Posts
Board Priorities
On Wednesday, January 30, our Board will have our semi-annual retreat (open to the public: see below for agenda more information*). At the retreat we will discuss and prioritize the priorities for the year. This is the main opportunity for the Board to give direction to the District Administration. As your representative, please let me know what you would like to see as the priorities for your school district.
Space Center
We received an update on the Space Center. On February 11, the Space Center will re-open for field trips within the district. Not all of the simulators will be available, but some of them will. The committee is still meeting and discussing long-term options. Of these, three were mentioned.
1) Build the Space Center on property right next to Central Elementary that ASD already owns.
2) Build the Space Center on the "Scow Property" that is near the water tower in PG. (I think we already own this property as well.)
3) Establish the Space Center at Thanksgiving Point. They are very interested in working some sort of deal with us. They are opening a "Museum of Natural Curiosity" with a specific STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) focus, including ecosystems, ancient ruins, climatology, etc. They currently have 4000 sq ft in the Dinosaur Museum that we could use right now. Thanksgiving Point is incentivized to partner with us because it will allow them to qualify for additional grants. Right now, the Space Center costs us about $4.50/student. Thanksgiving Point currently charges $2.60/student and for every 10 students, one teacher gets in free.
Lehi High School
We reviewed plans for rebuilding Lehi High School on the current site (by the Roller Mills). It is proposed that the Board budget $1.3 M from our budget this coming year to pay for an 18-classroom satellite, and $4.5 M for the construction of a 3-story classroom wing of 12 -18 rooms. The permanent classroom wing would be completed by Fall of 2014. After that, it would cost about $40M and roughly 3 years of construction to rebuild the "old" parts of the school in phases, so we can still use the existing facilities as we build new ones. The $40M would require a bond to accomplish, we were advised.
*Board Retreat Information: Priorities for the District
Jan. 30, 2013
Mountainland Applied Technology College, Room 230-N
2301 W. Ashton Blvd.
Lehi, UT
PUBLIC MEETING, but no public comments
8:30 - 9:00 Continental Breakfast
9:00 - 9:30 Past Basket Items Report (Priorities)
9:30 - 10:30 Current Basket Items Conversation/Suggestions
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 12:00 Current Basket Items/Rating/Ranking to Prioritize
12:00 - 12:30 Lunch
12:30 - 2:30 Question: "How do we unite and move forward as a Board to make sure these priorities are realized?"
We used to discuss the Code of Conduct. It appears, we will address only the question listed at the end of the agenda. However, that is the "stickiest" point for me in the Code of Conduct.
I welcome your input and your attendance.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Transparency, New Leadership, Code of Conduct, USBA
Welcome to 2013! For two years, I have had the privilege of serving you on the Alpine School Board. I want to thank you for your trust, your input, and your involvement. I have never believed I had all the answers, but I believe you can help guide us and direct us to become even better than we currently are.
I would like to give you some information on a few things for the start of the New Year and ask for your feedback.
State School Board
As part of my desire to be "information-rich", I plan on keeping you updated on the actions of the State School Board, since they have considerable power and most of us aren't aware of what they even do. (I know I wasn't.) In short, they dictate the minimum standards, graduation requirements, and number of school days/hours required by every public school in the state. They maintain a committee to review/approve educational materials for use in the schools. This year, the State School Board will be addressing standards for Social Studies and Science, as well as working through any new state testing issues in preparation for the new Common Core tests in 2014-15. The State Board holds public board meetings on the first Friday of every month. The meetings are live-streamed on their website: http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings.aspx The audio of all their meetings, as well as their minutes, are available a few days after the meetings take place. I have found the minutes and the audio to be quite informative.
Code of Conduct
On Jan. 30, the Board will be discussing our Code of Conduct. When I first came onto the Board, I was told the most important thing for me to learn and follow was this Code of Conduct. The Board hasn't formally voted on it, but every year in January, we review it and make changes. At one of the first Utah School Boards Association (USBA) meetings I attended, drawing up a Code of Conduct was discussed and encouraged. One of the board members (not on our board) suggested a Code of Conduct would be important, "since there are now infiltrators among us." I found that comment very insightful. To my knowledge every board member in this state has been elected or appointed consistent with state law. So, the concept of an "infiltrator" is more of an ideological infiltrator and not an actual infiltrator. I want to make sure that our Code of Conduct is consistent with allowing the disparate voices in our community to be heard and represented on the board. I want to make sure you are well-informed and able to see the workings of your School Board. Since you are the ones who are, ultimately, supposed to be in control of public education in this district, I would appreciate your feedback on our Code of Conduct.
New Leadership and Transparency
The above quote comes from a Salt Lake Tribune article about the Utah State School Board's recent Leadership election. They used secret ballots in a Open Public Meeting that may have violated Utah law (the Open Meetings Act). I found it interesting for two reasons, and I'd like to share them with you.
First, on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, our board will also elect new Board Leadership. The President and Vice-President have no more voting authority, but they do set the agendas, preside at the meetings, sign all legal documents, maintain our Code of Conduct (see above) and represent the Board to the media.
Our Alpine School Board Handbook says the "Board President:
Second, the Trib article spends considerable space discussing transparency. Everyone talks about transparency, but it is something you have to constantly emphasize. The article says, "voting by secret ballot can help members vote more freely without fear of hurting fellow board members." While I can appreciate the desire to spare fellow board members hurt feelings, it is important for public officials to conduct as much business out in the open as possible. The more we are in the public view, the greater the opportunity for the public to feel comfortable that things really are what they seem. If there is a tendency to go "behind closed doors", it shuts out the public and creates a level of mistrust, whether justified or not. Every year, each board member must take a class on the Open Meetings Act and be accountable for it. We are responsible for following that law and allowing you into our proceedings. If we truly believe this is "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people", we must not shut "the people" out of the process. I hope the State School Board will redo their vote, despite the potential hurt feelings, to be fully transparent and accountable to the people they serve. I am glad that our board vote will be Open and Transparent, and I invite you to attend.
USBA Convention
Finally, Jan. 10 -12, I will attend the Utah School Boards Association Annual Convention in Salt Lake City. Our membership dues and expenses for the conference are paid for by the taxpayers. For the third year, I will not be staying on-site, but will commute to the conference daily. (Board Policy allows for one in-state conference and one out-of-state conference/year for all board members.) Since this is funded by taxpayer money, I will be reporting on the information received. USBA leadership will be elected at the Convention, and our board will elect a delegate for the purposes of determining positions on upcoming legislation and the overall direction of the USBA. The USBA, along with the Utah Business Administrators' Association and the Utah Superintendents' Association collaborate on education-related bills before the Utah Legislature and vote on whether to support, stay neutral, or oppose legislation. This vote takes place weekly during the legislative session. Only delegates are able to vote; although, any board member may participate in the discussion. I will send you links to the education bills as I receive them. The Legislature meets for 45 days from mid-January till the beginning of March.
AGENDA: Jan. 8, 2013
6:00 pm (NOTE: No Study Session will be held)
ADJOURNMENT
I would like to give you some information on a few things for the start of the New Year and ask for your feedback.
State School Board
As part of my desire to be "information-rich", I plan on keeping you updated on the actions of the State School Board, since they have considerable power and most of us aren't aware of what they even do. (I know I wasn't.) In short, they dictate the minimum standards, graduation requirements, and number of school days/hours required by every public school in the state. They maintain a committee to review/approve educational materials for use in the schools. This year, the State School Board will be addressing standards for Social Studies and Science, as well as working through any new state testing issues in preparation for the new Common Core tests in 2014-15. The State Board holds public board meetings on the first Friday of every month. The meetings are live-streamed on their website: http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings.aspx The audio of all their meetings, as well as their minutes, are available a few days after the meetings take place. I have found the minutes and the audio to be quite informative.
Code of Conduct
On Jan. 30, the Board will be discussing our Code of Conduct. When I first came onto the Board, I was told the most important thing for me to learn and follow was this Code of Conduct. The Board hasn't formally voted on it, but every year in January, we review it and make changes. At one of the first Utah School Boards Association (USBA) meetings I attended, drawing up a Code of Conduct was discussed and encouraged. One of the board members (not on our board) suggested a Code of Conduct would be important, "since there are now infiltrators among us." I found that comment very insightful. To my knowledge every board member in this state has been elected or appointed consistent with state law. So, the concept of an "infiltrator" is more of an ideological infiltrator and not an actual infiltrator. I want to make sure that our Code of Conduct is consistent with allowing the disparate voices in our community to be heard and represented on the board. I want to make sure you are well-informed and able to see the workings of your School Board. Since you are the ones who are, ultimately, supposed to be in control of public education in this district, I would appreciate your feedback on our Code of Conduct.
New Leadership and Transparency
"You have to be prepared to make those decisions in view of the public ... and while it may be uncomfortable for certain members and maybe it would be easier to do it in a secret session, expediency and comfort are not the prime values served by the Open Meetings Act. Transparency and accountability are." --Salt Lake City Attorney Jeff Hunt
The above quote comes from a Salt Lake Tribune article about the Utah State School Board's recent Leadership election. They used secret ballots in a Open Public Meeting that may have violated Utah law (the Open Meetings Act). I found it interesting for two reasons, and I'd like to share them with you.
First, on Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, our board will also elect new Board Leadership. The President and Vice-President have no more voting authority, but they do set the agendas, preside at the meetings, sign all legal documents, maintain our Code of Conduct (see above) and represent the Board to the media.
Our Alpine School Board Handbook says the "Board President:
- Represents the Board of Education
- Facilitates and protects Board processes
- Responsible [sic] for Board professional development
- Understand [sic], support, promote and teach the MVVG [Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals] of the District"
Second, the Trib article spends considerable space discussing transparency. Everyone talks about transparency, but it is something you have to constantly emphasize. The article says, "voting by secret ballot can help members vote more freely without fear of hurting fellow board members." While I can appreciate the desire to spare fellow board members hurt feelings, it is important for public officials to conduct as much business out in the open as possible. The more we are in the public view, the greater the opportunity for the public to feel comfortable that things really are what they seem. If there is a tendency to go "behind closed doors", it shuts out the public and creates a level of mistrust, whether justified or not. Every year, each board member must take a class on the Open Meetings Act and be accountable for it. We are responsible for following that law and allowing you into our proceedings. If we truly believe this is "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people", we must not shut "the people" out of the process. I hope the State School Board will redo their vote, despite the potential hurt feelings, to be fully transparent and accountable to the people they serve. I am glad that our board vote will be Open and Transparent, and I invite you to attend.
USBA Convention
Finally, Jan. 10 -12, I will attend the Utah School Boards Association Annual Convention in Salt Lake City. Our membership dues and expenses for the conference are paid for by the taxpayers. For the third year, I will not be staying on-site, but will commute to the conference daily. (Board Policy allows for one in-state conference and one out-of-state conference/year for all board members.) Since this is funded by taxpayer money, I will be reporting on the information received. USBA leadership will be elected at the Convention, and our board will elect a delegate for the purposes of determining positions on upcoming legislation and the overall direction of the USBA. The USBA, along with the Utah Business Administrators' Association and the Utah Superintendents' Association collaborate on education-related bills before the Utah Legislature and vote on whether to support, stay neutral, or oppose legislation. This vote takes place weekly during the legislative session. Only delegates are able to vote; although, any board member may participate in the discussion. I will send you links to the education bills as I receive them. The Legislature meets for 45 days from mid-January till the beginning of March.
AGENDA: Jan. 8, 2013
6:00 pm (NOTE: No Study Session will be held)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVERENCE
OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY-ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS
ELECTION OF BOARD PRESIDENT
ELECTION OF BOARD VICE PRESIDENT
RECOGNITIONS
COMMUNITY COMMENTS
MINUTES
CLAIMS FOR DECEMBER
ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report
2. Personnel Reports
3. Alpine Foundation Report
4. Student Releases – BA, BA, MA, HB, JC, SF, MH, JH, JJ, BR, CS, NT, BW
5. Student Expulsion – AW
6. Investment Report
ACTION ITEM
1. Proposed Name for the New Middle School in Eagle Mountain
REPORT
1. Membership Report
BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS
CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
2012 Year End Post
Note: Audio for the board meetings can be downloaded at the bottom of each of the following links.
Nov. 13, 2012: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1297
Nov. 27, 2012: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1312
Dec. 11, 2102: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1314
I want to thank Board Members, Mark Clement and Terry Peterson for their service. I will miss our discussions. I wish them the best in their future endeavors!
Welcome to our two new board members who will be sworn in this January, Scott Carlson and Brian Halliday. I look forward to working with you both.
Board Leadership and Code of Conduct
During the January 8 Board Meeting, our newly-elected board members will be sworn in. We will also select a new Board President and Vice President. I was told the Board President is responsible for upholding our Code of Conduct. I would recommend that everyone read the Code of Conduct here. You can read the official About the Board from our website here. Every January, we review the Code of Conduct. I would like to bring your input to our discussion. Please feel free to email or Facebook message me with your suggestions and thoughts.
Here is a quick overview of November and December.
November:
Space Center
Probably the biggest issue in November was the Space Center. So many people showed up at the Board Meeting to show their support for the Space Center. It was great to see that level of public involvement. A committee has been established to explore options and to make recommendations to the Board. Right now, they plan on presenting options in February. For my part, I am very supportive of the Space Center. (My kids would be very disappointed were I not.) I want to continue the simulators and the current experience in whatever way makes the most sense. If there is a cost-effective way to get part of the Space Center back up and in operation, I am supportive.
Also, during the public comments, Robin Allred took the time to support the idea of incorporating families into our district values. (Thanks, Robin!)
CAFR
We accepted the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) which is a required document detailing the financials for the district for 2011-12. The auditors gave us a clean bill of health. There are some very interesting pieces of information, especially toward the end of the report, e.g. salary schedules, amount spent per student, number of employees, tax rates over time, etc. You can view it here: http://alpineschools.org/accounting/cafr/2012-cafr-audit-services-provided
Closed Schools
The following schools will be closed for 2013-14. Note: Lone Peak HS is not on this list. I mentioned concerns that have been raised about Lone Peak. The principal says they may have room for only 30 more students. I have been told principals can limit those who want to attend from "out of area" when there are reasons such as limited space and/or teachers. I will follow this closely.
Meadow Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Pony Express Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Snow Springs Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
American Fork Junior High – Closed to out-of-area students with the exception of students who will attend American Fork High School. These students would still be required to apply for an out-of-area exception through Student Services during the open enrollment window.
Lakeridge Junior High – To continue educational offerings.
New Eagle Mountain Middle School – New school
Enrollment Projections
Our district has a great track record on enrollment projections. The latest projections were discussed, as well as what additional schools might need to be constructed and when. This information can be viewed here: http://alpineschools.org/administration/enrollment-history-projections/2012-13-enrollment-history-projections
These projections are used to make recommendations about bonding and building. For those of you concerned about bonding, this is the time to start thinking about alternatives. We will need to accommodate these projections, unless something drastic occurs. Please take the time to review this information and give me feedback.
Eagle Mountain Elementary School
Property was purchased in Eagle Mountain for a new elementary school, planned as part of the bond projects.
Utah Consolidated Application
Every year the district has to fill out this application for the state. It provides our accountability for certain programs that come with strings, both Federal and State, e.g. Special Ed, Optional Extended-Day Kindergarten, etc. From my perspective, it is a lot of hoop-jumping, and many of the options are for ways that allow children to spend more time in school and less time at home. (I will refrain from editorializing.) There are about 40 different funding sources, most of which come from the state. As mentioned, in order to get the funding, you have to show your compliance with the "strings". I would prefer to have the state just give the local districts a lump sum and let us divvy it up as we see fit. (Pipe dream, I know.)
December:
Graduation Requirements Policy
The State Board sets the minimum graduation requirements. Alpine School District has placed additional requirements on our graduating students. The policy has been changed to reflect two different kids of diplomas: a basic and a traditional. A Basic diploma (e.g. Fast Track) will be offered with 24 credit hours. All the required courses (3 English, etc) must still be earned. However, students can graduate with fewer electives, if they choose. A Traditional diploma requires 28 credit hours to obtain. A few interesting things.
1) Students with an IEP can earn a traditional diploma with those 28 credit hours, and whatever course accommodations needed to made in accordance with the IEP.
2) There are also 2 certificates offered to special ed students who do not qualify for the traditional diploma.
3) A student who successfully completes Calculus has met the math requirements regardless of number of math credit hours earned. However, that student would have to still meet the 24 or 28 credit hours by taking electives instead of math.
4) The SEOP has been changed, by the State Office, to a CCR (College and Career-readiness) Plan. The policy stipulates that each student will have one. I tried to get clarification on whether a parent can opt their student out of the CCR Plan. I was told each counselor will be following the student to make sure they are on track for graduation. There are additional pieces of information, such as career testing, that are optional, since they would fall under the Utah FERPA (privacy) law. Any private information, likes, dislikes, family circumstances, etc. all require written permission from a parent.
The policy can be viewed here: http://205.118.9.15/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/files/MTM1NTM3MjAyODQzOC9BbHBpbmVBZ2VuZGEvMTMxNC8zNzUxL0ZpbGVz/graduationpolicy-1.pdf
School Calendar Update
The school year for 2013-14 will start on Tuesday, Aug. 20 instead of Thursday, Aug. 22, so teachers can have two full professional development days, instead of the current minimal days. (Yea! Not a fan of the minimal days, personally.)
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Nov. 13, 2012: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1297
Nov. 27, 2012: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1312
Dec. 11, 2102: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1314
I want to thank Board Members, Mark Clement and Terry Peterson for their service. I will miss our discussions. I wish them the best in their future endeavors!
Welcome to our two new board members who will be sworn in this January, Scott Carlson and Brian Halliday. I look forward to working with you both.
Board Leadership and Code of Conduct
During the January 8 Board Meeting, our newly-elected board members will be sworn in. We will also select a new Board President and Vice President. I was told the Board President is responsible for upholding our Code of Conduct. I would recommend that everyone read the Code of Conduct here. You can read the official About the Board from our website here. Every January, we review the Code of Conduct. I would like to bring your input to our discussion. Please feel free to email or Facebook message me with your suggestions and thoughts.
Here is a quick overview of November and December.
November:
Space Center
Probably the biggest issue in November was the Space Center. So many people showed up at the Board Meeting to show their support for the Space Center. It was great to see that level of public involvement. A committee has been established to explore options and to make recommendations to the Board. Right now, they plan on presenting options in February. For my part, I am very supportive of the Space Center. (My kids would be very disappointed were I not.) I want to continue the simulators and the current experience in whatever way makes the most sense. If there is a cost-effective way to get part of the Space Center back up and in operation, I am supportive.
Also, during the public comments, Robin Allred took the time to support the idea of incorporating families into our district values. (Thanks, Robin!)
CAFR
We accepted the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) which is a required document detailing the financials for the district for 2011-12. The auditors gave us a clean bill of health. There are some very interesting pieces of information, especially toward the end of the report, e.g. salary schedules, amount spent per student, number of employees, tax rates over time, etc. You can view it here: http://alpineschools.org/accounting/cafr/2012-cafr-audit-services-provided
Closed Schools
The following schools will be closed for 2013-14. Note: Lone Peak HS is not on this list. I mentioned concerns that have been raised about Lone Peak. The principal says they may have room for only 30 more students. I have been told principals can limit those who want to attend from "out of area" when there are reasons such as limited space and/or teachers. I will follow this closely.
Fox Hollow Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Freedom Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Hidden Hollow Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Pony Express Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
Snow Springs Elementary – Due to the capacity of the school.
American Fork Junior High – Closed to out-of-area students with the exception of students who will attend American Fork High School. These students would still be required to apply for an out-of-area exception through Student Services during the open enrollment window.
Lakeridge Junior High – To continue educational offerings.
Vista Heights Middle School – To help equalize boundaries with the new school.
Enrollment Projections
Our district has a great track record on enrollment projections. The latest projections were discussed, as well as what additional schools might need to be constructed and when. This information can be viewed here: http://alpineschools.org/administration/enrollment-history-projections/2012-13-enrollment-history-projections
These projections are used to make recommendations about bonding and building. For those of you concerned about bonding, this is the time to start thinking about alternatives. We will need to accommodate these projections, unless something drastic occurs. Please take the time to review this information and give me feedback.
Eagle Mountain Elementary School
Property was purchased in Eagle Mountain for a new elementary school, planned as part of the bond projects.
Utah Consolidated Application
Every year the district has to fill out this application for the state. It provides our accountability for certain programs that come with strings, both Federal and State, e.g. Special Ed, Optional Extended-Day Kindergarten, etc. From my perspective, it is a lot of hoop-jumping, and many of the options are for ways that allow children to spend more time in school and less time at home. (I will refrain from editorializing.) There are about 40 different funding sources, most of which come from the state. As mentioned, in order to get the funding, you have to show your compliance with the "strings". I would prefer to have the state just give the local districts a lump sum and let us divvy it up as we see fit. (Pipe dream, I know.)
December:
Graduation Requirements Policy
The State Board sets the minimum graduation requirements. Alpine School District has placed additional requirements on our graduating students. The policy has been changed to reflect two different kids of diplomas: a basic and a traditional. A Basic diploma (e.g. Fast Track) will be offered with 24 credit hours. All the required courses (3 English, etc) must still be earned. However, students can graduate with fewer electives, if they choose. A Traditional diploma requires 28 credit hours to obtain. A few interesting things.
1) Students with an IEP can earn a traditional diploma with those 28 credit hours, and whatever course accommodations needed to made in accordance with the IEP.
2) There are also 2 certificates offered to special ed students who do not qualify for the traditional diploma.
3) A student who successfully completes Calculus has met the math requirements regardless of number of math credit hours earned. However, that student would have to still meet the 24 or 28 credit hours by taking electives instead of math.
4) The SEOP has been changed, by the State Office, to a CCR (College and Career-readiness) Plan. The policy stipulates that each student will have one. I tried to get clarification on whether a parent can opt their student out of the CCR Plan. I was told each counselor will be following the student to make sure they are on track for graduation. There are additional pieces of information, such as career testing, that are optional, since they would fall under the Utah FERPA (privacy) law. Any private information, likes, dislikes, family circumstances, etc. all require written permission from a parent.
The policy can be viewed here: http://205.118.9.15/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/files/MTM1NTM3MjAyODQzOC9BbHBpbmVBZ2VuZGEvMTMxNC8zNzUxL0ZpbGVz/graduationpolicy-1.pdf
School Calendar Update
The school year for 2013-14 will start on Tuesday, Aug. 20 instead of Thursday, Aug. 22, so teachers can have two full professional development days, instead of the current minimal days. (Yea! Not a fan of the minimal days, personally.)
Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Monday, October 22, 2012
Responsible Participation in a Democracy
Note: I am NOT aware of any of these materials being used in Alpine District Schools. However, where they are recommended by the USOE's Materials Committee, they are fair game for any public school in Utah to adopt.
Imagine your daughter comes home from school. She presents you with an essay on a political topic she is, all of a sudden, very passionate about. Her essay makes you angry and afraid. She deliberately projects the worst that could happen with this particular situation. And finally, she wants you to join her cause.
...Now imagine she's six years old.
Too far-fetched? Read on.
One of the big issues for parents has to do with textbooks. Which textbooks are used? Can they bring them home? I have been told we want to allow our teachers to use whatever materials and resources they need to accomplish their objectives. However, parents want to know what their kids are learning and have some idea of what is being taught. How do parents stay involved in that process? Should the local school board have oversight in this regard? Or should it be left to the individual teachers? Should teachers provide a syllabus and a list of materials for parents? Should parents even want to know, as long as the kids are doing well and meeting the objectives?
And just what are some of those objectives?
At a Utah School Boards' Association meeting last January, the President of the National School Boards' Association gave the keynote address. She concluded her speech with the idea that if public schools ceased to exist, we would lose our democracy.
At a recent Governor's Education Summit, it was reported that while it is important for us to educate our students for employment, it is also important they know how to treat people in society and act "civilly".
The State Board of Education says, "Utah's public education system is created in the state Constitution to 'secure and perpetuate' freedom."
Alpine School District's first value statement is, "To prepare our students for responsible participation in a democracy."
Currently, the emphasis of public education seems to be more on perpetuation of our democracy/way of life/democratic republic/[insert your preferred description here] than on the 3 R's. Nationally, as I read publications, teachers are being told their role is to make sure their students become good citizens. Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic take a back seat to participatory democracy.
"So what?" you say. "Who can argue against good citizenship?" I would submit that while securing and perpetuating freedom are very good and noble goals (ones I whole-heartedly support), good citizenship (however defined) is not the sole purpose or even the primary purpose of education, public or otherwise. When you make good citizenship the primary objective, you remove the focus from the individual child. The child becomes a cog in the wheel of the larger society. At one point, education was about providing skills for discerning truth from error; classical education was about creating an educated individual without any other expectation. Citizenship and public involvement were the by-products instead of the objectives. Public involvement was also reserved for adults, not children. Furthermore, depending on who determines what "good citizenship" looks like, you could be opening a big can of worms.
That brings us back to the original questions: how do we know what our kids are being taught, and how involved should parents be in following along?
The Utah State Office of Education has an Instructional Materials Database. A committee, made up of educators from the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) along with appointed citizens, reviews materials and makes recommendations. The official purpose of the Instructional Materials Committee is to determine how closely materials align with the Utah Core standards for a given grade and subject. Recommended materials may be used without reservation for that grade/subject. Recommended Limited materials may be used in the classroom but require supplementation. So, someone is watching over us and determining what our kids should learn. No need for us to be concerned, right?
Let's take a look at a few examples.
MATH
In our district, it's safe to say the majority of parents want a more traditional approach to math. Since implementing Common Core, we have been trying to find textbooks that would appeal to our parents. Unfortunately, we couldn't find any Common Core integrated math textbooks for Grade 9. Only one other Common Core state adopted the integrated math approach besides Utah. The other 45 states still teach Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, etc. Obviously, the textbook publishers didn't have a market for the integrated textbooks. Alpine's ninth-grade teachers are having to use whatever they have and put things together on their own. (As a side note, a parent at a School Community Council asked what the approval process was for teacher-developed materials. There is no formal process.)
One integrated textbook the State's Review Committee recommends is the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). This math book doesn't have any examples, but does have a political agenda. The introduction says this program is appreciated for the "communication skills...developed....The ability to persuade people and to effectively argue ideas has proved priceless...in personal, academic, and professional situations." This is a math book, remember.
Here is a link to the IMP evaluation from the Materials Review Committee. "Lessons consist of single-page individual or group tasks without traditional mathematical instruction or explanations. Mathematics is learned through the culture and practice that is developed within the classroom as students work on the various tasks.[emphasis mine]" This is an approved textbook.
By contrast, Saxon Math, considered a traditional math text, didn't have an integrated approach available yet. Even so, a pre-Common Core review of Saxon was considered "Recommended Limited" by the Materials Review Committee. "While we found much of the content of the Utah State Core in Saxon Math, the philosophy in how children best learn math differs greatly. The following skills and pedagogy were considered by the review committee...Problem solving is more teacher-driven. It does not encourage students to develop their own ideas. Lessons in problem solving are very superficial. Students are told how to solve each problem. [emphasis mine]"
The more traditional approach is marginally recommended, not because of WHAT is taught. The problem is HOW it is taught. So, the review committee reviews for content but can also "blacklist" a teaching philosophy most parents prefer for their kids. In short, if a math book shows kids how to solve problems and doesn't force them to develop those solutions on their own, the State Office of Education doesn't think it should be used to teach math.
Rather than the Materials Committee being a resource to the districts, it has an obvious philosophy and an agenda. Should local schools and their constituents wish to pursue a method of math instruction varying from the preferred philosphy of the USOE, they are hindered in their ability to do so, even IF the content matches the state standards. Remember this, when you hear how Common Core is "just standards, not curriculum".
LANGUAGE ARTS TEXTBOOKS
Language Arts is even more subjective and values-laden than math. And, it, apparently, is a great opportunity for encouraging responsible participation in a democracy. Here's an example.
The Zaner-Bloser Voices First Grade Langauge Arts series is Recommended Limited for elementary reading but Recommended Primary for Character Education. You can see the official review here. (All emphasis below is mine.)
This series also comes with a selection of Informational Text readers (instead of literature--Thank You, Common Core). These readers include a lot of emotional words to inspire the children to action. The books in the series include a political agenda and encourage activism. One book from probably a Fifth- or Sixth-Grade series is The Highlander Center. Not only is there an entire book on this center, it is then referenced in another book called Education for All. By way of information, from Wikipedia: "Current focuses of Highlander include issues of democratic participation and economic justice, with a particular focus on youth, immigrants to the U.S. from Latin America, African Americans, LGBT, and poor white people." Nope. No agenda here, right?
MVVG and You
In our school district, we have our Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals (MVVG). Our website says they "guide the focus and priorities of the Board..." The Goals were determined by a very-involved community process several years ago. The Mission, Vision, and Values were adopted and promoted, over several years, by our district administration. Remember our first value: To prepare our students for reponsible participation in a democracy. Given this value, the recommendation by the State Office's Review Committee for character education, and all the rest, is it any wonder that a good and decent teacher might feel this reading package is exactly what everyone wants their children taught in First Grade? And if parents are not happy with this, who should they blame? the teacher? the district? the *State Board? the Governor?
As we are laying blame, we should first take a look in the mirror. This Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm at Timpanogos High School, our board will be reviewing our district value statements. Is the primary purpose of education democratic participation? Good citizenship? Or are we looking to create educated individuals, the by-product of which may include securing and perpetuating our freedoms? What do you think our values should be? If you aren't there, our district values will be left up to those who are.
*About half of the State School Board members are up for election this November. The State School Board appoints the State Superintendent who oversees the entire USOE. (Here is a map for the State School Board districts.) I would encourage you to find out who is running, and vett them.
P.S. Special Thanks to Zaner-Bloser's "Voices" series for instruction on using emotional words.
Imagine your daughter comes home from school. She presents you with an essay on a political topic she is, all of a sudden, very passionate about. Her essay makes you angry and afraid. She deliberately projects the worst that could happen with this particular situation. And finally, she wants you to join her cause.
...Now imagine she's six years old.
Too far-fetched? Read on.
One of the big issues for parents has to do with textbooks. Which textbooks are used? Can they bring them home? I have been told we want to allow our teachers to use whatever materials and resources they need to accomplish their objectives. However, parents want to know what their kids are learning and have some idea of what is being taught. How do parents stay involved in that process? Should the local school board have oversight in this regard? Or should it be left to the individual teachers? Should teachers provide a syllabus and a list of materials for parents? Should parents even want to know, as long as the kids are doing well and meeting the objectives?
And just what are some of those objectives?
At a Utah School Boards' Association meeting last January, the President of the National School Boards' Association gave the keynote address. She concluded her speech with the idea that if public schools ceased to exist, we would lose our democracy.
At a recent Governor's Education Summit, it was reported that while it is important for us to educate our students for employment, it is also important they know how to treat people in society and act "civilly".
The State Board of Education says, "Utah's public education system is created in the state Constitution to 'secure and perpetuate' freedom."
Alpine School District's first value statement is, "To prepare our students for responsible participation in a democracy."
Currently, the emphasis of public education seems to be more on perpetuation of our democracy/way of life/democratic republic/[insert your preferred description here] than on the 3 R's. Nationally, as I read publications, teachers are being told their role is to make sure their students become good citizens. Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic take a back seat to participatory democracy.
"So what?" you say. "Who can argue against good citizenship?" I would submit that while securing and perpetuating freedom are very good and noble goals (ones I whole-heartedly support), good citizenship (however defined) is not the sole purpose or even the primary purpose of education, public or otherwise. When you make good citizenship the primary objective, you remove the focus from the individual child. The child becomes a cog in the wheel of the larger society. At one point, education was about providing skills for discerning truth from error; classical education was about creating an educated individual without any other expectation. Citizenship and public involvement were the by-products instead of the objectives. Public involvement was also reserved for adults, not children. Furthermore, depending on who determines what "good citizenship" looks like, you could be opening a big can of worms.
That brings us back to the original questions: how do we know what our kids are being taught, and how involved should parents be in following along?
The Utah State Office of Education has an Instructional Materials Database. A committee, made up of educators from the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) along with appointed citizens, reviews materials and makes recommendations. The official purpose of the Instructional Materials Committee is to determine how closely materials align with the Utah Core standards for a given grade and subject. Recommended materials may be used without reservation for that grade/subject. Recommended Limited materials may be used in the classroom but require supplementation. So, someone is watching over us and determining what our kids should learn. No need for us to be concerned, right?
Let's take a look at a few examples.
MATH
In our district, it's safe to say the majority of parents want a more traditional approach to math. Since implementing Common Core, we have been trying to find textbooks that would appeal to our parents. Unfortunately, we couldn't find any Common Core integrated math textbooks for Grade 9. Only one other Common Core state adopted the integrated math approach besides Utah. The other 45 states still teach Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, etc. Obviously, the textbook publishers didn't have a market for the integrated textbooks. Alpine's ninth-grade teachers are having to use whatever they have and put things together on their own. (As a side note, a parent at a School Community Council asked what the approval process was for teacher-developed materials. There is no formal process.)
One integrated textbook the State's Review Committee recommends is the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). This math book doesn't have any examples, but does have a political agenda. The introduction says this program is appreciated for the "communication skills...developed....The ability to persuade people and to effectively argue ideas has proved priceless...in personal, academic, and professional situations." This is a math book, remember.
Here is a link to the IMP evaluation from the Materials Review Committee. "Lessons consist of single-page individual or group tasks without traditional mathematical instruction or explanations. Mathematics is learned through the culture and practice that is developed within the classroom as students work on the various tasks.[emphasis mine]" This is an approved textbook.
By contrast, Saxon Math, considered a traditional math text, didn't have an integrated approach available yet. Even so, a pre-Common Core review of Saxon was considered "Recommended Limited" by the Materials Review Committee. "While we found much of the content of the Utah State Core in Saxon Math, the philosophy in how children best learn math differs greatly. The following skills and pedagogy were considered by the review committee...Problem solving is more teacher-driven. It does not encourage students to develop their own ideas. Lessons in problem solving are very superficial. Students are told how to solve each problem. [emphasis mine]"
The more traditional approach is marginally recommended, not because of WHAT is taught. The problem is HOW it is taught. So, the review committee reviews for content but can also "blacklist" a teaching philosophy most parents prefer for their kids. In short, if a math book shows kids how to solve problems and doesn't force them to develop those solutions on their own, the State Office of Education doesn't think it should be used to teach math.
Rather than the Materials Committee being a resource to the districts, it has an obvious philosophy and an agenda. Should local schools and their constituents wish to pursue a method of math instruction varying from the preferred philosphy of the USOE, they are hindered in their ability to do so, even IF the content matches the state standards. Remember this, when you hear how Common Core is "just standards, not curriculum".
LANGUAGE ARTS TEXTBOOKS
Language Arts is even more subjective and values-laden than math. And, it, apparently, is a great opportunity for encouraging responsible participation in a democracy. Here's an example.
The Zaner-Bloser Voices First Grade Langauge Arts series is Recommended Limited for elementary reading but Recommended Primary for Character Education. You can see the official review here. (All emphasis below is mine.)
- Six- and seven-year-olds are taught to deliberately make their parents "upset or angry". This is done in order to get parents to participate in specific social or political activism. "Say: We're going to write a letter to parents about our problem. We need parents to understand our problem, so we're going to use words that make them feel how important it is to help us. Write anger, fear, and joy." Say: Now remember...this is for your parents...Guide discussion, as needed, to the idea that parents might be upset or angry [i.e. it will be a good thing to get your parnets upset or angry for your cause]." (Assessment Handbook, pp. 38)
- An exercise about using "emotional words" teaches children the phrase "my mom always 'nags' me to clean my room" is better than "my mom always 'asks' me to clean my room."
- The materials teach First Grade children to deliberately exaggerate or distort reality in order to stir up emotion and action in others. "By stating the worst that could happen, the writer appeals to the readers' feelings of anger." (Good Neighbors, pp.T79)
- "The purpose of the book is for students [ages 6-7] to use their voices to advocate solutions to social problems that they care deeply about. They are engaged in learning...social advocacy." (Good Neighbors, pp. T1)
This series also comes with a selection of Informational Text readers (instead of literature--Thank You, Common Core). These readers include a lot of emotional words to inspire the children to action. The books in the series include a political agenda and encourage activism. One book from probably a Fifth- or Sixth-Grade series is The Highlander Center. Not only is there an entire book on this center, it is then referenced in another book called Education for All. By way of information, from Wikipedia: "Current focuses of Highlander include issues of democratic participation and economic justice, with a particular focus on youth, immigrants to the U.S. from Latin America, African Americans, LGBT, and poor white people." Nope. No agenda here, right?
MVVG and You
In our school district, we have our Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals (MVVG). Our website says they "guide the focus and priorities of the Board..." The Goals were determined by a very-involved community process several years ago. The Mission, Vision, and Values were adopted and promoted, over several years, by our district administration. Remember our first value: To prepare our students for reponsible participation in a democracy. Given this value, the recommendation by the State Office's Review Committee for character education, and all the rest, is it any wonder that a good and decent teacher might feel this reading package is exactly what everyone wants their children taught in First Grade? And if parents are not happy with this, who should they blame? the teacher? the district? the *State Board? the Governor?
As we are laying blame, we should first take a look in the mirror. This Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm at Timpanogos High School, our board will be reviewing our district value statements. Is the primary purpose of education democratic participation? Good citizenship? Or are we looking to create educated individuals, the by-product of which may include securing and perpetuating our freedoms? What do you think our values should be? If you aren't there, our district values will be left up to those who are.
*About half of the State School Board members are up for election this November. The State School Board appoints the State Superintendent who oversees the entire USOE. (Here is a map for the State School Board districts.) I would encourage you to find out who is running, and vett them.
P.S. Special Thanks to Zaner-Bloser's "Voices" series for instruction on using emotional words.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Sunday Competition and other items
In September, we've had two board meetings. In summary, this blog will touch on these issues:
Sunday Competition
Community Input Meetings: We NEED YOU!
RDAs (Redevelopment Plans): Your Tax Dollars at Work
Audio for Sept. 11, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1223
Audio for Sept. 25, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1245
Sunday Competition
The most recent issue was an inquiry into a "new policy" forbidding Sunday competitions in the district. The short answer is the Board has no policy (new or old) regarding Sunday competitions. In the past, some teams have asked students to commit to competing on Sundays, should they rise to a national level of competition. Our administration has recently reiterated that this practice is not allowed. Because of some of the requirements at national competitions, the lack of participation by one or more of the team would disqualify the entire team. Coaches and principals have been asked to work together with parents and students to find options for this Catch-22 situation. By way of information, individual schools, as long as sufficient public input has been sought, can establish a practice of forbidding school competitions on Sundays. This is what Lone Peak has done, but it has been done at a school, not a district, level.
PTA/SCC Meetings: ACTION ITEM!!!
We hear a lot about government being by "We, the People". Well, this is your chance to have a direct impact on your school district! District administrators (and, when feasible, board members) will be at combined School Community Council/PTA meetings for the next 4 weeks or so. These meetings are open to the public, and every school will host one. You can attend any one that you choose, even if you don't have kids in the school. They will be addressing Common Core, our Mission Vision Values and Goals (MVVG), and any other issue you would like to discuss. I would recommend you attend and share your thoughts and observations. This is your opportunity to give direct input on the things that are important to you in our schools. Bring a friend with you. Here is a partial list:
Oct 3:
10:00 am Westfield
1:30 pm Mountain Ridge
Oct 4:
9:30 am Alpine
Oct 10:
1:00 pm Lone Peak
Oct 16:
3:40 pm Highland
Oct 17:
9:30 am Cedar Ridge
Oct 18:
1:00 pm Ridgeline
1:30 pm Timberline
Oct 23:
3:45 pm Deerfield
Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs: Your Tax Dollars at Work)
Many of you remember the Vineyard Redevelopment from last year. For more detailed information, please go here. As a quick refresher, RDAs are an arrangement where a portion of the additional taxes that will be coming to the district (and other agencies) from increased property values on a development are not collected by the district for a set period of time, but returned to the developer for aid to move more quickly. The thinking is that, over time and with the tax incentives, additional businesses will come and the development will progress more rapidly. The end goal is to increase the overall tax base faster than would have otherwise happened. The district has several criteria used to determine whether or not an RDA is something to consider. It's important to remain consistent with each entity asking for this type of tax-incentive/deferral. The district has the opportunity to participate in two additional RDAs, currently.
The first one is with Eagle Mountain City and is called an Economic Development Agency (EDA). As far as I can tell, this one requires our participation by state law. It will help develop infrastructure in Eagle Mountain City so a business park can be established and the anchor client can begin operations. The advantage to this agreement is a cap on the amount of tax dollars to be reinvested, as well as the time commitment. So, if the tax dollars allocated are spent prior to the 20-year time frame, the district (and the other taxing agencies) start receiving 100% of their tax dollars at that time. The Board's overall feeling is they want to help Eagle Mountain City with their infrastructure, and this seems to be a reasonable way to do so.
The second one is an optional situation where we are asked to return a portion of tax revenue for a business park located between Adobe and IM Flash. The appeal is for the higher tax base that comes with HighTech jobs. The question is whether or not those jobs would come anyway.
I thought, with Vineyard, this wasn't something that happened very often. I am finding this is really a fairly common occurrence. The question for you is what do you think of this kind of practice? At best, it is the way things are done, and brings additional jobs into our local community. At worst, it is crony capitalism--government giving incentives to select businesses for some pay-off down-the-road.
Additionally, the legislature changed the laws on RDAs this past session. It used to require 2/3 vote of the taxing entities to go forward with a plan. This put the district (with 2 votes) in a position to lobby the State Board's rep (1 vote) to block anything unfavorable to the school district. (In the case of Vineyard, the State Board rep voted AGAINST Alpine, as did Commissioner Larry Ellertson, increasing your taxes last year, but that's another story.) Now, with a simple majority, any taxing plan can be approved without buy-in from the district, even though our tax-incentive will comprise roughly 60% of the total. I find this change egregiously unfair, because it allows taxation without proper representation. The legislature makes changes to these rules, by my count, on almost an annual basis. This is something with great potential impact on all taxpayers, but it doesn't register on the average person's radar. It would be good to contact your legislators and ask that a proportional representation on these committees (called TECs: Taxing Entity Committees) be put into law, instead of one that allows everyone else to run roughshod over the school district. Also, the 2/3 majority seems like a better threshold for providing tax-incentives that will impact the local taxpayers.
I don't think this is the proper role of government--determining winners and losers. I am sympathetic to the argument that some of this helps to bring in new businesses and increase our tax base. However, a lower tax rate, treating all people and businesses the same, should accomplish the same goal. So, on the promise of a greater tax base, in say twenty years, our kids now will not reap the benefit of increased development that might have come anyway. Of course, all this requires a crystal ball, so it's anyone's guess whether the tax-dollar investment will be worth it. But, as stated in our Board Study Session, we are never presented a proposal where the district isn't supposed to get more money in the long run.
If you support RDAs, you need to let the local governments know, as well as the legislature. If you do not support them, you need to get involved in changing the laws at the state level, and lobbying your local government agencies to stop approving them. If a majority of the entities doesn't vote in favor of the RDA, it doesn't happen. But, how often does this become an election issue so our officials are held accountable? It hasn't been, but it should be.
Next blog: New Assessment/Accountability Requirements from the State/Feds, Differentiated Diplomas and State Textbook Reviews
Sunday Competition
Community Input Meetings: We NEED YOU!
RDAs (Redevelopment Plans): Your Tax Dollars at Work
Audio for Sept. 11, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1223
Audio for Sept. 25, 2012 located at the bottom of the page here: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1245
Sunday Competition
The most recent issue was an inquiry into a "new policy" forbidding Sunday competitions in the district. The short answer is the Board has no policy (new or old) regarding Sunday competitions. In the past, some teams have asked students to commit to competing on Sundays, should they rise to a national level of competition. Our administration has recently reiterated that this practice is not allowed. Because of some of the requirements at national competitions, the lack of participation by one or more of the team would disqualify the entire team. Coaches and principals have been asked to work together with parents and students to find options for this Catch-22 situation. By way of information, individual schools, as long as sufficient public input has been sought, can establish a practice of forbidding school competitions on Sundays. This is what Lone Peak has done, but it has been done at a school, not a district, level.
PTA/SCC Meetings: ACTION ITEM!!!
We hear a lot about government being by "We, the People". Well, this is your chance to have a direct impact on your school district! District administrators (and, when feasible, board members) will be at combined School Community Council/PTA meetings for the next 4 weeks or so. These meetings are open to the public, and every school will host one. You can attend any one that you choose, even if you don't have kids in the school. They will be addressing Common Core, our Mission Vision Values and Goals (MVVG), and any other issue you would like to discuss. I would recommend you attend and share your thoughts and observations. This is your opportunity to give direct input on the things that are important to you in our schools. Bring a friend with you. Here is a partial list:
Oct 3:
10:00 am Westfield
1:30 pm Mountain Ridge
Oct 4:
9:30 am Alpine
Oct 10:
1:00 pm Lone Peak
Oct 16:
3:40 pm Highland
Oct 17:
9:30 am Cedar Ridge
Oct 18:
1:00 pm Ridgeline
1:30 pm Timberline
Oct 23:
3:45 pm Deerfield
Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs: Your Tax Dollars at Work)
Many of you remember the Vineyard Redevelopment from last year. For more detailed information, please go here. As a quick refresher, RDAs are an arrangement where a portion of the additional taxes that will be coming to the district (and other agencies) from increased property values on a development are not collected by the district for a set period of time, but returned to the developer for aid to move more quickly. The thinking is that, over time and with the tax incentives, additional businesses will come and the development will progress more rapidly. The end goal is to increase the overall tax base faster than would have otherwise happened. The district has several criteria used to determine whether or not an RDA is something to consider. It's important to remain consistent with each entity asking for this type of tax-incentive/deferral. The district has the opportunity to participate in two additional RDAs, currently.
The first one is with Eagle Mountain City and is called an Economic Development Agency (EDA). As far as I can tell, this one requires our participation by state law. It will help develop infrastructure in Eagle Mountain City so a business park can be established and the anchor client can begin operations. The advantage to this agreement is a cap on the amount of tax dollars to be reinvested, as well as the time commitment. So, if the tax dollars allocated are spent prior to the 20-year time frame, the district (and the other taxing agencies) start receiving 100% of their tax dollars at that time. The Board's overall feeling is they want to help Eagle Mountain City with their infrastructure, and this seems to be a reasonable way to do so.
The second one is an optional situation where we are asked to return a portion of tax revenue for a business park located between Adobe and IM Flash. The appeal is for the higher tax base that comes with HighTech jobs. The question is whether or not those jobs would come anyway.
I thought, with Vineyard, this wasn't something that happened very often. I am finding this is really a fairly common occurrence. The question for you is what do you think of this kind of practice? At best, it is the way things are done, and brings additional jobs into our local community. At worst, it is crony capitalism--government giving incentives to select businesses for some pay-off down-the-road.
Additionally, the legislature changed the laws on RDAs this past session. It used to require 2/3 vote of the taxing entities to go forward with a plan. This put the district (with 2 votes) in a position to lobby the State Board's rep (1 vote) to block anything unfavorable to the school district. (In the case of Vineyard, the State Board rep voted AGAINST Alpine, as did Commissioner Larry Ellertson, increasing your taxes last year, but that's another story.) Now, with a simple majority, any taxing plan can be approved without buy-in from the district, even though our tax-incentive will comprise roughly 60% of the total. I find this change egregiously unfair, because it allows taxation without proper representation. The legislature makes changes to these rules, by my count, on almost an annual basis. This is something with great potential impact on all taxpayers, but it doesn't register on the average person's radar. It would be good to contact your legislators and ask that a proportional representation on these committees (called TECs: Taxing Entity Committees) be put into law, instead of one that allows everyone else to run roughshod over the school district. Also, the 2/3 majority seems like a better threshold for providing tax-incentives that will impact the local taxpayers.
I don't think this is the proper role of government--determining winners and losers. I am sympathetic to the argument that some of this helps to bring in new businesses and increase our tax base. However, a lower tax rate, treating all people and businesses the same, should accomplish the same goal. So, on the promise of a greater tax base, in say twenty years, our kids now will not reap the benefit of increased development that might have come anyway. Of course, all this requires a crystal ball, so it's anyone's guess whether the tax-dollar investment will be worth it. But, as stated in our Board Study Session, we are never presented a proposal where the district isn't supposed to get more money in the long run.
If you support RDAs, you need to let the local governments know, as well as the legislature. If you do not support them, you need to get involved in changing the laws at the state level, and lobbying your local government agencies to stop approving them. If a majority of the entities doesn't vote in favor of the RDA, it doesn't happen. But, how often does this become an election issue so our officials are held accountable? It hasn't been, but it should be.
Next blog: New Assessment/Accountability Requirements from the State/Feds, Differentiated Diplomas and State Textbook Reviews
Thursday, August 2, 2012
SBAC: Adoption process...my letter
Dear State Board Members:
I want to start out by thanking you for your hours of
service and for taking the time to read this letter. You have received many communications about
Common Core, and although this letter will touch on that, my overriding concern
is with process and not with specifics.
I have to admit that this letter is written as a criticism, but not of
any individuals. Please accept it in the
spirit it is written, as working to improve our governing process.
I have attached two documents: 1.) the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Utah and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC), and 2.) the Cooperative Agreement between SBAC and the US Dept of Ed. (If you can’t download the attachments, you
can find them here:
https://keepeducationlocal.com/~keepeduc/export/documents/sbac_mou.pdf and
here: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf.)
I hope you have read both of these agreements, and if not, please do so. As you may know, both a retired appellate
judge and the Sutherland Institute have determined these agreements directly
lock the State of Utah into Common Core standards and testing arrangements
overseen by the Federal Government, above what we already have via ESEA,
etc.
Additionally, in reading the minutes from your meetings from
Jan. 2010 – Jun. 2010, I understand that the MOU was never presented to the
board for a discussion, a review or a vote, and it was never reviewed, at least
publicly, by legal counsel. In June,
2010, State Board President Roberts indicated to the Board that she had signed
the application for membership in SBAC.
There was no indication she believed that application (which was in
reality the MOU) to be a legally-binding contract. From discussions with USOE staff and various
board members, I was continually assured there was no Federal involvement and
our agreement was just an MOU, nothing legally binding. However, in addition to requiring US Dept of
Ed approval in order to exit the consortium (MOU) and full implementation of
the assessments (MOU), the Cooperative Agreement requires the consortium to
“Work with the Department [of Ed] to develop a strategy to make student-level
data…from the assessment system available on an on-going basis…(p.11)” There does seem to be quite a bit of Federal
involvement in the assessment piece of this equation.
I would submit that the people of Utah expect those in
elective office to have thoroughly vetted any and all contracts and
legally-binding agreements prior to those documents being enacted. We, the people, would have liked to have been
party to the discussion among several board members who may have found some of
the SBAC agreement to infringe on Utah’s State Sovereignty and the ability of
our teachers to teach beyond the tests that are funded by the Federal
Government. Would some of you have been
concerned with the data sharing outlined in the Cooperative Agreement between
SBAC and the Feds?
I know, as an elected official, the amount of information
and paperwork that comes to me at times is overwhelming. I know we hire good people on our staff, and
we trust them to do the job they were hired to do. I also know that the buck stops with me. So, anything that I agree to, whether I
looked into it or not, I am accountable to the people for.
By the same token, I know you have hired good people and you
trust them. However, when you agree to
sign onto something it must be read and reviewed, if you are to be accountable
to the people for that action. I am
asking you to review the process whereby a legally-binding document was signed
and executed without the full board’s vetting, review, and vote, and by
extension, without the public’s input.
We look to you to attend to the details and make the very best decisions
on our behalf. But, once those decisions
are made, it is up to you to be able to explain to us and to be accountable for
those actions. It appears, in the case
of the SBAC agreement, this did not occur.
It appears that too much was done under the flag of trust, without the
proper level of verification. People are
human and fallible. This is why we have the
different structures in government set up to check and balance each other. Please look into this process and work to
balance the trust with the verification.
Sincerely,
Wendy K. Hart
Mother and Utah Citizen
Board Member, Alpine School District
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Common Core: When Does Voluntary Become Involuntary?
(This is sixth in the series. Click to read the other posts on Common Core: Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.)
If Utah is committed to a legally-binding agreement, should those elected officials who made that agreement have read it? Should they have submitted it to legal counsel for a review? Should they have voted, in a public meeting, debating the merits of the contract PRIOR to having their representative sign it?
If so, you need to contact ALL the members of the State Board of Education BEFORE Friday, Aug. 3. Here is a link to their email addresses. Read on for more information.
For fifteen months, since I found out about the Feds funding the Common Core tests (assessments), I have been very concerned with Common Core. To me, the lynch pin of the entire thing rests on the testing. Those of us who bring up the loss of local control and giving greater power to the Feds are always told something like: Common Core is voluntary. The Feds aren't involved. We can get out anytime we want. Since I started all my research on Common Core, some additional pieces of information/evidence have come to light. The most important piece of this evidence is the contract Utah has signed with the testing consortium, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
From the beginning of Common Core in 2009, the State Board and State Office of Ed (USOE) have been involved in a consortium of states writing the standards, and then deciding between the two testing consortia. Some of our USOE employees have been involved on committees and as consultants in these endeavors. In every instance I have found, there has been discussion about maintaining Utah's independence and sovereignty. However, this has been weighed against the desire to get additional funds, tests, not reinventing the wheel, etc. as Common Core has been rolled out across the nation. In my personal discussions with staff and State Board Members, they are consistently pointing to their desire to maintain Utah's independence, and I believe them. However, I have read other documents that indicate this independence has been compromised, and, it has been done without the direct consent and/or knowledge of our elected representatives.
In January, 2010, Utah applied to receive money from the 2009 stimulus package under the Federal Race to the Top program. We didn't qualify for the funds, so we submitted our application again for Phase 2 in June, 2010. We didn't receive any of those funds either. However, in the Phase 2 application, we replaced a non-binding agreement with SBAC with a legally-binding agreement* that was signed by the Governor, the State Superintendent, and the State Board President. This past April, State Board President Debra Roberts said the agreement was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. Other board members believe it is legally binding. Within that document, we agreed to several things. Some of those are:
1. Adopt Common Core standards for the state (p.3).
2. Implement the full complement of SBAC tests by 2014-15 school year (p.3).
3. Determine and work to change any state laws that would prevent the use of the SBAC tests or any other part of our agreement (p.3).
4. Abide by the governance and agreements of SBAC (p.3).
5. To exit SBAC, receive approval of our request from the US Department of Education (p.12).
Additionally, SBAC, upon receiving $159 million from the Federal government, signed a Cooperative Agreement that commits SBAC (and its members) to an on-going relationship with the Feds for testing development and reporting student data. Because of our involvement with SBAC, we are equally constrained by this agreement with the Feds. So, even though Utah never signed or agreed to anything from the Feds, our agreement with SBAC does so on our behalf.
A retired appellate court judge, Norman Jackson, reviewed these documents at the request of some parents. He concluded that the US Dept of Ed does not have to grant any state's request to exit the consortium. He also stated that the agreements legally bind Utah to implementing the testing and the standards, as dictated by the Federal Government.
In no board meeting minutes is there evidence that the actual SBAC agreement was discussed or legal issues raised. No vote, no contractual review, just general info on SBAC. Based on this lack of information in the minutes, the Board was not aware of the implications of this agreement. In short, it appears that many of the State Board Members had not read this contract prior to its signing, and may not have even known of its existence, until concerned citizens found it.
Having said that, some of these members want to exit SBAC completely. A vote to withdraw from SBAC was taken in Feb., 2012, and failed 4 -10. On Aug. 3, the board is scheduled to vote again on our association with SBAC. I would like to encourage you to encourage them to withdraw completely from this association. While the Board's desire to withdraw will trigger a letter to SBAC, our formal withdrawl will be contingent on approval from the US Dept of Ed. I assume that just prior to an election, there would not be any reason for the Dept of Ed to hold Utah to an agreement it wishes to exit. After November, I would be less certain. In short, we voluntarily entered a prison of our own (and other states') making. How easy will it be to withdraw? Much more so, if we show our support to our State Board members who are willing to exit this agreement with SBAC, and, by association, the Feds. Please ask them to review the two contracts (Utah and SBAC and SBAC and the Feds), and to commit to voting to get out of that agreement.
*The Race to the Top application on the US Dept of Ed website is the only place I have found a copy of the SBAC agreement (although I requested it from the USOE in November, 2011). It can be found on pages 286-302 of a nearly 500-page application. The 500-page application is too large to email. The Keep Education Local site just pulled those 17 pages from the RTTT application obtained from the US Dept of Ed site. I have linked to both sites, so you can see them for yourself.
If Utah is committed to a legally-binding agreement, should those elected officials who made that agreement have read it? Should they have submitted it to legal counsel for a review? Should they have voted, in a public meeting, debating the merits of the contract PRIOR to having their representative sign it?
If so, you need to contact ALL the members of the State Board of Education BEFORE Friday, Aug. 3. Here is a link to their email addresses. Read on for more information.
For fifteen months, since I found out about the Feds funding the Common Core tests (assessments), I have been very concerned with Common Core. To me, the lynch pin of the entire thing rests on the testing. Those of us who bring up the loss of local control and giving greater power to the Feds are always told something like: Common Core is voluntary. The Feds aren't involved. We can get out anytime we want. Since I started all my research on Common Core, some additional pieces of information/evidence have come to light. The most important piece of this evidence is the contract Utah has signed with the testing consortium, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
From the beginning of Common Core in 2009, the State Board and State Office of Ed (USOE) have been involved in a consortium of states writing the standards, and then deciding between the two testing consortia. Some of our USOE employees have been involved on committees and as consultants in these endeavors. In every instance I have found, there has been discussion about maintaining Utah's independence and sovereignty. However, this has been weighed against the desire to get additional funds, tests, not reinventing the wheel, etc. as Common Core has been rolled out across the nation. In my personal discussions with staff and State Board Members, they are consistently pointing to their desire to maintain Utah's independence, and I believe them. However, I have read other documents that indicate this independence has been compromised, and, it has been done without the direct consent and/or knowledge of our elected representatives.
In January, 2010, Utah applied to receive money from the 2009 stimulus package under the Federal Race to the Top program. We didn't qualify for the funds, so we submitted our application again for Phase 2 in June, 2010. We didn't receive any of those funds either. However, in the Phase 2 application, we replaced a non-binding agreement with SBAC with a legally-binding agreement* that was signed by the Governor, the State Superintendent, and the State Board President. This past April, State Board President Debra Roberts said the agreement was not legally binding because the board never voted on it. Other board members believe it is legally binding. Within that document, we agreed to several things. Some of those are:
1. Adopt Common Core standards for the state (p.3).
2. Implement the full complement of SBAC tests by 2014-15 school year (p.3).
3. Determine and work to change any state laws that would prevent the use of the SBAC tests or any other part of our agreement (p.3).
4. Abide by the governance and agreements of SBAC (p.3).
5. To exit SBAC, receive approval of our request from the US Department of Education (p.12).
Additionally, SBAC, upon receiving $159 million from the Federal government, signed a Cooperative Agreement that commits SBAC (and its members) to an on-going relationship with the Feds for testing development and reporting student data. Because of our involvement with SBAC, we are equally constrained by this agreement with the Feds. So, even though Utah never signed or agreed to anything from the Feds, our agreement with SBAC does so on our behalf.
A retired appellate court judge, Norman Jackson, reviewed these documents at the request of some parents. He concluded that the US Dept of Ed does not have to grant any state's request to exit the consortium. He also stated that the agreements legally bind Utah to implementing the testing and the standards, as dictated by the Federal Government.
In no board meeting minutes is there evidence that the actual SBAC agreement was discussed or legal issues raised. No vote, no contractual review, just general info on SBAC. Based on this lack of information in the minutes, the Board was not aware of the implications of this agreement. In short, it appears that many of the State Board Members had not read this contract prior to its signing, and may not have even known of its existence, until concerned citizens found it.
Having said that, some of these members want to exit SBAC completely. A vote to withdraw from SBAC was taken in Feb., 2012, and failed 4 -10. On Aug. 3, the board is scheduled to vote again on our association with SBAC. I would like to encourage you to encourage them to withdraw completely from this association. While the Board's desire to withdraw will trigger a letter to SBAC, our formal withdrawl will be contingent on approval from the US Dept of Ed. I assume that just prior to an election, there would not be any reason for the Dept of Ed to hold Utah to an agreement it wishes to exit. After November, I would be less certain. In short, we voluntarily entered a prison of our own (and other states') making. How easy will it be to withdraw? Much more so, if we show our support to our State Board members who are willing to exit this agreement with SBAC, and, by association, the Feds. Please ask them to review the two contracts (Utah and SBAC and SBAC and the Feds), and to commit to voting to get out of that agreement.
*The Race to the Top application on the US Dept of Ed website is the only place I have found a copy of the SBAC agreement (although I requested it from the USOE in November, 2011). It can be found on pages 286-302 of a nearly 500-page application. The 500-page application is too large to email. The Keep Education Local site just pulled those 17 pages from the RTTT application obtained from the US Dept of Ed site. I have linked to both sites, so you can see them for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)