A $75,000 Party and the "Minority Voice": What this Election Really Means

Should $75,000 of your tax dollars be used for a 100-year birthday party for the school district?

Should $41,999 of your tax dollars be used to pay for dues for the school board and the superintendent?

Should board members tell you where they stood on these issues and the rationale behind them, EVEN IF they didn't agree with the majority?

Please watch this 5 minute video from one of our debates on the issue of HB250, a new law that requires boards to be accountable to their constituents, regardless of their obligations to their board. Then share it with your friends and neighbors. http://www.wendyhart4asd.com/video-hb-250-will-of-the-board-vs-will-of-the-people.html

To see what the video demonstrates, let's go back to the last board meeting, June 17, 2014.  The board approved spending $75,000 for our school district's 100th-year birthday party.  $75,000 would pay for one teacher and benefits.  This is a good example of the 'fine-tuning' that I think needs to be done with our budget.  It is also an example of how the 'minority voice' is currently represented, but won't be, depending on the outcome of this election. 

Let me explain. There are two schools of thought when it comes to the role of local school boards. (Yes, pun intended.)

"We Hire Good People and We Trust Them"
The first idea is that people in education are good people, so we don't really need oversight.  Yes, the school district is funded with tax dollars, but somehow, education is outside the norm.  School districts really just need boards who will go along and be supportive of everything that comes from either the district administration, or, more likely, the Utah State Office of Education (USOE).  The decision really isn't about any individual thing, so much as it is about whether or not there are good people at the USOE and in our district office.  Once you know they are good people, that's all that needs to be determined.  Then, it falls to the board to fund and to be supportive.  This way, all is well in Utah County.

"Trust, but Verify"

The second idea is that taxpayer money requires oversight.  It makes no value judgement on the quality of the people in our district or at the USOE.  It says only that the functions of government are to be overseen and verified by elected representatives.  As such, those representatives MUST be able to speak their mind, and to share their opinions, whether the rest of the board agrees or not.  As my esteemed colleague, Paula Hill said, "I didn't leave my First Amendment Rights at the door when I was elected. In fact, my election requires me more so to say what I believe." (To listen to the audio, select the link, download the first audio file.  Start at 1 hour,16 minutes.)

This is the fundamental difference that will be determined by this election.  Should school board members go along with the direction of the district, even if they believe that direction to be wrong?  Or should they be able to communicate their opposition to you, the voters and parents?  Is education a different sort of animal, in that the standard debate, discussion, and differences of opinion are not to exist?  I say, "No."  But in the 19 years prior to my tenure on the board, there was never a single "Nay" vote on the budget.  In fact, I was told I shouldn't vote no on a budget, or let you know if I did vote no on anything else.

Back to Tuesday.  I asked that we move the $75,000 for the party, $41,999 that you are paying for the board's and the superintendent's association dues (Utah School Boards Association, National School Boards Association, etc), as well as $25,000 that we pay for the BYU-Public School Partnership dues into the line items for Instruction, either teachers or aides, and their associated benefits.  Whether you agree with the use of those funds or not, you need to understand that I am not supposed to tell you about this now.  My substitute motion failed, and I am supposed to tell you that we are all very supportive of the 100-year celebration, as well as the use of your money toward our dues.  In fact, in all this time, you should not know of my opposition to anything, including Common Core.  If Common Core is an election issue for you, you would need to go back to the June, 2011 minutes to realize that I made a substitute motion to place funding for Common Core on hold until the board had had a chance to discuss it.  And that would be all you would know. 

Whatever else we may agree or disagree on, I hope you know that I believe that every, single elected representative, including those on a school board, should be open and honest with the people.  The Will of the Board or the Unity of the Board is not nearly as important as First Amendment rights and the responsibility I have to let you know where I stand on every single issue.  Every one.

Please vote tomorrow, June 24th, and bring two or three of your neighbors with you.

For Teachers Only

I met with the Alpine Education Association (AEA) last week.  I have appreciated their support and their collaboration with our district through some very difficult decisions.  I have been pleased to work with these very good people who serve in the AEA.

The biggest concern of the AEA was that teachers feel frustrated by my vocal, but honest, opposition to Common Core.  As a teacher, you have to implement Common Core.  The district has to implement Common Core.  (I did support funding for new textbooks for Common Core.) The AEA stated it has to put out fires when teachers and parents have concerns.  They wished I wouldn't say anything about my opposition to the Common Core Reform Package.  It increases their workload to have to address the questions of parents and fellow teachers who hear my concerns, I think.  It would be better for the district leadership (including those of us on the board) to not voice our concerns about Common Core when it just has to be done. Additionally, they added that if one of you were to be vocal about your opposition to Common Core, it wouldn't bode well for you, professionally, and those in the family of Alpine District would view you differently.

This is precisely my point.  As an employee, perhaps you can't speak out, if you find things amiss.  It's your job; you have to do it.  It's the same with my job.  Sometimes, you have to just put a smile on your face and do what needs to be done, whether you agree with it or not.  I completely understand that.  Do I wish it weren't the case? Yes.  But I acknowledge the reality of it.  Elected officials, however, are elected for a reason.  We can't be fired or lose our job for speaking out, except at the hands of the voters.  If anyone is going to stand up for teachers against a program that isn't good, it must be the elected officials.  And every new change, program, or implementation that comes along really should be debated, discussed, and vetted all the way along the line, especially at the local level. 

Let's take something we probably agree on: teacher evaluations being tied to SAGE testing.  This is wrong.  I've said so.  I will continue to say so.  It, too, is state law.  We have to do it.  But it's horribly wrong.  Placing so much of a teacher's evaluation and thus, his/her livelihood, on a single (pilot) test is absolutely the worst use of a standardized test.   Like Common Core, should we just go along with it and be supportive?  I know you all will do the best you can, trying to not focus overly much on the test and still teach as professionals, but it's got to weigh you down.  The direction we are going is that once all education and all educators are evaluated on a single test, funding will follow.  It's nice and simple, but still wrong.  I can't sit by and be supportive.  I have to find a way to scream from the rooftops that this can't work, and that it gives way too much authority to the test makers over teachers, over local boards, over HOW standards are taught in the classroom.

Let me give you an example.  Several years ago, my son had a phenomenal teacher.  He LOVED class, loved her lessons, enjoyed nearly every moment.  He learned a lot and enjoyed it.  She even expressed appreciation that he had shushed the rest of the class one time because he wanted to learn what she had to teach.  Do you think I cared what he got on the CRT's that year?  Nope.  I don't think I even looked at them.  He had a wonderful year with a wonderful teacher.  That was worth more to me (and to him) than any standardized test score.  And I am afraid that, despite her best efforts, that love and that thrill of teaching will be reduced to making sure she can keep her job by getting higher test scores.  (Note: She was/is his favorite.  But he's had many, many others who were just as wonderful, just as dedicated, and just as appreciated.)  I don't choose and evaluate my kids' teachers by their test scores. 

So, back to Common Core.  It is top-down, which violates the principle of local control.  A little bit of local control isn't local control.  And just to be clear, my opposition isn't just with the standards. The Common Core standards come in a nice little package along with tying test scores to teacher evaluations, courtesy of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Waiver.  The other two parts of that package are 1) a longitudinal database on students and teachers and 2) "improving" low-performing schools (determined by the test scores and "improved" by shutting them down and bringing in private enterprises, and redistributing successful teachers to these "failing" schools).  The entire package is flawed, and it's flawed on principle.  You, as a teacher, need to be able to have the freedom to connect with your students--the freedom to do what you know is best, regardless of where the student falls on the 'testing' rubric.  The Common Core Standards are just one tree in that forest of standardizing everything: tests, schools, teachers, curriculum.  Already, there are calls to use the copyright of the Common Core standards to 'certify' curriculum.  And, in the end, if your wonderful lesson plan doesn't deliver the results on the test (even if it delivers the results you, your students, and your students' parents want), it won't be around for very much longer.

You got into teaching because you love kids, and you wanted to be able to affect their lives for the better through education. You have natural talents and professional training on how to make that human-to-human connection that makes teachers irreplaceable. We need more of the individual attention you provide. Common Core, with its associated numbers-driven, top-down, accountability to the state, not parents, can only take education in the wrong direction. The Common Core standards, and the rest of the NCLB Waiver package, will reduce teachers to standards-implementers, test-preppers, and data points. I realize this is your job, and you have to make the best of whatever is presented to you.  But that is why we have school boards and a political process.  It is my job to fight against policies that interfere with the parent-child-teacher partnership. I am happy to do this job. I hope you will understand that my opposition to Common Core and its "package" is to support you as the professional you are. Our community must stand strong and eliminate all obstacles that stand in the way of you doing your job and realizing the highest aspirations that originally brought you into education. You may not be able to do it, but I should.

Why I Opted My Kids Out of SAGE testing

The primary principle in education is that parents and teachers must be the ones in control of what a child learns in school.  As the child gets older, more of the responsibility transfers to him/her.  But, parents, teachers and students are the three-legged stool of education. The dependence on SAGE scores removes all three legs.

I have opted my kids out of the SAGE, end-of-the-year state tests.  Here are the reasons why.

• Eliminates parental/local control
• Grading teachers and schools, based on a test is wrong
• I don't agree the test is assessing 'critical thinking'. 
• 'Fuzzy math' methods and answers are rewarded
• A pilot test: no validity or reliability
• I can't verify the test is actually testing anything I want; going on faith
• No data privacy guarantees
• Individual stress levels for a child

If you want more information on each of these bullet points, read on.

Tying teacher and school grades to SAGE scores eliminates local and parental control of education.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the use of the SAGE scores for teacher and school grading eliminates any other measurement of success.  For example, let's assume you are someone who wants a lot of focus on traditional math methods and standard algorithms.  As such, you request a teacher who you know has a very traditional leaning.  Since the Common Core standards are requiring, not just the traditional algorithms and math facts, but "how" you got to the answer and "communication" about math, a teacher who doesn't focus on these additional methods will probably have kids who score lower on the SAGE test.  The fact that you may want exactly what this teacher is providing is irrelevant.  Others have determined what this teacher must teach in order to be 'successful'.  A teacher who uses, as one educator calls it, the "closed-door veto" (a teacher who closes their door and does what parents want in spite of what they were told), will be subject to penalties for their test scores.  What used to work with facts, will no longer work with specific "processes" required by the tests.  The importance of what is taught and tested is being dictated to us at the state-level.  Parents will, eventually, have no choice over what their kids learn in any public school setting.  Tying teacher and school grading to the tests replaces accountability to parents and teacher individuality.  How to make kids get good scores on the SAGE test is the most important thing--the job of the teacher now, wrongly, depends on it.  Everyone is in favor of accountability.  But accountability to whom?  AIR and the USOE, but not parents.

Grading teachers and schools this way is wrong
There are so many factors that go into teaching and learning and testing.  To evaluate a teacher or a school based on how my child takes a test is wrong.  To elevate the importance of a test over the 180 days the teacher spends with my child is offensive.  The grades my child earns from his teachers indicate, much more, how my child is performing and learning than a single test.  We are trying to create a science out of what really should be an art.  Additionally, what teacher will want to teach the "more difficult" students or those with special needs who don't qualify for an alternate assessment?  If your job is linked to how your students do on the test, why would you teach special ed?   Is education just about how well you can contribute to society?  Or is education about the improvement of the individual?  This model is horribly wrong.   

"Critical Thinking" questions aren't
As I have gone through the sample questions, and seen the examples presented, I am not convinced the 'critical thinking' questions actually test critical thinking.  Instead of testing a division fact: 12/4 = ?, we ask students to take stars and put 12 stars into 4 boxes, showing there are 3 in each box.  Then, we provide the division symbol (the hardest part of a word problem--which operation am I using), and the students fill in the numbers.  To me, this is a counting problem, and a convoluted one, at that.  Just because a question is complicated or written out as words doesn't necessarily mean it is testing critical thinking.  It may just be convoluted and confusing.

Math questions are not testing math, but communication, and fuzzy math processes
The two examples given, so far, show that if a child knows basic math, it may not be important.  However, they need to know "the process" or how to "communicate" about math.  (Is it critical thinking about math?  I don't think so.  You may disagree.)  If a child doesn't complete the star problem, is it because he can't read or is it because he can't do division or is it because it took so many steps to get the answer, he gave up?  We don't know.  What about a child who speaks English as a Second Language or who has a disability?  It isn't uncommon for a child who might struggle with English to be very capable in math.  Are we testing their math skills or their communication skills?  Do we know? I'm opposed to 'fuzzy math', and I don't want to provide any legitimacy to a test that rewards fuzzy math methodology.  In it's bid to test 'critical thinking', we have moved from fact-based assessment, to communication and process.  And that means, SAGE skews the questions in favor of a fuzzy math methodology. 

No validity or reliability: This is a Pilot Test
SAGE is being piloted this year by the entire state's public school students.  The parent panel flagged about 500 questions, most of which were left in the test to see how they worked out.  Our children are being used as Guinea Pigs and free Quality Control Testers for the SAGE test.  Why should I have any confidence in the result? (While this article talks about the PARCC and SBAC tests, not SAGE, the process and the conclusion are the same: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/27/march-madness-millions-of-kids-being-used-as-common-core-testing-guinea-pigs/)

I can't see the test questions
Associated with the validity or reliability, we are trusting the people at the State Office of Ed (USOE), AIR, and the parent panel to make sure the questions our children are being asked are not problematic and  they are actually testing what we want tested.  Perhaps they are not blatantly objectionable, but if they are testing division by counting stars, I'm not impressed.

Data Privacy
I have no say over how, when, or with whom my kid's information will be used.  It might be okay.  It might not.  It might be okay right now.  In five years, will it still be okay?

Our contract with AIR, references FERPA (the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act) when it comes to data privacy.  AIR also says they will comply with other state and federal laws (not sure what those are, if they exist).  FERPA is the only standard that is used to protect individual student records.  (It isn't the "Gold standard", but it was, at least something.)  In 2012, the US Dept of Ed, changed FERPA.  FERPA used to require parental consent for the use of student information.  Now, it is optional, and pretty much anyone can use or share personal student data with any other entity without parental knowledge or consent.  In short, the reference to FERPA provides no guarantees on what will or will not be done with my child's data.

Originally, our contract with AIR didn't contain any language preventing the sharing of student information with a third-party.  Fortunately, AIR signed an addendum to their agreement, stating they wouldn't share personal student data with a third-party without the USOE's permission.  (But the USOE isn't me.  So, I am still concerned and dependent on trusting the USOE.  If they are offered enough money, will they? Others have.)  Still, as a research organization, there isn't anything in their contract to prevent AIR from collecting and using any information passing through it's servers (including our students' responses to writing questions, personally-identifiable information, etc) for its own internal research.  They have provided a letter indicating the contract precludes this, as well as prohibits using behavioral indicators.  I have yet to find those references in the contract.  State Law does allow the use of "behavioral indicators" on end-of-the-year tests.
In conclusion, AIR is not prevented by state law or their contract from using behavioral indicators.  They are not prevented by state law or their contract from using our students' data for their own internal purposes, including research.  They are, currently, prohibited from sharing any personal data with a third-party, unless the USOE allows this in the future.  They have sent a letter stating they will not collect behavioral data.  I hope they will be true to what they promised.  I have no legal guarantee. 

Stress
The final issue is the amount of stress and concern this places on some children.  The first time I opted my elementary school child out of end-of-the-year testing, the response was one of overwhelming relief.  Even though the results of the tests would not have had an impact on the overall grade in the class, the amount of emphasis and preparation reminded me of studying for the MCAT.  A post-graduate test like the GRE, LSAT, or MCAT is one thing, but stress over a test in elementary school?  It's not worth it to me to find out my child's supposed "proficiency".  As I said before, the time spent with the teacher and the teacher's evaluation are infinitely more beneficial to me and to my child. 


In the end, I have to take everything about this test on faith.  My children, their teachers, and their schools will be evaluated by a brand new test over which I have no control.  I must have faith in the USOE and AIR.

• Faith the test questions accurately assess the stated performance
• Faith that the results are reliable for assessing the quality of my child's teacher and school
• Faith that the USOE and AIR will protect personal information on my child

Faith, faith, faith. Instead of faith, I am looking for concrete information, black and white prohibitions, an actual validity and reliability study (which can't be done without a lot of student data).  I refuse to abdicate my parental responsibilities over my children's education.  I refuse to allow my children to be used as Guinea Pigs.  And I refuse to be complicit in grading our teachers with an unknown, untested evaluation tool.

SAGE tests: Will My Kid be Labeled 'Non-Proficient?'

The new state, end-of-the-year tests, called SAGE are starting in a week.  Parents have a lot of questions and concerns, and many parents want to opt their kids out.  "Can you opt your kid out?"  (Answer: Yes. For the opt out form from Alpine School District, click here.)

The biggest concern is: Will my kids be marked non-proficient, if they don't take the test?

Answer:
Parents have a legal right to opt their kids out of taking the SAGE tests.  The State Office of Education doesn't want you to do this.  What they can do is coerce you into compliance by punishing your teachers and your schools (teacher and school grades are, wrongly, still affected), and threatening your student with a 'non-proficient status'.  But, what does a 'non-proficient status' mean?

Alpine School District will REMOVE the non-proficient score for students who are opted out!

The data Alpine School District receives back from the state, after the testing, will note that your student refused to test and the score on the SAGE tests will be a 1 (non-proficient) out of 4.  David Smith, Director of Research & Evaluation, indicated our district has been stripping this non-proficient score out of all the data for those students who opt out of testing. This is done before it goes into Alpine's computer system, Skyward.  (My kids have opted out the past two years and have nothing on their records for any of those tests.  The tests, themselves, aren't even listed.)  On March 11, 2014, David Smith promised that he would continue to strip that non-proficient information out for opted out students*.  He asked me to remind him in the Fall, should this not occur. I promised I would.

Universities won't see this score.  Subsequent teachers won't see this score.  You and your kids will never see this score.  It will not be used to grade your kid.  So, while it was originally used to discourage teachers from having kids opt out of testing, it is now being used as a bullying tactic to force parents to comply with what the State Office of Education would like.

In contrast, Alpine School District recognizes a parents' fundamental right to direct their kids' eduction.  Our district also acknowledges that assigning a 'non-proficient' score to a child based on a test they didn't take is ludicrous and does nothing positive for the education of that child.  While, Alpine School District (but not all of its Board) encourages parents to have their kids take this test, the parents must make that decision, and we, as a district, respect and honor that right.**

If you are not in Alpine School District, talk to your school board and administrators.  Ask them to strip the non-proficient status for students who are opted out.  If your kid doesn't take the ACT, does the school still label them as a non-proficient on the ACT?

Then contact the State Board of Education (http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Board-Members.aspx), and ask them to change their grading system.  They should not mark students as non-proficient who opt out and then use that number to incorrectly calculate the teachers' and schools' grades. It might not hurt to copy your legislators in, as well.  It is not law that your student be marked non-proficient.  It is the rule the State Board of Education has provided to the districts.  They can change it if they want to.  Let's ask them!

UPDATE: SB122 is waiting for the governor's signature.  It will prevent the State Office from punishing teachers and schools for students who are opted out of statewide testing.  Please ask the governor to sign SB122 right away!

For more Frequently Asked Questions on SAGE, click here.


*http://board.alpineschools.org/march-11-2014-board-meeting/  Click to the bottom under 'Additional Media', and listen to the Study Session audio.  Start at 55 minutes.  The promise is at 59 minutes. "If I forget, will you call me? I don't know any educator who says, 'This student doesn't know anything. He opted out of the test.'" "We have no data on that student"...Who thinks that 1 labels a child who opts out of the test?" 1:00: "We've told principals when this comes up. Well why? Those are the rules."

**After I wrote this, I re-read it, and I want to clarify that this is not an official Alpine School District statement.  It is my personal assessment of my fellow board members, our administrators and our teachers.

New SAGE state test information

Tuesday, March 11 @ 4 - 5:30 pm at the District Office, 575 N. 100 E., American Fork!!!

We have new state tests, called SAGE.  The SAGE test is a computer-adaptive test, and this is the first year that it will be used to test all English, Math, and Science students from 3rd grade on up.

While I have many concerns about the data privacy and some aspects of computer-adaptive tests, I would highly recommend that every parent and taxpayer attend an information meeting on SAGE. The district will be holding these informational meetings at all the schools.  So, if you can't attend the one tomorrow, please call the schools nearest you and find the most convenient time to attend.  We will be posting the schedule on our website, and I will inform you as soon as I get the link.

A few things to take into consideration.

First, we are promised that this test will be measuring critical thinking.  I have a few thoughts on that point.  1) I have found that 'critical thinking' is a lot like 'hope and change', it can mean different things to different people. 2) In many discussions, it is presented as though critical thinking has not been taught in the past and is now, for the first time being taught and assessed in public schools.  3) In my opinion, as a computer programmer, I am unsure that a computer test could actually assess critical thinking.   4) What it does seem to mean is that testing fact and memorization isn't as important.  

Second, the test scores will be going down by almost 20%, it is predicted.  We are told this is due to the more rigorous curriculum (which the math, demonstrably, isn't) and more rigorous testing.  We are presenting this throughout the district so that parents are not alarmed when they receive the test scores.  My thoughts: 1) When you get a new test, the test scores always go down until the teachers learn how to teach to the test.  One teacher at a convention stated it takes about 3 years. 2) The test questions, from my observation, are more convoluted, not necessarily testing harder concepts, just worded strangely.  3) If you are homeschooling or using private school, so your kids aren't trained on this method of testing and answering questions, your kids will be at a disadvantage.  (The downside to this is the SAT is realigning to Common Core.  I assume that the SAT will look similar to some of these CCSS state tests--SAGE, SBAC, PARCC--which are testing process and communication over fact.) 

Finally, if you are opting your kids out of testing, like I am, I would still attend a meeting to find out what your tax dollars are paying for.  If you have questions on opting out, just let me know.  Here is a link to the district's opt out form. (https://docs.google.com/a/alpinedistrict.org/file/d/0B4LZ8teFSo0fcVBfei1tSGgwcDVjUWpKZTFQV0hXd1JxRjZz/edit?pli=1) Or you can simply write your own letter.  Please be away that everything is designed to make it difficult for you to want to opt out.   Know that the State Board of Education could change their teacher/school grading system to just simply not count those student who are opted out.  Instead, the teachers will be assessed as though the kids failed tests they never took.  I would encourage you to contact the State Board and ask them to change their grading system. 

I would also go to www.sageportal.org, login as guest, guest and take one or more of the practice tests.

See you Tuesday at 4pm!!

Why I Oppose Common Core

Who is in control of our children's education?

This shift to the Common Core is a huge lurch away from bottom-up, local control to top-down, centralized control. Common Core is about creating a single pathway to supposed economic and educational success. Think about it, 45 states all adopting the same standards at the same time. 45 states all implementing Common Core testing, nationwide, at the same time. All the publishers and teacher training courses aligning to Common Core at the same time. And, what about college? the ACT and SAT? They, too, will be aligning to Common Core. What are the options should you object, as a parent, as a school, as a district? What are the options if we decide, once we have full implementation and actual experience to back up the Common Core experiment, that we made a mistake? How do we amend? How do we turn back? A few years from now, it will be too late. We have just signed on to a system to eliminate, through attrition, virtually all other options in public education. 

And who made this decision about what our kids will learn? Five people with a nod from Bill Gates and a couple of DC lobbying groups, were able to get their untested vision implemented via financial and legal incentives, as well as disputed promises of 'greater rigor', 'college and career readiness', and 'international benchmarking'. We have decided to go down this path due, in part, to incentives, but also to the idea of not being left behind the rest of the states. That, somehow, Utah wasn't capable of taking care of our own. It shows a supreme lack of confidence in the people, teachers, and principals of Utah that our State Board thought they needed to rush to adopt the Common Core, along with other states to get the federal money, instead of allowing the debate, discussion, and involvement of local Utahns in this process. 

People will say, “It doesn't matter where we get it, the ends justify the means.” We must reject that notion. What we are saying, in effect, is that the principles we stand for don't matter. That parents and local communities don't matter—only the opinion of the so-called experts matters, as long as our kids learn what the experts want them to learn. Why would we want to encourage a system where the people are not involved in creating the best schools? Instead, we have a system where we trust the experts to tell us what 'the best' actually means. And in this case, those 'experts' are in control.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter about education and linked it to the proper role of government. In it, he articulates two important principles. He said, “if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. …

No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Common Core violates both these principles: 1) Parents must direct the education of their kids in school, not the government, and 2) Good and safe government, and that includes public schools, comes from dividing and distributing power. Consolidated power is not safe, and creates the potential for corruption, and, at the very least, destroys the means for innovation and outside the box thinking.

Jefferson goes on to say,“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body...” 

This is EXACTLY what Common Core does.

We are at the crossroads. We can abdicate our parental and local responsibilities to the so-called experts and the rich philanthropists, or we can reclaim bottom-up, parent-controlled education. In the end, I will stand on the side of parents, local teachers, and local communities deciding what is of most worth to pass on to their own children.

Buy My Vote!

The Utah PTA supports Count My Vote. But the Utah PTA is a huge organization, with money, power and influence. Their vote will be counted. But will yours? 

Count My Vote is a petition drive to stop Utahns from choosing candidates through neighborhood elections. Utah PTA's support was based on the claim that the initiative 'supports the democratic process and encourages its membership to be active participants in the election of child/parent-friendly representatives'. It is assumed that a move away from Neighborhood Elections will result in 'child/parent-friendly representatives'. Fortunately, we have the benefit of history as well as experience in other states to show this idea of greater citizen participation is actually untrue. What experience does show us is how moving away from a grassroots-level of choosing candidates empowers organized, special interests over the unorganized electorate, in short, over the public interest.

When discussing politics, most of us despise the concept of money controlling candidates, organized special interests trumping the average person, and 'the political machine' providing one candidate after another without true input from 'the little guy'. We admire and embrace characters like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. American exceptionalism is seen through the view of the regular David going up against the establishment's Goliath and conquering based on truth and principle. In the end, we love and embrace the concept of 'Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Nowhere do we tout Government of the special interests, by the rich and powerful, for the well-connected.

What the well-connected have realized is that under the cover of democracy or the will of the people, you can dilute the power of the everyday person and transfer that power to organized, rich, and powerful institutions. Stop and think about how effectively you or your neighbors can take on an issue against a much more powerful, well-funded organization—whether a corporation or a non-profit foundation. Corporations and foundations have lawyers and funding, and people who are paid to devote their full time to a given set of issues. You and I have to fight them while juggling car pools, homework, and after-school activities, not to mention a 9-to-5 job. When it comes to the unorganized neighbors versus the organized special interests, the odds are not in our favor.

Count My Vote is supported by special interest organizations and people with large amounts of money. By contrast, the Utah Caucus is the only organization for the unorganized public—it allows everyone who wants in, to participate. The powerful special interests want to shift power away from you and your neighbors to them and their money. Your state legislator is more beholden to his or her neighbors than to the Utah Taxpayers Association, the Sierra Club, and the Utah PTA. In other states, your neighbors don't meet with the Governor or sitting US Senators. Elected officials don't deign to share a meal with Mr. Random Citizen without a significant campaign contribution. In Utah, your neighborhood delegates have met with, spoken to, queried, and grilled our Governor, our Senators, and every other elected representative. Candidates for every office are anxious to come to delegates' homes, answer questions, and respond to delegates' emails. This is the definition of government by the people.

What is the difference between you and a delegate? Nothing. Just come to your Neighborhood Caucus and get elected or elect someone who shares your principles. In the end, do you trust the people who are paid lobbyists for every major organization in the state (those you agree with as well as those you don't) to vett candidates and hold them accountable? Or do you trust, Joe, your neighbor? Do we really want a Mr. Smith to go to Washington, or do we want the guy who paid his dues by working for the organized special interests of this state? Should those making our laws establish common standards of right and wrong which apply to all, or should they grease the palms of those who put them in office? In the latter case, “Freedom itself ceases to be a right and becomes a gift, or the fruit of a corrupt bargain, because in such degraded regimes, those who are close to and connected with the ruling class have special privileges.” (Charles Kesler, Claremont Review of Books)

The Utah PTA supports Count My Vote because the Utah PTA will be able to get close to the ruling class and have special privileges. They believe the organization of the Utah PTA will make better decisions in selecting legislators than you will. We think of the PTA as parents and teachers working locally, in the classroom. However, Count My Vote will transform the Utah PTA into a much larger statewide, political player, along with every other organized special interest group that is willing to pay. And that greater influence will come at the expense of your neighborhood vote. If you believe those in special interest organizations will select better candidates than you and your neighbors, then you should support them, recognizing you support a government of the elite and well-connected. But, if you want your voice to really count, and your elected representatives to truly be accountable to you, you need to reject this petition. The Neighborhood Elections are your chance to maintain a 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Don't let the Utah PTA Buy Your Vote!

Brian Halladay
Wendy Hart
Paula Hill