Superintendent Search

Superintendent Search Open House:
Saturday, March 14, 2015
9-11 am
Lone Peak HS's Little Theater

All residents of Alpine, Cedar Hills, and Highland are invited to an Open House tomorrow, Saturday, as well as the faculty and staff of all our Lone Peak area schools.  This Open House will allow for the public to comment on the selection of our next Alpine School District Superintendent. Please think about what K-12 education means to you and what characteristics and experience in a Superintendent would bring that about.

Our official public input will be limited to an input panel composed of 3 appointees by each Board member (1 parent, 1 city leader, 1 business leader).  The rest of the panel will consist of appointees from the following organizations: 3 from the Alpine Administrators Association (AAA), 3 from the Alpine Educators Association (AEA), 3 from the Alpine Educational Support Services Personnel (AESP), 2 from the District Community Council, 2 from the PTA, 1 from the UVU K-12 Alliance, and 1 from the BYU Public School Partnership.  This input panel will be formally appointed on April 3 in an open meeting.  Their responsibilities will be to read through all the applications and score them according to a Board-created rubric sometime in April.  They will be required to sign a non-disclosure document to protect the identities of the applicants. 

While I appreciate the role our input panel will play, I think the appointment of a new Superintendent will have a huge impact on our community going forward.  So, I think it is only fair that there be a more extensive process, at least for me, personally, in hearing from those of you who live and the teachers who work in our Lone Peak area community.  At the end of the day, I believe that our Board fairly represents the diverse views of the people who live in Alpine School District. 

I ask that you take time right now to invite 2 of your neighbors.  This is not to be a political meeting, just an information gathering meeting.  So, every person in our community should feel welcome. 

The Process

Starting Monday, March 16, our notice and requirements will be sent out to various colleges and other employment agencies announcing the opening of the Superintendency.  The Board has created a list of desired Leadership Characteristics (see below) that will form the basis of the rubric used in scoring the applicants.

April 3: The Board will appoint, by name, in an open meeting, the members of the input panel described above.  The selections for this panel have already been made.  It is scheduling alone that requires the delay till April 3.

April 13: Applications are due (postmark acceptable) in the offices of the Board's attorney, Brinton R. Burbidge. 

One comment on confidentiality.  While I would like this process to be as open and transparent as possible, we also want to have many qualified candidates apply.  Oftentimes, candidates won't apply if the knowledge of their application could cause problems with their current employer.  We need to provide those applicants who will not be selected with a level of confidentiality, so that their current employment is not jeopardized.

April 14, 16: The input panel will sign non-disclosure agreements. Input panel will come to the district office to review and score the applications.  Each member of the input panel will work on his/her own.  The results of the panel will be given to the Board.

April/May: The Board will review applications and interview candidates.  There may be multiple interviews scheduled for some of the top-tier candidates.  All these proceeding will be held in closed session, as allowed by State law, in order to protect the candidates' confidentiality. 

The formal appointment and vote on the next Superintendent will be done in an open Board meeting.  We anticipate that the next Superintendent will assume the post on July 1, 2015. 

Leadership Characteristics

• Accepts the collaborative governance model in working with the Board of Education and is committed to doing whatever possible to assist the board as a body as well as to assist individual board members.
• Demonstrates high moral character, integrity and good judgment.
• Promotes instructional excellence and high student achievement and a commitment to collaboration through Professional Learning Communities.
• Understands the unique culture of the district and respects the role of parents in the education of their children.
• Communicates well and is able to build trust with employees, families, and community members. Listens to and understands different points of view. Shares a clear vision of educational excellence and inspires and motivates all stakeholders.
• Models and applies instructional leadership and best practices.
• Works with all stakeholders to increase student engagement and achievement.
• Inspires teamwork through collaboration and consensus building with various groups inside and outside the District.
• Advocates for the school district and its children in the community and at the state level.
• Uses data systematically to track student progress, inform instructional organizational decisions, and communicate district progress regularly to the Board of Education.
• Knows the legislative process and is able to develop an effective working relationship with the Utah Legislature, Utah State School Board, Utah State Office of Education and other state entities.
• Will manage the resources of the District in a manner that assures adherence to the budgetary provisions and the maximum effectiveness and efficiency in their use for promoting excellence in teaching and learning.
• Possesses leadership skills, including articulation of the vision and mission of the school district, exceptional ability to problem solve and make decisions, effectively delegate
• authority, collaborate with various stakeholder groups, and to inspire and gain the trust and confidence of others.
• Demonstrates the ability to listen, understand and respect differences of opinion.
• Develops and maintains mutually beneficial partnerships between the school district and local governments, business community and other educational institutions.
• Possesses experience collaborating with employee groups, associations and unions.

Parents Rights: Are they granted by the State?

Note: SB204S1 (Sen. Aaron Osmond) deals with parental rights in education.  It is being suggested that SB204 needs to allow for a role for the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) due to the USBE's outlined role of general supervision and control in the state constitution.  I disagree, and here are my arguments sent to the House Ed committee that will be hearing the bill in the morning.
*********************************

I would like to ask you to vote in favor of SB204 Sub 1.  I know that SB204 may be substituted to include a role for the USOE and the State Board in determining methods and procedures for parents who are opting out.  There has been some mention of a need to do that in order to preserve their constitutional authority.  I would just like to address that issue, as I disagree.

First, SB204 is not an education bill, but a parental rights bill.  As a state and as a people, we acknowledge the fundamental and foundational role that parents have in raising their children.  Parental rights, while mentioned in state law, do not exist because the state granted those rights, but they exist prior to law as Natural rights.  This was clarified by the Utah Supreme Court majority ruling In re J.P. (Utah, 648 P.2d 1364) authored by Justice Dallin H. Oaks: 'The rights inherent in family relationships--husband-wife, parent-child, and sibling--are the most obvious examples of rights retained by the people.  They are "natural," "intrinsic," or "prior" in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them...'  As such, the right of a parent to oversee their child's educational experience is not a right that can be granted or removed by any branch of state government, without due process in a court of law.  That would include the State Board of Education, as their role is to merely oversee the public education system, not the parents' rights over the children in that system.

Second,  the only reason that SB204 and it's predecessor SB122, now Utah Code 53A-15-1403, were required is because of actions taken by the legislature.  As such, only the legislature has the power to create the necessary accommodations to ensure the natural rights of parents do not cause problems with the overall system of public education.  For example, the SAGE test was created at the behest of the Legislature.  The requirement for the State Board to administer a statewide test was created by the Legislature.  The requirement of tying teacher evaluations and school grading to these statewide tests was created by the Legislature.  As such, when the implementation of those state laws causes difficulties for teachers and schools and the Utah State Office of Education as parents exercise their inherent rights to remove their children from testing, it is incumbent on the legislature to hold the teachers, schools, and USOE harmless for the actions of those parents.  Parents are not being granted permission to opt out by the state.  Schools and teachers are being held harmless who would have otherwise been 'negatively impacted' by USBE policy previous to the passage of SB122.  SB204 is being addressed to create greater clarity, since parents have found it difficult to exercise those rights as subsequent memos/directives from the USOE have attempted to curtail those rights.   

By the same token, parents will be exercising their natural rights to opt their children out of interim and formative SAGE testing on an on-going basis.  The State, not the local school, is responsible for the privacy, the validity, and the reliability of those tests, since they are the contractor for those tests.  Local charter schools and districts have no oversight and no accountability for the SAGE tests.  Again, that is why the state must be the one to make it plain that students should not be negatively impacted due to the choices of their parents in this endeavor.  Our student's data should not be the currency with which we pay for their public education, against the will of their parents. 

Third, since the state is not granting parental rights, it should not be able to insert an administrative entity, e.g. the USOE, to fulfill those parental rights.  We do not have a USOE form for doctor's appointments or family vacations.  We do not have a state-implied deadline in which parents must inform the school when their child has a dental visit.  Similarly, the USOE has no legal or moral authority to impose a deadline on parents for opting out of testing or requiring a particular form.  While I appreciate that the substitute does require that whatever method is used not be onerous, the USBE and USOE should not be involved at all in this issue.  The USBE and USOE are to oversee the implementation of education in the local district and charter schools.  They do not hold any authority over the parents whose children attend our public schools.  By pretending that they do, we have gone from a system of government that protects rights to a system of government that grants rights.  It is clear that our Founders never believed that government granted rights.  The only proper role of government is in protecting the rights that people already possess.  The involvement of the USBE and USOE in this process does nothing to protect rights, but provides the impression that those rights are being granted by the state and further regulated by the USBE/USOE. 

Please do not vote in favor of the second substitute and leave the proper role of parental rights to that of Natural Rights endowed by our Creator, not rights granted by the Utah Legislature and regulated by the State Board of Education and the USOE.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart
Highland, UT

Waiving Parents' and States' Rights: The No Child Left Behind Replacement

HR 5 is the bill in the US House of Representatives to 'reauthorize' No Child Left Behind (NCLB/ESEA).  The vote in the House takes place this TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24!

We've all hated NCLB for more than a decade, so anything would be better than that, right?  WRONG! 

Please contact your Member of Congress ASAP and let them know they need to VOTE NO on HR 5!  (Many will think that anything is better than NCLB, and at 600 pages, what are the odds that they have read it?  Plus the summary sounds so 'fluffy and good'. )

Here are some snippets that every single American, regardless of ideology, should oppose. 

1.) Sec. 6561: States can waive their rights (and the rights of parents) over certain aspects of education that would violate HR5, the "Student Success Act" (SSA), by approving a budget that includes these Federal Funds.

The language in this bill is so disingenuous, it makes me sad to realize that our elected representatives (or their staff) put this together.  It starts out sounding so nice--reducing federal overreach.

No officer, employee, or other authority of the Secretary shall enforce against an authority of a State, nor shall any authority of a State have any obligation to obey, any requirement imposed as a condition of receiving assistance under a grant program established under this Act, nor shall such program operate within a State, ...

Doesn't that sound nice?  We're restraining the power of the Federal government in education....UNLESS....

unless the legislature of that State shall have by law expressly approved that program and, in doing so, have waived the State's rights and authorities to act inconsistently with any requirement that might be imposed by the Secretary as a condition of receiving that assistance. [emphasis mine]
 

So, really, the state has all its rights in tact, UNLESS it decides to waive them. But, a State really shouldn't be waiving any rights to Congress.  Please see the Tenth Amendment and get back to me on this one.  (Cliff Notes: Education is NOT a power given to Congress, and so it is EXCLUSIVELY the RIGHT of the states and the people.)

And HOW does the State waive these rights? 

This approval may be accomplished by a vote to affirm a State budget that includes the use of such Federal funds...[emphasis mine] 

Translation: if the State Legislature approves a budget that includes Federal Funds granted under this Student Success Act (which will be things like Title 1 funds), then the State WAIVES its rights and authorities to do anything that goes against what the Secretary of Education requires.  (Opting out of SAGE testing? Nope.  The State just waived that right, and it wasn't theirs to grant to begin with.)

Flashback to 1776, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."  unless the State Legislature waives them.  I have rights, but I will give them all up in exchange for federal money. 

There's a word for this: prostitution.   And before you think that too outrageous, let's consider what prostitution really means--To put to use one's talents or abilities [or rights?] in a base or unworthy way, usually for money.  We will give up our virtue (root word: latin virtus meaning strength), our capacity to act, on behalf of our children's education in exchange for money. 

2.) By waiving the rights of the state, the legislature also waives your rights as parents.

Again, nice sounding language about our rights as parents...except for those rights that your State Legislature waived for you in their budget proposals. 

It is the intent of Congress that other than the terms and conditions expressly approved by State law under the terms of this subpart, control over public education and parental rights to control the education of their children are vested exclusively within the autonomous zone of independent authority reserved to the States and individual Americans [emphasis mine] (Sec. 6564)

So, the Tenth Amendment and the Constitution apply to all rights and privileges except those that States waive to get this Federal education money.

Cue Mr. Jefferson again: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...and anything else left to the states or the people via the Tenth Amendment and Natural Law], governments are instituted among Men..." unless we waive those rights for more money.

One can buy anything in this world for money, I guess, including the right to direct the upbringing of your child's education, as long as the State gets paid enough for it. 

3.) Other disturbing things contained in this bill are:

• State-appointed ombudsman to oversee PRIVATE (yes, private) schools because kids will receive Title 1 vouchers for private schools. (Sec. 1120)
• Private schools must provide secular and neutral materials for students, e.g. "Such educational services or other benefits, including materials and equipment, shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological." (Because a private, religious school shouldn't be able to use religious ideology anymore, right? Right, because they are now required to accept federal monies!)
• Educational (and other) services in private schools will be essentially equivalent to local public schools. "Educational services and other benefits for such private school children shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children participating under this subpart, and shall be provided in a timely manner. (So, why choose a private school anymore, if they will all be the same? 'Equitable', in what way? In their secular, neutral and non-ideological educational services? In their standards and curriculum?)
• Essentially a requirement that all states adopt the Common Core standards, not by that name, of course.  In true form, it starts by bad-mouthing the coercion to adopt CCSS that occurred during Race to the Top.  And then it goes on to say the same thing: "The purpose of this title is to provide all children the opportunity to graduate high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce." (Sec. 1001)  Just watch and see: If you want to get to college, you have to pass by the 'college and career' gateway, i.e. Common Core or whatever the euphemism du jour is. 
• The SSA will be effective 5 years from its adoption.  This will allow bureaucrats time to put off any legitimate concerns about what is currently going on--Common Core, testing, 100% proficiency requirements, tying teacher pay to test scores--with the statement that "we've fixed it already".  It also will allow them time to wait for any immediate opposition to die down, and when we're all boiled frogs, then they can implement whatever they want.  No one will be paying attention five years from now.

"That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [protecting the rights of the individuals], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Contact your Members of Congress, your state legislators, and your State Board of Education.  Let them know that any federal law that includes the waiving of your rights as a parent or the state's rights as a 'sovereign state' needs to be vigorously opposed.  Let's not sell our virtue, our power, our strength to act and oversee the education of our children....

for money. 

NCLB Waiver Funding Request to the Legislature: $30 M

Note: This letter was sent to the executive appropriations committee to request an additional $30M for the State Board of Ed should they decide to either refuse the NCLB Waiver or write their own waiver, absent the (illegal) requirements from the US Dept of Ed.


I'm in support of an additional $30 M for the State Board to make up any potential issues if they refuse the No Child Left Behind Waiver.  This year's waiver includes all the requirements from the previous years (College and Career Ready standards aka Common Core, testing, tying teacher pay to those aligned tests, and data tracking).  Additionally, it appears that they are redefining Title 1 monies to cover all students, not just low-income. 

Since the original NCLB act prohibited this kind of involvement from the Feds, the waiver, itself, violates federal law, not to mention the clear language of the Constitution.  Additionally, while NCLB allows the state to apply for waivers, it does not indicate that those waivers would require any particular requirements about testing, standards, or teacher evaluations.  The State Board is legally within its right to request a waiver from the egregious 100% proficiency of NCLB without acquiescing to additional requirements arbitrarily imposed by the US Department of Ed.  However, should they do this, it is entirely possible that the US DOE will reject their waiver.  A rejection of the waiver would mean the loss of flexibility in spending about $30 M in Title 1 funds.  It would be greatly appreciated if you were able, as an Executive Appropriations Committee, to include this request. 

This single action of appropriating $30 M for the State Board to push back against the Federal Waiver would remove the vast majority of our federally imposed requirements for testing and standards.  In short, it would return educational sovereignty to our state, in a very large degree.

If you'd like more information on the NCLB waiver, please look at my letter to the State Board from last August.  I have taken the time to look through much of the actual text of NCLB. 
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Thanks,

Wendy Hart
Alpine School Board Member, Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills   

Parental Rights: Letter to State Supertintendent Smith

I received a copy of this letter sent to State Superintendent Smith regarding the Feb. 2, 2015 memo from USOE and opting out.  I reprint it here with permission from the author. 

 

Superintendent Smith,

 

Thank you for your statements on parental rights and testing in last Friday’s board meeting. While the new “safe harbor” memo is being prepared, would you please rescind the Feb 2 memo? That will be very helpful in clearing up the current confusion between parents and school administrators.

 

As you know, the Feb 2 memo was deeply troubling to Utah families. The idea that parental rights exist at the pleasure of the USOE or LEAs, and comprise only rights specifically enumerated in Utah code or USOE policy, is anathema to Utah families who believe that the family is ordained of God, and is the fundamental unit of society.

 

Likewise, the Feb 2 memo was completely lacking in authority. Parents are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to direct the education and upbringing of their own child. The Feb 2 memo, attempting to abridge these rights, is in direct conflict with natural law, the US and Utah Constitutions, and Utah Code Section 62A-4a-201.

 

Finally, as the new memo is crafted, please consider that many parents object, not only to specific tests, but to the student data tracking that come with vendor-hosted learning systems, including the AIR “formative” and “interim” testing and learning platform. Please include, in policy, a recognition of a parent’s right to opt their child out of anything that requires a login. Technology-based learning and testing should be an option, not a requirement for enrollment in Utah schools.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Jared Carman

 

Editor and Founder

FamilyFirst Utah

 

 

P.S. I own two online learning businesses (Agilant Learning and Realtime Learning Systems), and have a personal interest in seeing online learning grow. That said, my loyalty is to my children and family FIRST.

SAGE Testing 2015: What You Need to Know

SAGE testing has begun in Alpine School District this week.  It will continue off and on through May.  The subjects being tested by SAGE are: Reading, Writing, Math, and Science.  Because of concerns about SAGE testing, we have seen legislation, directives, forms, meetings, etc.  I hope to help you make sense of it all.  The most important thing to remember throughout this is that, as noted in state law, "A student's parent or guardian is the primary person responsible for the education of the student, and the state is in a secondary and supportive role to the parent or guardian."

First, the only thing required for opting out is written notification from you, the parent.  You don't need a particular form to comply with the legal requirements for opting out.  Most districts, including Alpine, have a form and they will want you to sign it.  You are not legally required to sign it.  I would recommend that if you bring in your own letter, please do not have the principal sign something.  You just need to communicate your wishes to the school.  For the record, I have been opting my kids out of state testing since 2012.  If you want to know more about why, please go here. More information can be found on the SAGE FAQ page.

Second, teachers and schools will NOT be penalized for students who are opted out.  Last year, the law changed specifically stating "neither an LEA nor its employees are negatively impacted through school grading or employee evaluation due to a student not taking a test". Prior to the passage of this law (the bill # was SB122), the State Office of Education (USOE) was penalizing teachers, schools, and students by giving students who opted out of end-of-year testing a 1 (the lowest possible score) to be used in calculating teacher and school grades.  Parents, while always having the right to opt kids out, were concerned about the consequences to teachers and to schools.  Since the legislature passed the laws that require school and teacher grading, it was their responsibility to fix the law to make sure schools and teachers were not penalized for parental actions on this level.  The law did not grant parents the right to opt out, it merely clarified that they did have the right and that schools and teachers would not be 'negatively impacted'.  There are still many teachers who believe that they will be punished if you opt your kids out of testing.  Please make sure to let them know about the law.  The law was changed before teacher and school grades were calculated last year, so teachers have not been negatively impacted from kids opting out of SAGE testing*. 

Third, the USOE has a contract with our testing vendor.  Where in this contract does it say what the testing vendor is prohibited from doing with our children's data?  I haven't found it.

The actual contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR), our testing vendor for SAGE, is a Purchase Order that references their original bid for services.  Essentially, the contract is the bid.  You can find a copy of the bid here.   I have asked many people to indicate where in the bid we are assured that AIR will not be using behavioral questions and what prohibitions exist on them with regard to how they may use our children's data. Most responses are, "It's in the contract."  Because of parental concerns, last year, the State Board of Ed signed an addendum to our agreement with AIR, wherein, AIR specifically says they will not share personal data with any third-parties unless the USOE gives them permission.  Better, but not good enough.  The USOE also received a letter from AIR's Executive Vice-President, indicating that they will not be using behavioral indicators or sharing of student data.  Again, nice, but why not put it in a legally-binding document?

In our August Board Meeting (52 minutes into the Board Meeting**), Board Member Brian Halladay, who has been doing extensive research on AIR, listed over 20 entities that are subsidiary organizations of AIR.  Subsidiary organizations, by definition, are not third-parties.  That means these organizations are not prohibited from receiving or using our children's data that is obtained through SAGE testing.  In response to the concerns raised in that meeting, the Superintendent conversed with USOE Assistant Superintendent in charge of testing, Dr. Judy Park.  Dr. Park and AIR Executive VP, Jon Cohen, responded to these concerns here and here.  Dr. Park provided citations from the contract where data privacy is discussed.  Unfortunately, those citations don't really deal with prohibitions on AIR.  Three of us on the board (Mr. Halladay, Mrs. Hill, and myself) responded to Dr. Park.  You may read our letter here.  In the letter, we raise additional concerns and also request validity and reliability information on the SAGE tests.  The sections of the contract cited by Dr. Park do not prohibit AIR's usage of our children's data.  The response we received was that legal counsel would be consulted.  That was in September.  We have not heard anything since.

Fourth, it is important that you know SAGE includes not just the end-of-year, or summative, testing.  SAGE also includes interim and formative testing. 

The districts and schools can decide to implement interim testing, which is a similar version of the summative testing.  Like the summative tests, the questions and answers are not seen by the teachers and cannot be released to the public.  The teachers do see scores, as well as information about individual standards and/or objectives and how individual students scored in those areas. 

The formative tests, on the other hand, are tests or assignments that are generated or selected by the individual teachers.  The teachers can selected items from within the SAGE test databank or they can create them, themselves.  Teachers create, select, see, and determine the scoring for the formative tests.  For more information on formative testing, this YouTube video is very helpful.  Former director of testing at the USOE, John Jesse,  indicated that they wanted to put everything into SAGE so that teachers would have no need of any additional testing program.  The upside to teachers is evident.  The upside to AIR? Lots more data.  Even though the teachers create the items, the items, the answers, and your student's responses are collected and stored by the SAGE software on AIR-maintained servers.  So the lack of data privacy extends to not just the once-a-year tests, but to every activity that your kids participate in while logged on to the SAGE portal. It's a goldmine for our friendly behavioral research organization, AIR. 

Finally, on Feb. 2, 2015, the USOE sent a memo to all districts and charter schools stating that parents have no options for opting out of SAGE interim or formative testing.  As a board, we had been debating back and forth about the interim and formative testing, and the district form was stated as covering all interim and summative SAGE testing.  Dr. Henshaw indicated that parents should contact individual teachers to have their children excused from formative tests.  With the advent of the USOE memo, interim and formative testing have now been deemed as 'required.'  (Since interim testing is over for this year, it will not impact students in Alpine until next year.)  The problem with this is that this wasn't a directive from the State Board of Education.  It wasn't a change in the law.  This was a memo from two state administrators by-passing every elected official in any capacity and indicating that parents have 'no option'.  Parents are now subject to the state for what goes on with their children.  The state law could be interpreted as being silent on interim and formative testing.  But being silent isn't the same as forbidding a particular action.  In a free society, the limitations are placed on government to protect individual rights.  The USOE memo places restrictions on parents.  In short, the state compels you to send your children to school.  If you choose to avail yourself of the free, public education system provided by the State of Utah, you are obligated to pay for that, not just with your taxes, but with your children's personal data.  You have 'no options' to protect them.  The Wise and Powerful Oz, um I mean, State Office of Education, has spoken. 

So, what do you do?  Don't give up.  Push back.  Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in America.  If you don't want your kids taking the SAGE tests, make sure your teachers and principals know.  They are caught between a rock and a hard place.  Be empathetic, kind, and firm: your child will not be participating.  If they are asked to participate, your child has been instructed to answer incorrectly and/or to call you to pick them up.  Write letters to the State Board of Education (board@schools.utah.gov), and to your legislators, and the governor.  Let your locally-elected board members know of your concerns.  Local boards can communicate on your behalf, but we still have to administer the tests.  Be kind, but firm.  And, at the end of the day, do what is best for your kids. As we concluded in our letter to Dr. Park, "Just because parents choose to educate their children in our public school system, it does not mean that we, as a state government, are entitled to whatever information about their children we feel is necessary." 

Update:

“Sage is one of the tests in all of its components that was unambiguously covered by the safe harbor provisions of Section1403 9a. And so that is one that unambiguously there is an opt out provision....But if there's a question about SAGE, I believe there is unanimity and no ambiguity that SAGE is absolutely something that is subject to..the safe harbor provisions of 1403-9a.”--State Superintendent Brad Smith on the Feb. 2, 2015 memo (6:20)

*There is an argument to be made that only the most involved parents are opting their kids out.  Since we know that the most involved parents usually have the kids who score the highest on standardized testing, there is a potential for a lower score due to that dynamic.  However, there are also many parents of special ed kids who are opting out because they find the tests problematic for their kids.  At the end of the day, the problem is the entire method of grading teachers and schools based on standardized tests.  Contact your legislators and ask them to remove school and teacher grading from state law. 

**Board Meeting Audio:
1. Click on the link
2. Scroll Down to 'Additional Media' and expand
3. Click on either the Study Session or Board Meeting audio, as listed.

Why Have a School Board? Taxation without Representation

What my opponent got wrong. 

From her post:

What would our school district look like if my opponent’s votes had the support of the majority of the School Board?

Monthly bills would have gone unpaid more than 30 months in the 4 years she has served.

The Board, by law, receives a report on a monthly basis of what HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID.  Four school districts in the state do not take any formal action on the claims.  My substitute motions were always to 'accept' the claims instead of 'approving' them.  I can accept them, but I don't have enough information to approve them.  After two years, with two new board members, we now accept the claims.  I have voted 'yes' on all 'acceptance' of the claims.  I will never vote to approve something that I cannot personally stand behind and support.

No annual budgets would have been approved, so maintenance and operation funds would not be approved to be used by schools.

Annual budgets must be approved by June 22 of every year.  A budget would have been approved, but if the majority had agreed with me, we wouldn't have spent $75,000 for a party or nearly $42,000 of your money on dues for the Board and Superintendent.  Instead, we would have had more teachers and/or aides in the classroom, a lower tax rate, and discussions of important budget issues by board members BEFORE the money is allocated.

We would not have had the financial ability to accommodate growth, so class sizes would have been even larger.

This might reference the 2013-14 budget where I voted against a tax rate increase and against a salary increase for our Superintendent and our Business Administrator.  It's wrong to ask the people for more money in taxes and then pay your top administrators more.  I suggested that the Board pay the Superintendent and the Business Administrator a modest increase out of our own salaries. 

Taxes on our local residents would have to be raised to compensate for withdrawal from ANY Federal funding.

Many Federal programs cost so much to implement that there isn't a benefit.  I have never moved to get away from ANY Federal funding. Federal Special Education funds, in particular, are severely constrained by federal strings, impacting our ability to 'plug holes'.  When the federal strings impacts our kids, it's important to look at what our options are.  I have supported requests asking for an analysis of the costs vs. benefits of our different federal programs.  Our federal strings give us 6% of our budget, but control a lot more than 6% of what we do.  We need to know if the benefit of the funding is worth the cost of the strings. 

Our schools would be subjected to the federal No Child Left Behind standards and labeled as failing.

Under No Child Left Behind, all schools are failing this year.  That's not anyone's fault but Congress'.  The waiver magnanimously provided by the US Dept of Education included 'assurances' that violate No Child Left Behind.  I supported the Waiver submitted by our State Board of Education that is allowing us to get out from under the egregious penalties of No Child Left Behind and still retain our state's control over education, as legally REQUIRED under No Child Left Behind.

Extracurricular activities that serve students and address their needs would be limited to ONLY what the school board wants to offer.

If a club is illegal under state law, it is the duty of the local school board to limit or deny that club.  I asked that the Board, not just our administration, consult with legal counsel.  If the majority had agreed, we would have been able to go forward knowing, legally, where we stood, instead of hoping that someone doesn't sue us.

Benefits for teachers would be reduced or eliminated

I have never voted to reduce or eliminate benefits for teachers and I never would. I have supported every single salary increase or bonus given to teachers. 

If the Board isn't supposed to weigh in and represent the various views of the community on these many issues, then why have a school board at all?  I support public education.  I support the public, not just funding education, but having a say in what that education looks like through their local board members.  Otherwise, a board, rubber stamping whatever is proposed, is just taxation without representation.

Sources:
Utah Law: Duties of a Business Administrator
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A03_030300.htm
By contrast, I have found nothing in the duties of the school board that say we have to approve all of these expenses that have already conformed to our policies.

Claims discussion:
http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1020
(download the study session audio file)

2014 Budget Discussion:
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/06/04/june-17-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, my motion is at 47 min in)

No Child Left Behind
http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/nclb-law-contents.html
See Sec. 9401: Waivers (who can do them and what is required)
and Sec. 9527: Prohibitions on Federal Government...

My letter to the  Utah State School Board on the NCLB Waiver
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Utah Law: School Clubs
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A11_120600.htm

2014 School Clubs motion for legal counsel
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/10/09/october-14-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, beginning at 16 min, 50 sec)