Posts
Let every man, every corporation, and especially let every village, town, and city, every county and State, get out of debt and keep out of debt. It is the debtor that is ruined by hard times.
--Rutherford B. Hayes
The board voted Aug. 16, 6-0, to approve putting the bond on the ballot for Nov. 8, with my reluctant support. The bond projects are specified here. I appreciate all those who attended and spoke about the bond. Your participation really does have an impact. We may have blogs, facebook, audio recordings, and minutes of meetings, but there is still something to be said for people taking the time to show up and comment.
In that vein, it appears the majority of people in our district are comfortable with the bond and our current process of going into debt to build and maintain our schools. The bond survey indicated a 70% approval for this bond. And, in the past 10 years, the bonds have passed with more than 60% support. Additionally, during the public bond meetings this spring, with very few exceptions, the emphasis was on what projects would go into the bond, not how do we avoid debt or limit the amount of the bond. In fact, over 700 people showed up to influence the inclusion of a new high school in Lehi at a single meeting.
I am opposed to continued debt. So, why would I vote in favor of the bond? Have I been corrupted? Bought? Co-opted? Having voted for me, I'd be saying, "What could she have been THINKING?" To change the direction of government requires a massive manifestation of the will of the people. I want us to get out of debt, whether through austerity or a less-painful, calculated plan. I do not find the status quo acceptable. However, the only way the debt status quo will change is if the vast majority of people are willing to do the "hard thing". The only way to get a commitment of the people is through a bond election.
I see three main perspectives on the bond. Which one are you?
Position 1.) I am comfortable with the way things are. I may not like the idea of debt, but this is how it has always been done. We need more schools, updated buildings, seismic fixes, and weight rooms. The bond isn't for very much money, and I am happy with the status quo.
Position 2.) I would love to get out of debt. However, there are certain things that are needed right now, e.g. schools for growth, seismic fixes. We don't have a system in place to take care of the current needs without additional debt. The bond is a necessary "evil", but a debt-reduction plan needs to be in place to stop the cycle right away. I am willing to make difficult decisions over the long term, but the immediate needs require bonding. I am inclined to vote for the bond, but will require the board to put a debt-reduction plan in place prior to my vote.
Position 3.) Debt is a huge problem, and I am willing to make the extremely difficult decisions necessary to combat the debt. Without drawing a line in the sand, I am afraid the cycle will never be broken. I believe we have the necessary tools, creativity, and community-involvement to do whatever is necessary to educate our kids without adding the burden of debt onto their shoulders.
No matter where you fit on the spectrum, your voice needs to be heard in this discussion. The district will be conducting multiple meetings about the bond throughout September and October to inform you (and, unofficially, encourage you) on the necessity of the bond. Even though the bond is on the ballot, your attendance and your vocal opinion will have an impact in those meetings, as well as at the ballot box. I have 3 requests. 1) Please commit to attend at least one meeting and comment. 2) Commit to bringing 2 neighbors with you. 3) Talk with at least 2 of your friends and neighbors about this issue. (Shameless plug: have them sign up for my facebook page, blog, and/or email.)
If the bond doesn't pass, would we find creative ways to educate our kids with these limitations? Yes. Necessity is the mother of invention. Because of the layering of the debt, there is a point at which we could borrow money for projects without increasing taxes. Would we be able to do all the projects we want? No. Would we be able to prioritize and pay for some of them? Yes. Could we get creative with double sessions, more online options, and giving kids credit for extra-curricular activities they are doing already? Sure. There is never just one option. Are you, the people, willing to go through that difficult process with us so we don't need to go into debt? I await your response on Nov. 8.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Bond Vote: Aug. 16, 2011 and Public Hearing
The Tuesday Board Meeting will include a public hearing on the bond. I am unsure whether it will comprise part of the community comments or be given a separate hearing. I would recommend you attend. The meeting begins at 6:00 and your opinion should be heard.
Personally, I would like to see a paradigm shift from one of constant bonding (every 5 years) to one of a pay-as-you-go system. I realize this will take many years to be able to save and get out from under our current debt. However, if we don't start now, we will be that much further behind. As a board, it is our role to provide the overall vision of the district. I would also like to see smaller bonds, more frequently for one or two specific projects. Lumping a bunch of projects together over a 5-year period is much easier on the board and the district, but it eliminates the in-depth discussion from the public. If every project on the bond were to be debated and voted on by the public, it would provide for greater accountability and greater public input.
In short, there is not currently a comfortable way to accommodate the seismic needs, repairs, and growth without bonding. This is the system, right now, but we need to change the system. We pay just under $50M/year in principal and interest on our debt. A long time ago, we got into the habit of paying for buildings with debt. If we had not, we would have nearly $250M over the next 5 years to cover all the planned bond projects with almost $40M left over in a rainy day fund. We need to break this habit.
Money spent on interest is money that never reaches the classroom. The principal provides for the brick and mortar, but the interest is only valued by investors. We are losing in interest what we should invest directly on our children's education.
Bond Projects--Proposal
Here is the agenda for Aug. 16, 2011.
DISTRICT OFFICE BOARD ROOM
575 NORTH 100 EAST
AMERICAN FORK
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be for (1) professional development for the Board, (2) to
review bond projects and the resolution for the November 8 bond election, and (3) to discuss
other current issues.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR JULY
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Resolution 2011-013 - Agreement with Lehi City for Street Improvements Adjacent to LHS
ACTION ITEMS
1. Resolution for Bond Election on November 8, 2011
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Personally, I would like to see a paradigm shift from one of constant bonding (every 5 years) to one of a pay-as-you-go system. I realize this will take many years to be able to save and get out from under our current debt. However, if we don't start now, we will be that much further behind. As a board, it is our role to provide the overall vision of the district. I would also like to see smaller bonds, more frequently for one or two specific projects. Lumping a bunch of projects together over a 5-year period is much easier on the board and the district, but it eliminates the in-depth discussion from the public. If every project on the bond were to be debated and voted on by the public, it would provide for greater accountability and greater public input.
In short, there is not currently a comfortable way to accommodate the seismic needs, repairs, and growth without bonding. This is the system, right now, but we need to change the system. We pay just under $50M/year in principal and interest on our debt. A long time ago, we got into the habit of paying for buildings with debt. If we had not, we would have nearly $250M over the next 5 years to cover all the planned bond projects with almost $40M left over in a rainy day fund. We need to break this habit.
Money spent on interest is money that never reaches the classroom. The principal provides for the brick and mortar, but the interest is only valued by investors. We are losing in interest what we should invest directly on our children's education.
Bond Projects--Proposal
- High School: Lehi Area--$59M (2013-16)
- Middle School: Eagle Mountain--$31.5M (2012-14)
- Elementary Schools (4): Locations to be determined by growth--$12-14M ea. (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016)
- AFHS: New classrooms/gyms/parking--$19.5M (2012-13)
- PGHS: New athletic facility/gym/dance--$6.75M (2014-15)
- Lone Peak HS: Weight/cardio classrooms--$575K (2016)
- Timp HS: Weight/cardio classrooms--$450K (2016)
- AFJH: 14-16 classrooms--$4.3M (2013-14)
- Lehi JH: parking and drop off--$575K (2013)
- Orem JH: New gym/seismic--$5.6M (2014-15)
- Cherry Hill: Partial reconstruction (seismic)--$8.25M (2012-13)
- Scera Park: parking/drop off--$575K (2016)
- Westmore: Reconstruction (seismic)--$8.575M (2012-13)
- Sego Lily: Seismic--$825K (2012-13)
- Grovecrest: Partial reconstruction (seismic)--$6.75M (2016)
- Alpine: Seismic--$1.845M (2012-13)
Here is the agenda for Aug. 16, 2011.
DISTRICT OFFICE BOARD ROOM
575 NORTH 100 EAST
AMERICAN FORK
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be for (1) professional development for the Board, (2) to
review bond projects and the resolution for the November 8 bond election, and (3) to discuss
other current issues.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR JULY
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Resolution 2011-013 - Agreement with Lehi City for Street Improvements Adjacent to LHS
ACTION ITEMS
1. Resolution for Bond Election on November 8, 2011
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Does the End Justify the Means?
On July 18, the board had a retreat. The main discussion items were 1) Common Core, 2) Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals (MVVG), 3) Code of Conduct, and 4) Individual Board Member Comments.
Part 1: Common Core
This is going to be a topic of on-going discussions for the foreseeable future. Over the next year, our district will be training teachers, and getting ready to implement the State Board's decision to adopt the Common Core standards, along with the Smarter Balance Consortium's (SBCC) federally-funded assessments (by 2014). We were privileged to have Syd Dickson from the State Office of Education (USOE) present on the Common Core. Oneof the things I appreciated hearing was that, even though the Common Core organization is going to be creating standards for more subjects than just Language Arts and Math, the State Board has decided NOT to adopt anything else, especially in the realm of Social Studies or Science.
My concern is Language Arts, with the emphasis on 'informational texts' is sufficient for allowing things into our curriculum that local parents may not be comfortable with. I would submit that all writing is done from a particular point of view. Presenting informational articles to our children will come with its own agenda. One of the reasons for local control is to make sure the 'slant' is representative of what our parents are comfortable having presented to their children. And rather than presenting things via literature, which is admittedly fictional, information text comes with its own brand of authority. Children, supposedly, should be taught to analyze these texts, but at what age are they capable of deep, cognitive thinking? Certainly not in Kindergarten when 'research' writing begins with Common Core.
Ms. Dickson also said being part of the SBCC assessment group and Common Core, in general, will give us greater ability to impact textbook and resource creation. One concern a teacher in our district had was the integrated math (algebra, geometry, etc integrated at all grade-levels) was being used only by Utah and no other states. How important will we be in that process, if we are the only state using this approach? Her response was we are the only state implementing it across the board. However, there are quite a few individual districts choosing to implement the integrated process. This leads me to wonder how much leeway districts in other states have in their implementation, and why should we not have that leeway, as well?
Ms. Dickson wanted to make sure we understood that Common Core is NOT a federal or national standards program and that this was a big myth out there. We clarified that the US Dept. of Ed. is funding the assessment piece, and she said they were. However, there is supposed to be a database of questions for the assessments the USOE will use to create Utah's assessments. These assessments will be formative (chapter tests, etc. during the year), summative (end of the year assessments), as well as computer-adaptive. One concern some of the board members share is the ability of the computer-adaptive tests to actually work. The idea is that, based on the answer to any given question, the assessment program will generate a more in-depth question to test deeper understanding. I would be curious to see this in practice. As a programmer, I know, first-hand, the options in a program are only as good as the author(s) are able to predict and account for them. Also, how accurate will writing assessments be, when done by computer?
Finally, we were told the Common Core was not done outside of public scrutiny. Quite a few of the professional associations both inside and outside the state were involved. A few of us commented that we were unaware of Common Core, and its existence isn't widely known among parents. There was a lot of parental input on the standards, Ms. Dickson said. When I asked who was involved locally, I was told that if it had just been a Utah project, a lot more local people would have been involved. However, since it was comprised of 45 or so states, there wasn't much Utah public input.
Rep. John Dougall (R-Highland) attended the presentation as well, and was asked by Board Member, Mark Clement, for his comments. Roughly, Rep. Dougall stated that standards don't guarantee outcomes, and that good standards are always watered down by committees over time. As an engineer, he suggested benchmarking. Benchmarking is where you find who is doing the best job, say, in math. Then you compare your results against theirs. It was suggested that having common assessments would make that easier. However, our district could simply adopt the math assessments used by the benchmark district. There is no reason we couldn't do such a thing right now. I appreciated Rep. Dougall's perspective.
As long as your child is achieving on a national test, are you comfortable giving control of their education to some group of 'experts' you will never meet and have no influence over? Local control has always ensured local responsibility and accountability. Common Core changes that. Are you comfortable with the change?
If you would like to regain local control and challenge the concept that outside experts know more about your children's education than you do, click "like" on this Facebook link and maybe even go so far as to click "share". "Like" helps me know where people stand on a specific issue and who might participate in advancing the perspective. "Share" means you believe in the perspective so much, you would like to share the perspective with others. Either is appreciated.
Note: The audio of all board meetings is available by law--often (after a period of time) on the ASD website (under board meetings), and always, by request, from the district office.
Part 1: Common Core
This is going to be a topic of on-going discussions for the foreseeable future. Over the next year, our district will be training teachers, and getting ready to implement the State Board's decision to adopt the Common Core standards, along with the Smarter Balance Consortium's (SBCC) federally-funded assessments (by 2014). We were privileged to have Syd Dickson from the State Office of Education (USOE) present on the Common Core. Oneof the things I appreciated hearing was that, even though the Common Core organization is going to be creating standards for more subjects than just Language Arts and Math, the State Board has decided NOT to adopt anything else, especially in the realm of Social Studies or Science.
My concern is Language Arts, with the emphasis on 'informational texts' is sufficient for allowing things into our curriculum that local parents may not be comfortable with. I would submit that all writing is done from a particular point of view. Presenting informational articles to our children will come with its own agenda. One of the reasons for local control is to make sure the 'slant' is representative of what our parents are comfortable having presented to their children. And rather than presenting things via literature, which is admittedly fictional, information text comes with its own brand of authority. Children, supposedly, should be taught to analyze these texts, but at what age are they capable of deep, cognitive thinking? Certainly not in Kindergarten when 'research' writing begins with Common Core.
Ms. Dickson also said being part of the SBCC assessment group and Common Core, in general, will give us greater ability to impact textbook and resource creation. One concern a teacher in our district had was the integrated math (algebra, geometry, etc integrated at all grade-levels) was being used only by Utah and no other states. How important will we be in that process, if we are the only state using this approach? Her response was we are the only state implementing it across the board. However, there are quite a few individual districts choosing to implement the integrated process. This leads me to wonder how much leeway districts in other states have in their implementation, and why should we not have that leeway, as well?
Ms. Dickson wanted to make sure we understood that Common Core is NOT a federal or national standards program and that this was a big myth out there. We clarified that the US Dept. of Ed. is funding the assessment piece, and she said they were. However, there is supposed to be a database of questions for the assessments the USOE will use to create Utah's assessments. These assessments will be formative (chapter tests, etc. during the year), summative (end of the year assessments), as well as computer-adaptive. One concern some of the board members share is the ability of the computer-adaptive tests to actually work. The idea is that, based on the answer to any given question, the assessment program will generate a more in-depth question to test deeper understanding. I would be curious to see this in practice. As a programmer, I know, first-hand, the options in a program are only as good as the author(s) are able to predict and account for them. Also, how accurate will writing assessments be, when done by computer?
Finally, we were told the Common Core was not done outside of public scrutiny. Quite a few of the professional associations both inside and outside the state were involved. A few of us commented that we were unaware of Common Core, and its existence isn't widely known among parents. There was a lot of parental input on the standards, Ms. Dickson said. When I asked who was involved locally, I was told that if it had just been a Utah project, a lot more local people would have been involved. However, since it was comprised of 45 or so states, there wasn't much Utah public input.
Rep. John Dougall (R-Highland) attended the presentation as well, and was asked by Board Member, Mark Clement, for his comments. Roughly, Rep. Dougall stated that standards don't guarantee outcomes, and that good standards are always watered down by committees over time. As an engineer, he suggested benchmarking. Benchmarking is where you find who is doing the best job, say, in math. Then you compare your results against theirs. It was suggested that having common assessments would make that easier. However, our district could simply adopt the math assessments used by the benchmark district. There is no reason we couldn't do such a thing right now. I appreciated Rep. Dougall's perspective.
As long as your child is achieving on a national test, are you comfortable giving control of their education to some group of 'experts' you will never meet and have no influence over? Local control has always ensured local responsibility and accountability. Common Core changes that. Are you comfortable with the change?
If you would like to regain local control and challenge the concept that outside experts know more about your children's education than you do, click "like" on this Facebook link and maybe even go so far as to click "share". "Like" helps me know where people stand on a specific issue and who might participate in advancing the perspective. "Share" means you believe in the perspective so much, you would like to share the perspective with others. Either is appreciated.
Note: The audio of all board meetings is available by law--often (after a period of time) on the ASD website (under board meetings), and always, by request, from the district office.
Friday, July 22, 2011
3 Elementary Schools Planned for Rebuild in Orem with the Bond
The Bond
On July 19, the Board met to discuss, mostly for the last time before the bond vote, the individual projects scheduled for the bond monies. The board will vote on Aug. 16, whether or not to put the bond to the voters at the November election.
The biggest change in bond projects was the recommendation to rebuild 3 elementary schools in Orem. All three have seismic issues and are quite old (around 50 years or so). They are: Cherry Hill, Westmore, and Grovecrest. Geneva also needs to be rebuilt, but, due to its proximity to Suncrest, the board might want to think about building one school in between Geneva and Suncrest. Then, we could combine their student populations. In doing this, the cost of the 3 schools went from an estimate of $11.6M to $23.4M. This means other projects scheduled for the bond will be pushed out, and some will be taken care of with Capital funds. The business office put together criteria for determining which projects made sense to rebuild, and which should just be fixed. The criteria were based on dollars, years of useful life left (50 years being the useful life limit), seismic prioritization, and whether or not the dollar amount was too high to realistically be handled with on-going capital funds. In general, anything over $2M warranted a rebuild.
The board, while concerned for those schools that were pushed out, was overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of rebuilding the older schools. The Superintendent noted that the Orem City Council were also very supportive of the rebuild idea. I asked for more information on student population and capacity, as well as projected growth. I was told that we could, indeed, be more economically prudent by closing neighborhood schools in some cases, but the immeasurable cost to the individual communities would be devastating. The idea of having neighborhood schools is something that previous boards have been supportive of, and most people in a community are supportive of, as well. My fellow board members were pleased with the idea of starting from scratch instead of using a 'band aid' on these schools. I still wanted to know the opportunity cost for this, but was clearly in the minority. I understand the possible concerns related to closing schools. However, I think it is only fiscally responsible to know what the costs actually are before making a decision. I agree that there are non-monetary costs that come into play. However, we should at least explore the possibilities before making those decisions. Again, I was in the minority with that mind-set.
As the Board President went around the room to assess our thoughts on the bond projects, most were basically supportive. I offered only 2 comments. 1) I am uncomfortable with going into debt to fund weight room expansions at Lone Peak and Timpanogos. It is based on the principle that we shouldn't be going into debt, and we, if necessary, could pay for this with capital funds at some point in the future--if the priority is sufficient. It is readily acknowledged that there do need to be projects in all the areas of the district to gain widespread support for the bond. The weight room addition is the only bond project in North Orem and only the second bond project in the Northeast (Highland, Alpine, etc). 2) We had discussed the desirability of getting out of debt and going to a "pay as you go" plan for capital costs at our retreat on Monday. I suggested that a bond would be better accepted by the fiscally-concerned should we have a plan to get out of debt, even if it were saving just a small amount of money every year. The downside to this: Whatever we save for future needs, we aren't able to spend now on existing needs. The overall philosophy of the board was suggested to be that getting out of debt is important and something we want to strive for. However, due to the current economics, it isn't something that is feasible now. Someday, it will be.
The seismic projects still on the bond are as follows:
On July 19, the Board met to discuss, mostly for the last time before the bond vote, the individual projects scheduled for the bond monies. The board will vote on Aug. 16, whether or not to put the bond to the voters at the November election.
The biggest change in bond projects was the recommendation to rebuild 3 elementary schools in Orem. All three have seismic issues and are quite old (around 50 years or so). They are: Cherry Hill, Westmore, and Grovecrest. Geneva also needs to be rebuilt, but, due to its proximity to Suncrest, the board might want to think about building one school in between Geneva and Suncrest. Then, we could combine their student populations. In doing this, the cost of the 3 schools went from an estimate of $11.6M to $23.4M. This means other projects scheduled for the bond will be pushed out, and some will be taken care of with Capital funds. The business office put together criteria for determining which projects made sense to rebuild, and which should just be fixed. The criteria were based on dollars, years of useful life left (50 years being the useful life limit), seismic prioritization, and whether or not the dollar amount was too high to realistically be handled with on-going capital funds. In general, anything over $2M warranted a rebuild.
The board, while concerned for those schools that were pushed out, was overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of rebuilding the older schools. The Superintendent noted that the Orem City Council were also very supportive of the rebuild idea. I asked for more information on student population and capacity, as well as projected growth. I was told that we could, indeed, be more economically prudent by closing neighborhood schools in some cases, but the immeasurable cost to the individual communities would be devastating. The idea of having neighborhood schools is something that previous boards have been supportive of, and most people in a community are supportive of, as well. My fellow board members were pleased with the idea of starting from scratch instead of using a 'band aid' on these schools. I still wanted to know the opportunity cost for this, but was clearly in the minority. I understand the possible concerns related to closing schools. However, I think it is only fiscally responsible to know what the costs actually are before making a decision. I agree that there are non-monetary costs that come into play. However, we should at least explore the possibilities before making those decisions. Again, I was in the minority with that mind-set.
As the Board President went around the room to assess our thoughts on the bond projects, most were basically supportive. I offered only 2 comments. 1) I am uncomfortable with going into debt to fund weight room expansions at Lone Peak and Timpanogos. It is based on the principle that we shouldn't be going into debt, and we, if necessary, could pay for this with capital funds at some point in the future--if the priority is sufficient. It is readily acknowledged that there do need to be projects in all the areas of the district to gain widespread support for the bond. The weight room addition is the only bond project in North Orem and only the second bond project in the Northeast (Highland, Alpine, etc). 2) We had discussed the desirability of getting out of debt and going to a "pay as you go" plan for capital costs at our retreat on Monday. I suggested that a bond would be better accepted by the fiscally-concerned should we have a plan to get out of debt, even if it were saving just a small amount of money every year. The downside to this: Whatever we save for future needs, we aren't able to spend now on existing needs. The overall philosophy of the board was suggested to be that getting out of debt is important and something we want to strive for. However, due to the current economics, it isn't something that is feasible now. Someday, it will be.
The seismic projects still on the bond are as follows:
- Alpine Elementary (seismic only): $1.845M
- Orem Jr (addition and seismic): $5.5M
- Sego Lily (seismic only): $825,000
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Why I Voted Against the Budget
Board Meeting: Budget Approval--June 21
The Board Meeting was held on June 21, and included approval of the final budget for 2010-11 and the tentative budget for 2011-12. The formal budget was available online as of June 1, and I received a hard copy about that same time. We had 3 weeks to review the budget. Throughout the year, different items are brought up that impact the budget, and the board more or less approves them at the time. Also, there are a few budget committee meetings that narrow down and prioritize items to be addressed in the budget, e.g. building maintenance requirements. However, I would like to see a shift to allow the board and the public more time to address issues in the budget and see revisions, much before the June 22 approval date, as required by law. Ideally, the proposed budget would be made public near the beginning of May. The May board meeting would allow the board to discuss different options. I'd, also, suggest having a public input meeting to take place in May. Then any changes or suggestions could be incorporated in a revised budget, available June 1. (Highland City followed this procedure and had a public Open House in May, just before a City Council meeting where the budget was discussed. I commend them for this step and borrowed liberally from their process.)
My main issue, besides the overall budget schedule, was $860,000 for Common Core implementation. As you've read previously, I am concerned with the lack of local control that will come with Common Core. The way it works is the State Office of Education has decided all Utah Schools (district and charter) will adopt the Common Core (including the out-sourced, US Dept of Ed-financed assessments). What is tested, determines the curriculum. At the time of the budget adoption, the Board had never discussed Common Core. We were allocating funds because the State Office said as much. They dictate, we fund. The Common Core training began the day before the budget was approved, and about $70,000 was put into the budget to be spent (post-July 1) to pay those teachers participating in the week-long training. Because this is a fundamental shift of educational responsibility, I felt the board needed to at least address Common Core before allocating funds. I asked that the $860,000 be "held in abeyance" until the board could discuss Common Core. I was outvoted on setting that money aside. As such, I felt I wasn't doing my due diligence in approving the $860,000, even if it was only 1/400 of the budget. It represents such a large potential change, it didn't seem right for me to approve something that hadn't even been discussed. I was the only "Nay" vote. My fellow board member, Paula Hill, voted to abstain, with a comment that she was doing so because of the nearly $1M for Common Core implementation.
Eagle Mountain Middle School Property
The board approved the purchase of a property for the proposed Middle School in Eagle Mountain. The decision was between two different pieces of property. The board weighed the overall costs, necessary improvements, transportation, power, etc. in making this decision. It was not a decision made lightly, and there was a lot of community input. In short, when all the different factors were laid out, the SITLA property was the best deal. One nice thing is that our agreement includes the improvements to be made on the property. They will make the improvements to our specifications and with our approval prior to closing on escrow. And the overall price came in lower than the other option.
Collective Bargaining and Trust Lands Funds
Also approved were the various agreements with the associations: Administrators, Teachers, and Education Support Services. One of the biggest issues was the healthcare cost increase, due to the "ObamaCare" mandates. It amounted to about $4M for the year. The other issue was the board approved a 2% increase for teachers who were not due an increase due to 'step and lane'. Essentially, the district pay schedule has different lanes that teachers are on, depending on education level. For example, a teacher with a Bachelor's degree is on a particular lane. Another teacher with a Master's Degree is on a different lane. Both start at step 1, if they are brand new. But the lane for the Bachelor's degree pays less for Step 1, than does the Master's Degree lane. After so many years, they advance to Step 2, and so forth. If you are somewhere between Step 1 and Step 2, for example, this year, you will get a one time 2% bonus (probably in November).
The individual school's submitted their trustlands plans, and the board approved them.
Meeting with Lt. Governor
On July 5, various teachers, employees, administrators, board members, and legislators met with Lt. Gov. Greg Bell and the Governor's education advisor, Christine Kearl. Different members of the administration outlined some of the things Alpine is doing well:
Agenda for Board Training on July 18--Timberline Middle School
Twice a year, the board has a retreat/training for most of a day. This is the second one I will be participating in. Since this meeting constitutes a quorum of the board, it is an open, public meeting. As a board, we have been asked to submit our comments/suggestions for the Boardmanship discussion, as well as the afternoon discussion items. You may want to check out the links from the district website for more information on the Code of Conduct and the Board, itself. Also, if you haven't had a chance to review the Common Core FAQ's, please do so...see especially the final question about Federal involvement. I welcome your comments and feedback both prior to and after the training.
8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Common Core Review & Discussion: Syd Dickson, USOE
9:00 – 10:00 Discussion of Board Issues: Debbie
10:00 – 10:15 Break
10:15 – 11:15 Continue Discussion of Board Issues
11:15 – 12:00 Review History of District Mission, Vision, Values, Goals: Vern / Debbie
12:00 – 12:45 p.m. Lunch
12:45 – 2:00 Boardsmanship: Debbie
2:00 – 2:15 Break
2:15 – 3:30 Board Training – Discussion of Leadership by Sully: Barry Graff
Board Meeting Agenda: July 19--District Office
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to (1) review details for the November 2011 bond, (2) for Board inservice and (3) to discuss other current issues.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Debbie TaylorPresident
REVERENCE
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR JUNE :Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Resolution 2011-011 – Contract with Orem City for Law Enforcement Officers
5. Resolution 2011-012 – Easement Agreement with UDOT for Property Adjacent to Vineyard Elem.
ACTION ITEMS
1. 2013-2014 School Calendar: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S Debbie Taylor, Board President
INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
The Board Meeting was held on June 21, and included approval of the final budget for 2010-11 and the tentative budget for 2011-12. The formal budget was available online as of June 1, and I received a hard copy about that same time. We had 3 weeks to review the budget. Throughout the year, different items are brought up that impact the budget, and the board more or less approves them at the time. Also, there are a few budget committee meetings that narrow down and prioritize items to be addressed in the budget, e.g. building maintenance requirements. However, I would like to see a shift to allow the board and the public more time to address issues in the budget and see revisions, much before the June 22 approval date, as required by law. Ideally, the proposed budget would be made public near the beginning of May. The May board meeting would allow the board to discuss different options. I'd, also, suggest having a public input meeting to take place in May. Then any changes or suggestions could be incorporated in a revised budget, available June 1. (Highland City followed this procedure and had a public Open House in May, just before a City Council meeting where the budget was discussed. I commend them for this step and borrowed liberally from their process.)
My main issue, besides the overall budget schedule, was $860,000 for Common Core implementation. As you've read previously, I am concerned with the lack of local control that will come with Common Core. The way it works is the State Office of Education has decided all Utah Schools (district and charter) will adopt the Common Core (including the out-sourced, US Dept of Ed-financed assessments). What is tested, determines the curriculum. At the time of the budget adoption, the Board had never discussed Common Core. We were allocating funds because the State Office said as much. They dictate, we fund. The Common Core training began the day before the budget was approved, and about $70,000 was put into the budget to be spent (post-July 1) to pay those teachers participating in the week-long training. Because this is a fundamental shift of educational responsibility, I felt the board needed to at least address Common Core before allocating funds. I asked that the $860,000 be "held in abeyance" until the board could discuss Common Core. I was outvoted on setting that money aside. As such, I felt I wasn't doing my due diligence in approving the $860,000, even if it was only 1/400 of the budget. It represents such a large potential change, it didn't seem right for me to approve something that hadn't even been discussed. I was the only "Nay" vote. My fellow board member, Paula Hill, voted to abstain, with a comment that she was doing so because of the nearly $1M for Common Core implementation.
Eagle Mountain Middle School Property
The board approved the purchase of a property for the proposed Middle School in Eagle Mountain. The decision was between two different pieces of property. The board weighed the overall costs, necessary improvements, transportation, power, etc. in making this decision. It was not a decision made lightly, and there was a lot of community input. In short, when all the different factors were laid out, the SITLA property was the best deal. One nice thing is that our agreement includes the improvements to be made on the property. They will make the improvements to our specifications and with our approval prior to closing on escrow. And the overall price came in lower than the other option.
Collective Bargaining and Trust Lands Funds
Also approved were the various agreements with the associations: Administrators, Teachers, and Education Support Services. One of the biggest issues was the healthcare cost increase, due to the "ObamaCare" mandates. It amounted to about $4M for the year. The other issue was the board approved a 2% increase for teachers who were not due an increase due to 'step and lane'. Essentially, the district pay schedule has different lanes that teachers are on, depending on education level. For example, a teacher with a Bachelor's degree is on a particular lane. Another teacher with a Master's Degree is on a different lane. Both start at step 1, if they are brand new. But the lane for the Bachelor's degree pays less for Step 1, than does the Master's Degree lane. After so many years, they advance to Step 2, and so forth. If you are somewhere between Step 1 and Step 2, for example, this year, you will get a one time 2% bonus (probably in November).
The individual school's submitted their trustlands plans, and the board approved them.
Meeting with Lt. Governor
On July 5, various teachers, employees, administrators, board members, and legislators met with Lt. Gov. Greg Bell and the Governor's education advisor, Christine Kearl. Different members of the administration outlined some of the things Alpine is doing well:
- Modified Extended Day schedules: Many of our elementary schools are set up with AM and PM students. The AM students come at 8 and leave at 2:15; the PM kids come at 9:15 and leave at 3:30. This allows each teacher to have smaller class sizes for 150 min each day.
- Productivity: Teachers who teach more students in a class--whether through modified extended day, or more classes/day--are paid 14 - 23 % more
- Extended Day Kindergarten (OEK): Kindergarten students who score below a certain level are given the option of attending full day kindergarten. The class size is an average of 16 students, as compared with 24 or so in the regular kindergarten classes. Students in OEK out-perform their peers in the regular Kindergarten classes.
Agenda for Board Training on July 18--Timberline Middle School
Twice a year, the board has a retreat/training for most of a day. This is the second one I will be participating in. Since this meeting constitutes a quorum of the board, it is an open, public meeting. As a board, we have been asked to submit our comments/suggestions for the Boardmanship discussion, as well as the afternoon discussion items. You may want to check out the links from the district website for more information on the Code of Conduct and the Board, itself. Also, if you haven't had a chance to review the Common Core FAQ's, please do so...see especially the final question about Federal involvement. I welcome your comments and feedback both prior to and after the training.
8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Common Core Review & Discussion: Syd Dickson, USOE
9:00 – 10:00 Discussion of Board Issues: Debbie
10:00 – 10:15 Break
10:15 – 11:15 Continue Discussion of Board Issues
11:15 – 12:00 Review History of District Mission, Vision, Values, Goals: Vern / Debbie
12:00 – 12:45 p.m. Lunch
12:45 – 2:00 Boardsmanship: Debbie
2:00 – 2:15 Break
2:15 – 3:30 Board Training – Discussion of Leadership by Sully: Barry Graff
Board Meeting Agenda: July 19--District Office
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to (1) review details for the November 2011 bond, (2) for Board inservice and (3) to discuss other current issues.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Debbie TaylorPresident
REVERENCE
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR JUNE :Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Resolution 2011-011 – Contract with Orem City for Law Enforcement Officers
5. Resolution 2011-012 – Easement Agreement with UDOT for Property Adjacent to Vineyard Elem.
ACTION ITEMS
1. 2013-2014 School Calendar: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S Debbie Taylor, Board President
INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Friday, June 17, 2011
Common Core, Budget, New Property and Lots More
Common Core
Before you read on, I ask you to do one thing. Please view this video on the Common Core. Once you view it, please pass the link on to at least 4 other people. Common Core is taking place, and we, the people, have yet to have the debate over the pros and cons.
"Ever since the Federal Government, in the mid-sixties, became heavily involved in public education, we've been consistently fighting that battle over standardization versus freedom. Freedom should be our goal."
--Utah Congressman (and former public school teacher) Rob Bishop
My fellow board member, Paula Hill, has written an excellent piece on the Common Core. Click here to see her comments. She states it very well, and adds the perspective of a school teacher.
Americans have a history of prizing and valuing local control, especially when it comes to the education of our children. We want an educated populace, but we take seriously the responsibility that parents have of doing just that. At the top of my blog, you will see a quote from Jefferson about turning education of children over to "any other general authority of the government". Jefferson's opinion was that parents needed to manage the schools, and that believing government could do it better was a complete fairy tale (his words "a belief against all experience"). The responsibility for education rests with the parents. Our schools exist to aid parents in this responsibility. Common Core takes this idea and allows us to turn the responsibility and the accountability over to another pseudo-government entity, unelected, and unaccountable to you as a parent. As the teacher in the above video mentions, if she has concerns with what her children are being taught, she can't go to the school, the district, or even the state anymore. This is a fundamental transformation of the responsibility, the accountability, and the power associated with educating our children.
Budget/Agenda for 6/21/11
The 2011-12 budget for the school district is on the agenda for Tuesday's Board meeting (along with Trustlands plan approvals, and association (teachers, school support services, and administrators) labor contracts. For full agenda, please see below or click here. I would like to see more public, as well as board, involvement in the budget process earlier on. I have discussed this subject with the administration, but will be discussing it with the full board, hopefully, during the study session. Associated with the Common Core thread, from above, the proposed budget contains $860K for implementation of the Common Core.
New Property for Junior High in Eagle Mountain
On the Agenda for Tuesday's meeting is the proposed purchase of property for the new Junior High in Eagle Mountain. There have been two properties under consideration, and many of you have written to express your thoughts about the different options. We have taken into account, bussing costs, infrastructure costs, power needs, as well as the overall land prices. The bottom line is when all these things are accounted for, the proposal for the Mid-Valley location makes the most sense, both financially and logistically. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about why I will be supporting this purchase.
Meeting with Eagle Mountain City
Wednesday, I had the opportunity to meet with the Mayor and City Council Members of Eagle Mountain City, along with my fellow board members. It was good to get their perspective on their growing population. We discussed the needs the district has when looking at properties for new schools. The city often requires large developers to include plans for school sites as they present their plans to the city for approval. We discussed when would be the appropriate time for the district to be involved in that process.
Agenda
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to receive an overview of the proposed 2011-2012 M&O budget and an update regarding the proposed November 2011 bond.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
RECOGNITIONS
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR MAY
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Student Releases
5. Student Expulsion
6. Student Reinstatements
7. Property Items
A. Resolution 2011-009 – Purchase of Property in Eagle Mountain
B. Resolution 2011-010 – Sale of Property in Saratoga to LDS Church
ACTION ITEMS
1. Adoption of Bond Resolution and Designated Officer
2. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2010-2011 Final Budget
3. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2011-2012 Tentative Budget
4. Approval of the 2011-2012 School Land Trust Plans
5. Approval of the 2011-2012 Certified Negotiated Agreement
6. Approval of the 2011-2012 Classified Negotiated Agreement
7. Approval of the 2011-2012 Administrative Agreement
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
1. Proposed Change of Date for August Board Meeting – to August 16
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Revised 2013-2014 School Calendar
REPORTS
1. Membership Report
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Before you read on, I ask you to do one thing. Please view this video on the Common Core. Once you view it, please pass the link on to at least 4 other people. Common Core is taking place, and we, the people, have yet to have the debate over the pros and cons.
"Ever since the Federal Government, in the mid-sixties, became heavily involved in public education, we've been consistently fighting that battle over standardization versus freedom. Freedom should be our goal."
--Utah Congressman (and former public school teacher) Rob Bishop
My fellow board member, Paula Hill, has written an excellent piece on the Common Core. Click here to see her comments. She states it very well, and adds the perspective of a school teacher.
Americans have a history of prizing and valuing local control, especially when it comes to the education of our children. We want an educated populace, but we take seriously the responsibility that parents have of doing just that. At the top of my blog, you will see a quote from Jefferson about turning education of children over to "any other general authority of the government". Jefferson's opinion was that parents needed to manage the schools, and that believing government could do it better was a complete fairy tale (his words "a belief against all experience"). The responsibility for education rests with the parents. Our schools exist to aid parents in this responsibility. Common Core takes this idea and allows us to turn the responsibility and the accountability over to another pseudo-government entity, unelected, and unaccountable to you as a parent. As the teacher in the above video mentions, if she has concerns with what her children are being taught, she can't go to the school, the district, or even the state anymore. This is a fundamental transformation of the responsibility, the accountability, and the power associated with educating our children.
Budget/Agenda for 6/21/11
The 2011-12 budget for the school district is on the agenda for Tuesday's Board meeting (along with Trustlands plan approvals, and association (teachers, school support services, and administrators) labor contracts. For full agenda, please see below or click here. I would like to see more public, as well as board, involvement in the budget process earlier on. I have discussed this subject with the administration, but will be discussing it with the full board, hopefully, during the study session. Associated with the Common Core thread, from above, the proposed budget contains $860K for implementation of the Common Core.
New Property for Junior High in Eagle Mountain
On the Agenda for Tuesday's meeting is the proposed purchase of property for the new Junior High in Eagle Mountain. There have been two properties under consideration, and many of you have written to express your thoughts about the different options. We have taken into account, bussing costs, infrastructure costs, power needs, as well as the overall land prices. The bottom line is when all these things are accounted for, the proposal for the Mid-Valley location makes the most sense, both financially and logistically. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about why I will be supporting this purchase.
Meeting with Eagle Mountain City
Wednesday, I had the opportunity to meet with the Mayor and City Council Members of Eagle Mountain City, along with my fellow board members. It was good to get their perspective on their growing population. We discussed the needs the district has when looking at properties for new schools. The city often requires large developers to include plans for school sites as they present their plans to the city for approval. We discussed when would be the appropriate time for the district to be involved in that process.
Agenda
STUDY SESSION
4:00 P.M.
The purpose of the study session will be to receive an overview of the proposed 2011-2012 M&O budget and an update regarding the proposed November 2011 bond.
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
RECOGNITIONS
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR MAY
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Student Releases
5. Student Expulsion
6. Student Reinstatements
7. Property Items
A. Resolution 2011-009 – Purchase of Property in Eagle Mountain
B. Resolution 2011-010 – Sale of Property in Saratoga to LDS Church
ACTION ITEMS
1. Adoption of Bond Resolution and Designated Officer
2. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2010-2011 Final Budget
3. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2011-2012 Tentative Budget
4. Approval of the 2011-2012 School Land Trust Plans
5. Approval of the 2011-2012 Certified Negotiated Agreement
6. Approval of the 2011-2012 Classified Negotiated Agreement
7. Approval of the 2011-2012 Administrative Agreement
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
1. Proposed Change of Date for August Board Meeting – to August 16
DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Revised 2013-2014 School Calendar
REPORTS
1. Membership Report
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Friday, June 3, 2011
Proposed 2012 Budget
The proposed budget for this next fiscal year can be downloaded from the district's website here. I am personally thrilled that it is listed as one of the 'revolving' items on the main page of the website. Thanks to our district staff for getting this information out to the public in such an easily accessible format!
Please take a moment to peruse the budget and give me your feedback. A printed, bound copy was delivered to me yesterday.
Please take a moment to peruse the budget and give me your feedback. A printed, bound copy was delivered to me yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)