments that will move us far beyond this and measure real student knowledge and skills.
The issue isn't the bubble tests, it's what is actually assessed, and what teachers will be teaching their students to help them achieve favorable results on these tests.
Recently, I received some communication from parents who are concerned with the Common Core. The concerns come down to two issues. 1) This is brand new. Textbooks haven't been created. Tests haven't been created. No one has done this before, and yet, we are jumping in with both feet across the nation. 2) The whole idea of local control is gone. These standards were created with no public input. They were adopted by states, without public input. And the local school districts must implement the Common Core, without public input.
These concerns were similarly reflected in the above-referenced article:
The CCSS [Common Core] represents a massive unevaluated experiment with our students for which they and their parents have been ill informed and have had no opportunity for input. The CCSS are untested and unevaluated in the classroom. The proposed CCSS should undergo rigorous testing in a limited number of districts before adoption and implementation statewide or nationwide.
And
Adopting the CCSS takes control of educational content and standards away from parents, taxpayers, local school districts, and states. The CCSS were produced by a closed group and conditionally approved by many states without public review. The NGA and CCSSO, both non-government groups, own the copyright protected CCSS. Control over changes to the CCSS will lie in the hands of so called “experts” outside local school district, state, and the federal government jurisdiction. [emphasis in the original]
Public education is a state responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the federal government. States should not turn over their rights or responsibilities to the direction and influence of non-government organizations or the federal government. [emphasis mine]
I am not opposed to the Common Core standards, per se. But I am opposed to such a lack of local control. Given the Common Core, it seems unnecessary to have local school boards other than to allocate the funds for a pre-determined project.
However, I can't emphasize the following point enough. I am SO appreciative to our district administration for delaying implementation of the Common Core for a year. I think it is a difficult line they walk when there is a top-down mandate and our kids' education hangs in the balance. I only wish we could delay it further. Unfortunately, that would require a change in standards and implementation goals from the Utah State Office of Education or State School Board policy.
In conclusion, please find out all you can about Smarter Balance and PARCC, and the US Department of Education's investment in the assessment plans. Also, I would welcome any thoughts on how to delay the implementation further than the one year we are allowed by the State Office of Education.
Monday, April 18, 2011
USBA Convention 2011, Part 1: Open Meetings and USBA
NOTE: Jan. 6-8, 2011, the Utah School Boards Association held it annual convention. I will update you with multiple blogs on this convention. The convention was held at the Little America Hotel in Salt Lake City. Board members were allowed to stay over the two nights at the hotel, but I decided to commute to and from.
USBA Business Session, Friday, Jan. 7, 2011
Nominations were taken for the 2nd Vice President of the USBA. The way it works is that members vote for 2nd VP. There are also a 1st VP and a President (and a past president). After 4 years (I think), the President's term is filled and the 1st VP takes the President's place, the 2nd VP takes the 1st VP's place, and another vote for 2nd VP is held. The 2nd VP, Peggy Jo Kennett, was unopposed. In her remarks she listed four reasons for public education:
We, then, broke into regions to elect delegates to the USBA Board of Directors and Delegates at Large. Since ASD forms the entire region, our regional director is John Burton. Debbie Taylor and Paula Hill are delegate-at-large and the alternate delegate, respectively.
Class 1: Immigration Law
The immigration law class had a presentation by Utah Senator Luz Robles and Utah Representative Stephen Sandstrom. Both Sen. Robles and Rep. Sandstrom had immigration bills that were addressed in the legislative session.
Class 2: Open Meetings
Essentially, a public meeting is convened by the board president, appropriate notification (at least 24 hours) is given for non-emergency meetings, and a simple majority (4 of our 7) of the board must be present to conduct business. Electronic meetings are acceptable, but there must be some location publicized where the public is able to go and monitor the meeting. (Interestingly, a Massachusetts court case has ruled that an exchange of email among all the board members of a district was a meeting, and violated open meeting laws because no notice was given.) Written minutes and a recording of the meeting must be kept and the recording must be available to the public within 3 business days.
A closed session of a meeting may be held, if 2/3 of those present (and one must always have a quorum) vote in the open session to hold a closed session. The reason and the location for the closed session must be publicly announced (and recorded), as well as the vote, by name, of each board member on the closed session. Closed session may be held for one or more of the following reasons:
To see Utah Law, click here. Utah also has a public notice website, where all public meetings should be listed. You can subscribe on that website to receive notifications of meetings that interest you.
My Take: Public Meetings
Since this class is required by law, I found it especially beneficial. Mr. Burbidge, the instructor, joked that his classes are always well-attended...because they are mandatory. I saw why certain things were done in our closed session meetings and feel that I will be able to uphold the law much better with this new information. In one of my previous posts, someone asked about the ability to obtain the recording of the closed session. During our class, Mr. Burbridge said that those closed session recordings would be available only to a court of law or to a judge. So far, I think our school board is following the open meeting law procedures correctly. I now understand why our Board President has had to refocus board members back on topic during a closed session when our discussion strayed off-track. This is precisely her responsibility and she must sign a legal statement guaranteeing our proper conduct. Now that I am properly informed, I will be better able to support her in that endeavor.
Follow up note:
Another thing I have noticed is how agenda items are classified. I need to do some more research on Robert's Rules--so any of you parliamentarians, please comment and educate me. As I understand it, action items require a motion to take some form of action. After the motion and a second, then there can be discussion. Discussion items are available to discuss free from motions or any other real constraints. However, it is required that items be classified so the public knows which items will be voted on and which will not. I have also seen Discussion with Possible Action items before. The final classification is something called a 'Consent Agenda'. These are a group of items that are mostly routine and don't often require debate or discussion or that have had debate or discussion previously.
USBA Convention 2011, Post 1
USBA Business Session, Friday, Jan. 7, 2011
Nominations were taken for the 2nd Vice President of the USBA. The way it works is that members vote for 2nd VP. There are also a 1st VP and a President (and a past president). After 4 years (I think), the President's term is filled and the 1st VP takes the President's place, the 2nd VP takes the 1st VP's place, and another vote for 2nd VP is held. The 2nd VP, Peggy Jo Kennett, was unopposed. In her remarks she listed four reasons for public education:
- Protect Freedom
- Develop a sense of community
- Create a civic dialog
- Keep the poorest from being manipulated and the richest from being lazy
We, then, broke into regions to elect delegates to the USBA Board of Directors and Delegates at Large. Since ASD forms the entire region, our regional director is John Burton. Debbie Taylor and Paula Hill are delegate-at-large and the alternate delegate, respectively.
Class 1: Immigration Law
The immigration law class had a presentation by Utah Senator Luz Robles and Utah Representative Stephen Sandstrom. Both Sen. Robles and Rep. Sandstrom had immigration bills that were addressed in the legislative session.
Class 2: Open Meetings
State Law requires that board members take an Open Meeting class annually. This course satisfied that requirement. It was taught by Brinton Burbidge (of Burbidge & White, LLC--ASD's attorneys).
Essentially, a public meeting is convened by the board president, appropriate notification (at least 24 hours) is given for non-emergency meetings, and a simple majority (4 of our 7) of the board must be present to conduct business. Electronic meetings are acceptable, but there must be some location publicized where the public is able to go and monitor the meeting. (Interestingly, a Massachusetts court case has ruled that an exchange of email among all the board members of a district was a meeting, and violated open meeting laws because no notice was given.) Written minutes and a recording of the meeting must be kept and the recording must be available to the public within 3 business days.
A closed session of a meeting may be held, if 2/3 of those present (and one must always have a quorum) vote in the open session to hold a closed session. The reason and the location for the closed session must be publicly announced (and recorded), as well as the vote, by name, of each board member on the closed session. Closed session may be held for one or more of the following reasons:
- Discussion of the character, professional competence, or health of an individual
- Strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining
- Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation
- Strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange or lease of real property when public discussion would disclose the value of the property or prevent the board from completing the transaction on the best possible terms
- Strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property when a) see above section on value b) board has previously given notice of the sale, and c) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed prior to board approval of the sale
- Discussion of deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems
- Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal conduct
Recordings must be kept of the closed session, except if the meeting is held to discuss the character, etc. of an individual or deployment of security personnel or devices. However, the presiding officer must sign a sworn statement affirming that this was the sole purpose of the closed meeting.
To see Utah Law, click here. Utah also has a public notice website, where all public meetings should be listed. You can subscribe on that website to receive notifications of meetings that interest you.
My Take: Public Meetings
Since this class is required by law, I found it especially beneficial. Mr. Burbidge, the instructor, joked that his classes are always well-attended...because they are mandatory. I saw why certain things were done in our closed session meetings and feel that I will be able to uphold the law much better with this new information. In one of my previous posts, someone asked about the ability to obtain the recording of the closed session. During our class, Mr. Burbridge said that those closed session recordings would be available only to a court of law or to a judge. So far, I think our school board is following the open meeting law procedures correctly. I now understand why our Board President has had to refocus board members back on topic during a closed session when our discussion strayed off-track. This is precisely her responsibility and she must sign a legal statement guaranteeing our proper conduct. Now that I am properly informed, I will be better able to support her in that endeavor.
Follow up note:
Another thing I have noticed is how agenda items are classified. I need to do some more research on Robert's Rules--so any of you parliamentarians, please comment and educate me. As I understand it, action items require a motion to take some form of action. After the motion and a second, then there can be discussion. Discussion items are available to discuss free from motions or any other real constraints. However, it is required that items be classified so the public knows which items will be voted on and which will not. I have also seen Discussion with Possible Action items before. The final classification is something called a 'Consent Agenda'. These are a group of items that are mostly routine and don't often require debate or discussion or that have had debate or discussion previously.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
April 19, 2011 Agenda
This meeting has a lot of information in it that has great impact: the Capital Budget, the Vineyard TEC appointment, internet acceptable use policy, etc.
LAKERIDGE JUNIOR HIGH
951 SOUTH 400 WEST
OREM
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to
(1) review the 2011-2012 Maintenance & Operation budget,
(2) review the patron survey results regarding the potential bond in November 2011, and
(3) debrief from the National School Board Convention.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
STUDENT RECOGNITIONS
ALPINE FOUNDATION RECOGNITIONS
PRINCIPAL, PTA AND SCHOOL
COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORTS
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS MARCH
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Student Releases - CA, CB, RB, JB, KB, AC
MD, NF, JF, SG, CG, MH, CH, JH, KH, JI, PJ
TJ, ZK DL, TL, TL, PL, SL, BM, TM, AM, BM
BP, JP, DR, UR, FS, BS, SS, KT, KV, JW, BW, SY
5. Student Expulsions - PC, SS
6. Student Reinstatements - DL, TL, TT
ACTION ITEMS
1. Adoption of Tentative 2011-2012 Capital Outlay Budget
2. Acceptable Use Policy
3. 2011-2012 School Fees
4. Student Excursions
A. Lehi High (1)
B. Lone Peak High (3)
C. Mountain View High (2)
D. Orem High (2)
E. Pleasant Grove High (2)
F. Timpanogos High (3)
G. Westlake High (1)
5. Building Rental Request from Christ Evangelical Church
6. Resolution 2011-001 – OPEB Trustees
7. Resolution 2011-002 – Taxing Entity Committee
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Resolution 2011-003 – Dissolution of ATEC Fund
2. Resolution 2011-004 – Investment Changes
3. Resolution 2011-005 – Fund Balance
REPORTS
1. Membership Report Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S Debbie Taylor, Board President
INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Friday, April 8, 2011
District Redistricting, Budget, and Prime Rib
School District Redistricting
UPDATE NOTE: The County Elections Office will draw the boundaries, but the County Commissioners will need to approve the boundaries. If the district's boundaries did not cross city lines, the city would be responsible for the redistricting.
I had a call from a constituent who was concerned about the board's input into the redistricting process. The concern had to do with the current structure with so much board representation being in Orem. The redistricting is supposed to be fairly uniform and contiguous. However, there is a lot of latitude and power associated with redistricting. Do you maintain the individual board members in each of their respective districts, and just make long, convoluted districts? Or do you simply try to make so many miles square and let the chips fall where they may? Following the growth patterns, the Orem folks will, most likely, lose a representative on the board, making the ratio 2 Orem to 5 others, down from 3 Orem to 4 others. Boards, unlike other representatives' districts are limited in size. More population doesn't equate to more representation, only different representation.
Since school boards are limited to seven members, the current board boundaries need to be shifted to accommodate the greater growth both West and North in our district. Currently, Orem has 3 board members and 1 board member each for PG/Lindon, AF, Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills/Draper/some Lehi, most Lehi/Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs. The County Commissioners (see update note) will redraw the boundaries before June. Should a sitting board member's area be swallowed up into another area, that member will be an 'at large' member and represent the "new" area until their next election. At that next election, it is entirely possible (although the county may try to avoid this) to have 2 incumbent board members running against each other. As a fan of opposition in all things, I think this is a fine scenario.
In reading some articles about other school districts, they are working with their County to help redraw the precinct lines. In asking about our involvement, I was told the County Commission would draw the lines, and then present it to us for our comments.
If you are interested in how your representation will be affected, I recommend you contact the County Commissioners and the Elections Office to discuss this process and to provide your input. I assume, by June, when the boundaries have already been drawn, it may be too late to have any impact. The official boundaries will be set in stone in January 2012. By way of information, two of the three County Commissioners do not live within ASD 's boundaries. Certainly, if you live in the West or the North, you should contact the County Commissioners about what you believe to be fair redistricting. For myself, as close to so many squares as possible would be the ideal. I am tired of gerrymandered districts that make absolutely no sense. Go with population, and leave the incumbents' concerns about reelection to their new constituents.
Budget
I attended the operations budget committee meeting. The district administrators have submitted their requests for budget items that 1) change (usually increase) resources over current allocations or 2) compensate for areas that lost funding from the last legislative session. The committee meeting was meant to be a prioritization meeting. From those priorities, I assume, an actual budget will be proposed. The board will, then, review this proposal, ask questions, and modify it, if necessary. The board must have a final budget approved by June 22 of each year. The budget will not include potential bond amounts and/or projects, since the bond must be approved by the voters.
Two items of interest.
First, there is a portion of property tax, levied by ASD, that is, by law, sent to the charter schools. This was interesting to me because when I was involved with a charter school, there was no property tax component to the funding. In speaking with my State Rep, charter school funding seems to change from legislative session to legislative session. As it stands, 25% of the property tax allocated per student going to a charter schools is given to their respective charter schools. The caveat is that the charter enrollment information comes from two years prior to the current year. The question I have is how do new charter schools get funding, and what if a charter school's enrollment increases or decreases significantly in that 2-year time frame? I need to find out why the lag in data projections. Also, the concern from the district is two-fold. 1) This year it will amount to over $1M (last year and the year before, the amounts were $850K and $950K roughly) and 2) the board are the people who must appear before the taxpayers during the truth in taxation hearings to account for any increases in property tax.
Second, due to the Obamacare mandates in health insurance, our district's health insurance premiums will increase by about $3M this next year. In addition, because employees can now opt to cover their dependent children (married on not, but not spouses and their children) to age 26, there is an estimated $854,000 in additional premiums for those dependents.
The capital budget will appear on the April 19 board meeting agenda, and the operations budget, I assume, will be on the May agenda. Even though, a truth in taxation hearing may occur in August/September should the board approve a tax rate increase, the time to give input on the budget is now through June. It's kind of a backwards process where you put together a budget and approve it (and start using it on July 1, if I understand correctly), but ask for feedback from the people in August. By August, it's too late. I look forward to your input on the budget over the next two months.
Prime Rib (aka ESP Association Dinner)
The term ESP doesn't mean what you think it means in this context. ESP stands for Education Support Professionals. In the district, there are 3 employee associations: teachers (Alpine Education Association), administration (don't know the name of that one), and ESP (formerly called classified employees). The ESP's are all the non-teachers in the district. Within the association, there are different groups who elect their own officers to represent their interests to the ESP officers as a whole. For example, some of the groups are: Food Services, Transportation, Custodial Staff, Secretaries, Nursing, and Media Specialists. The dinner was hosted by the ESP officers and the group presidents. The board and district cabinet members were invited to attend. It was strictly for the purpose of getting to know each other. Under Utah Law, the district must negotiate collective bargaining with any association that has a majority membership among the employee group. See the Utah Code here.
UPDATE NOTE: The County Elections Office will draw the boundaries, but the County Commissioners will need to approve the boundaries. If the district's boundaries did not cross city lines, the city would be responsible for the redistricting.
I had a call from a constituent who was concerned about the board's input into the redistricting process. The concern had to do with the current structure with so much board representation being in Orem. The redistricting is supposed to be fairly uniform and contiguous. However, there is a lot of latitude and power associated with redistricting. Do you maintain the individual board members in each of their respective districts, and just make long, convoluted districts? Or do you simply try to make so many miles square and let the chips fall where they may? Following the growth patterns, the Orem folks will, most likely, lose a representative on the board, making the ratio 2 Orem to 5 others, down from 3 Orem to 4 others. Boards, unlike other representatives' districts are limited in size. More population doesn't equate to more representation, only different representation.
Since school boards are limited to seven members, the current board boundaries need to be shifted to accommodate the greater growth both West and North in our district. Currently, Orem has 3 board members and 1 board member each for PG/Lindon, AF, Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills/Draper/some Lehi, most Lehi/Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs. The County Commissioners (see update note) will redraw the boundaries before June. Should a sitting board member's area be swallowed up into another area, that member will be an 'at large' member and represent the "new" area until their next election. At that next election, it is entirely possible (although the county may try to avoid this) to have 2 incumbent board members running against each other. As a fan of opposition in all things, I think this is a fine scenario.
In reading some articles about other school districts, they are working with their County to help redraw the precinct lines. In asking about our involvement, I was told the County Commission would draw the lines, and then present it to us for our comments.
If you are interested in how your representation will be affected, I recommend you contact the County Commissioners and the Elections Office to discuss this process and to provide your input. I assume, by June, when the boundaries have already been drawn, it may be too late to have any impact. The official boundaries will be set in stone in January 2012. By way of information, two of the three County Commissioners do not live within ASD 's boundaries. Certainly, if you live in the West or the North, you should contact the County Commissioners about what you believe to be fair redistricting. For myself, as close to so many squares as possible would be the ideal. I am tired of gerrymandered districts that make absolutely no sense. Go with population, and leave the incumbents' concerns about reelection to their new constituents.
Budget
I attended the operations budget committee meeting. The district administrators have submitted their requests for budget items that 1) change (usually increase) resources over current allocations or 2) compensate for areas that lost funding from the last legislative session. The committee meeting was meant to be a prioritization meeting. From those priorities, I assume, an actual budget will be proposed. The board will, then, review this proposal, ask questions, and modify it, if necessary. The board must have a final budget approved by June 22 of each year. The budget will not include potential bond amounts and/or projects, since the bond must be approved by the voters.
Two items of interest.
First, there is a portion of property tax, levied by ASD, that is, by law, sent to the charter schools. This was interesting to me because when I was involved with a charter school, there was no property tax component to the funding. In speaking with my State Rep, charter school funding seems to change from legislative session to legislative session. As it stands, 25% of the property tax allocated per student going to a charter schools is given to their respective charter schools. The caveat is that the charter enrollment information comes from two years prior to the current year. The question I have is how do new charter schools get funding, and what if a charter school's enrollment increases or decreases significantly in that 2-year time frame? I need to find out why the lag in data projections. Also, the concern from the district is two-fold. 1) This year it will amount to over $1M (last year and the year before, the amounts were $850K and $950K roughly) and 2) the board are the people who must appear before the taxpayers during the truth in taxation hearings to account for any increases in property tax.
Second, due to the Obamacare mandates in health insurance, our district's health insurance premiums will increase by about $3M this next year. In addition, because employees can now opt to cover their dependent children (married on not, but not spouses and their children) to age 26, there is an estimated $854,000 in additional premiums for those dependents.
The capital budget will appear on the April 19 board meeting agenda, and the operations budget, I assume, will be on the May agenda. Even though, a truth in taxation hearing may occur in August/September should the board approve a tax rate increase, the time to give input on the budget is now through June. It's kind of a backwards process where you put together a budget and approve it (and start using it on July 1, if I understand correctly), but ask for feedback from the people in August. By August, it's too late. I look forward to your input on the budget over the next two months.
Prime Rib (aka ESP Association Dinner)
The term ESP doesn't mean what you think it means in this context. ESP stands for Education Support Professionals. In the district, there are 3 employee associations: teachers (Alpine Education Association), administration (don't know the name of that one), and ESP (formerly called classified employees). The ESP's are all the non-teachers in the district. Within the association, there are different groups who elect their own officers to represent their interests to the ESP officers as a whole. For example, some of the groups are: Food Services, Transportation, Custodial Staff, Secretaries, Nursing, and Media Specialists. The dinner was hosted by the ESP officers and the group presidents. The board and district cabinet members were invited to attend. It was strictly for the purpose of getting to know each other. Under Utah Law, the district must negotiate collective bargaining with any association that has a majority membership among the employee group. See the Utah Code here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)