O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-621655390287934563";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-03-13T04:31:00.000-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-03-13T04:31:53.292-06:00";s:5:"title";s:196:"SB 271 is a sneaky, last minute revision--of an already bad policy--literally written by Parents for Choice in Education with only one purpose: label schools as "failing" as an excuse for vouchers";s:12:"atom_content";s:13835:"<br />The many topics this post touches on are all worthy of lengthy pieces that I don't have time for.&nbsp; However, the links are excellent and the cut-and-pasting will be informative.<br /><br />&nbsp;1.&nbsp; An <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2013/03/school-grading-bill-zips-through.html">overview</a> of <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0271.html">SB 271</a> and how it was purposefully held back until the end of the session in order to avoid most public scrutiny, especially the House Education Committee.&nbsp; (A familiar tactic used with HB 477)<br /><br />2.&nbsp; The whole philosophy underlying the law--that lazy or bad teachers and administrators are the unique cause of public school problems, and that pressuring them through simplistic public "accountability" measures will make them work harder--is flawed.&nbsp; Teachers are the most important school based factor in education, but school based factors are <a href="http://shankerblog.org/?p=74">only 20%</a> of the factors behind "student achievement."&nbsp; The explicit message of laws like this is that the 60% of achievement explained by student and family background characteristics are only "excuses," and the low grades of poorer schools just show that those teachers and administrators are poor.<br /><br />3.&nbsp; The origins of school grading spring from Jeb Bush in Florida.&nbsp; He then used his "<a href="http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/selling_schools_out/?page=entire">non-profit organization</a>" and ALEC to spread the practice as far as possible.&nbsp; This has been touted as a great success by reform advocates.&nbsp; To the surprise of no one, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/30/e-mails-link-bush-foundation-corporations-and-education-officials/">emails</a> have been unearthed further demonstrating that Jeb Bush has been manipulating laws to funnel education money to connected companies (See Stephenson, Howard: Utah), including the absolute dependence on expensive standardized tests for school, teacher, and student data.&nbsp; The proposals all have different details, but the school grades have not been successful in improving education in other states, including the original, Florida-- <a href="http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/05/teacher-there-is-no-florida-miracle/">1</a> and <a href="http://m.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/editorial-florida-needs-no-advice-from-jeb-bush-on/nWYCy/">2</a>. See also <a href="http://indianapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2012/10/tony-bennetts-fiasco.html">Indiana</a>...and note that the flawed grades there were leading to 22% D and F ratings of schools.&nbsp; (Florida rated fewer than 10% of their schools as D or F.)&nbsp; The PCE proposal in SB 271 would rate over 50% of Utah schools as D or F.&nbsp; Does anyone not trying to make money off of miracle schools or software believe that?<br /><br />4.&nbsp; The statistical basis of comparison in both the current and proposed versions of school grading (see lines 52-56 &amp; 89-112 of <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillamd/SB0271.htm">SB 271</a>) is the Student Growth Percentile or SGP.&nbsp; This has become a common measure to rate schools and teachers, but the creator of the measurement has declared that it is a measurement of student achievement not meant to make any determination of cause...such as what factors of the school or teacher caused that growth.&nbsp; Here's the <a href="http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/firing-teachers-based-on-bad-vam-versus-wrong-sgp-measures-of-effectiveness-legal-note/">technical explanation</a> of why that is (the context is rating teachers based on SGP's, and every problem exists equally at a school level ranking which is really an amalgation of teacher rankings according to SGP) as well as the source of that quote about the measurement.&nbsp; And <a href="http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/the-toxic-trifecta-bad-measurement-evolving-teacher-evaluation-policies/">another</a> by the same author, Rutgers professor and statistician, Bruce Baker.&nbsp; Here's an <a href="http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-sgps-cant-evaluate-teachers.html">illustrated version</a> by another excellent education blogger.&nbsp; The New Jersey evaluation in question has some differing details, but the core critique here is the same: that the compared sets of students matched by score independent of context actually condemn many excellent teachers working with difficult students and likely obscure some poorer teachers working with more advantaged students.<br /><br />5.&nbsp; It will be statistically impossible to compare scores for two years because of our new curriculum and testing, yet both plans will ram numbers into a formula and do it anyway.&nbsp; Almost all schools have transitioned into teaching the new English and math cores this year, despite the fact we will still take the old CRT end-of-year tests this year.&nbsp; That could be bad in English, but it is ridiculously bad for math.&nbsp; The students have been sorted into Math 7, Math 8, and Math 9 classes independent of math skill, and they study parts of pre-algebra, algebra, and geometry each year.&nbsp; Secondary math teachers have been working like first-year teachers again trying to keep up.&nbsp; However, there are no tests to match what they are learning, so they will be given tests from the old classes.&nbsp; An 8th grade class may have to take an algebra test, even though they may have only devoted 30% of their time to that subject.&nbsp; <br /><br />Comparing the scores of these tests to last year when the students were actually in those classes and taught that content to this year when they will NOT be able to study all of the same things is "educational malpractice" to quote Senator Stephenson.<br /><br />Students will take the new computer-adaptive tests based on the new core in the spring of 2014.&nbsp; These scores from a completely different test, with different questions and types of questions, and based on a different core will be compared to this year's tests based on the old core, but taken by students being taught the new core.<br /><br />The comparisons and thus school grades will be invalid and actually misleading, but "educational malpractice" is only bad if it prevents legislative pet projects, not enables them.<br /><br />6.&nbsp; The "old formula" actually has never been used--it has been in the planning and working-out-kinks phase for two years--with frequent communication between the Utah State Office of Education and Senator Niederhauser.&nbsp; The school grading was delayed last year specifically so the formula (as crappy as I think it is) could be further refined, as specifically stated by <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53537754-90/schools-bill-niederhauser-grading.html.csp">Senator Niederhauser</a>.<br /><br />7.&nbsp; Parents for Choice in Education and Senator Adams are lying. &nbsp; They claim that SB 271 is somehow a natural extension of the original school grades as understood and implemented over the last two years.&nbsp; I hope Senator Niederhauser isn't fudging the truth too, but he may be.&nbsp; I am very suspicious of his original intentions in passing the bill in 2011.&nbsp; <br /><br />Testimony at the March 8 meeting of the State School Board, along with Senator Niederhauser's quote above, explained that the formula had been worked on collaboratively for two years.<br /><br />It seems to me that Senator Adams admitted that his bill is a new concept when <a href="http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=24368965&amp;nid=757&amp;title=new-school-grading-system-passes-house-but-senators-still-torn&amp;fm=home_page&amp;s_cid=queue-4">he said</a>, <span>"This bill actually sets criteria that is more reflective of what  school grading should be."</span><br /><br /><span>In two Urgent Action email action blasts sent two hours apart yesterday afternoon, PCE claimed very different facts about both the intentions of Niederhauser and the legislature and how the school grades about to take effect are "vague" and do not provide "accurate accountability."</span><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><b>Senator Adams, on behalf of President Niederhauser, is sponsoring SB271 - School Grading Amendments</b> - making final technical changes to solidify the positive work the  legislature has done to provide parents and citizens with clear  accountability and transparency for the performance of all public  schools.</span></div><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><b><i>The opposition is working hard to strip the standards of measurement  out of the existing law, leaving it vague and creating a moving target  on what signifies student growth from year to year. This would not  provide accurate accountability for how our students are actually  performing.</i></b>&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><b>President  Niederhauser and Senator Adams believe that every child is capable of  making a years worth of growth in a years worth of time. </b> The original School Grading law and SB271 both recognize this and  reward schools for both the number of students who are proficient as  well as those who achieve a full year's growth! We cannot allow this  principle to be undermined. The opposition favors a system that equally  distributes how many schools get each letter grade, establishing a false  measure of accountability that predetermines winners and losers rather  than setting a standard whereby all schools can strive to achieve  success!</span></div><div><span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">..&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">We need School Grading to  move forward as the legislature intended. The Senate has already passed  SB271. We need the House of Representatives to approve this amendment!&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="color: #1a8cc1; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;">&nbsp;</span></div><div><span style="color: #ea7f00; font-family: Verdana; font-size: small;"><b>Please  take a few minutes to contact your Representative right now! Tell them  you support SB271 and ask them to fully support Senator Adams and  President Niederhauser in bringing clear accountability and transparency  to our public schools through School Grading.</b></span></div></blockquote>They are blatantly lying that the punitive changes and last minute unveiling of SB 271 are just "technical changes" to move school grading forward "as the legislature intended."&nbsp; But they may be telling the truth that they convinced Adams and Neiderhauser to run the bill this way in order for Niederhauser to avoid being the bad guy.&nbsp; Niederhauser spoke <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865575495/Senate-OKs-new-school-grading-system.html">in favor </a>of the bill and said it just needed "tweaks" if the House was concerned.&nbsp; He didn't mention working with any educators and their concerns.&nbsp; I think the State Board of Education may have just been speaking diplomatically when they said they felt supported by Senator Niederhauser last week.<br /><br />8.&nbsp; The newly proposed formula in SB 271, intentionally held until the last 10 days of the session to avoid public comment and rush the bill through hurried votes, sets up a system with bars so high that <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2013/03/school-grading-do-we-need-two-systems.html">almost all Utah schools</a> will rank as "D" or "F schools."&nbsp; (It also sets up two separate grading systems because of legal requirements and makes Utah the only state of those adopting school grades to put the exact measurements into law, making them extremely difficult to revise, even during the once-a-year legislative session. ) This negative labeling is intentional in PCE's bill because of their intense antagonism toward the public schools that educate the vast majority of Utah children.<br /><br />9.&nbsp; In the interim education committee meetings in 2011 after the original school grading bill passed, Senator Stephenson went public with his desire to identify and punish <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52621785-78/utah-education-schools-governor.html.csp">"F schools"</a> by privatizing them, whether the measurements were accurate or not.&nbsp; Senator Niederhauser certainly knew Senator Stephenson's intentions and that school grading had been used for this purpose in New York.&nbsp; (They support schools with low grades in Florida with millions of dollars of assistance, while they just close down "bad schools" in New York and cross their fingers.&nbsp; Guess which model <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/quick-version-without-background-utah.html">Utah's law</a> follows.)<br /><br />10.&nbsp; The intentionally impossible-to-reach standards for a school grade of "A,"&nbsp; based completely on test scores set by SB 271, are meant to strengthen the propaganda that Utah schools are failing, and then give cover for school closings and transfers to private parties.&nbsp; Senator Niederhauser voted for SB 271 as it now stands yesterday.&nbsp; If he starts out his Senate Presidency with this underhanded betrayal of the collaborative work of two years with educators, he will confirm his true opposition to public ed in Utah and support of privatization and vouchers.&nbsp; <br /><br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/621655390287934563/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=621655390287934563";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/621655390287934563";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/621655390287934563";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/sb-271-is-sneaky-last-minute-revision.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-1876949180123986400";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-03-11T07:14:00.001-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-03-11T07:14:35.390-06:00";s:5:"title";s:122:"Urquhart's SB 279: Help me identify what company stands to benefit from $5,000,000 more taken from general education funds";s:12:"atom_content";s:8507:"My <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/connect-dots-stephenson-adams-want-to.html">last</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/has-every-educational-technology.html">three</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/from-horses-mouths-sb-110-moves-toward.html">posts</a> all deal with custom-made RFP's (Referrals to Friends of stePhenson) where legislators write the requirements of a public bid process so that only one company may win.&nbsp; They even let the companies themselves <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54973922-78/students-program-schools-dixon.html.csp?page=1">help write the bill</a>, especially if that company has made campaign donations.&nbsp; <i>If we're mad about Swallow, why aren't we furious about this??</i><br /><br />Here's a new bill I just saw over the weekend via a legislator's update. The legislator spoke of <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm">SB 279</a> as if it were a done deal and going to pass.&nbsp; This despite the fact the bill was kept secret until last week (the way we can't follow "boxcar bills" and just have to constantly check to see if they become active is a blow to transparency and maybe something I'll have to go into in a post-session complaint.) and rushed through a non-education <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/status/sbillsta/sb0279.htm">Senate Committee</a> with Stephenson on it.&nbsp; It allocates $5,000,000 to an interactive math program with very specific requirements.&nbsp; <br /><br />There are 3 big problems I see:<br /><br />1.&nbsp; This seems written for a specific company AGAIN.&nbsp; Why is Urquhart joining the likes of Stephenson, Stevenson, and Adams in this unethical practice?&nbsp; Can anyone help me figure out what company this is intended for?&nbsp; Does Imagine Learning have a new math program being unveiled?<br /><br />2.&nbsp; We are going to guarantee $5,000,000 to a company, but schools cannot "require" students to use this program, only provide it?<br /><br />3a.&nbsp; We are then going to measure "learning gains" from a weird subset of students using it in totally different ways and amounts and report that as accountability?&nbsp; It is flat-out impossible to get good data from that.&nbsp; I think Sen. Urquhart would know that.&nbsp; Did the vendor write this bill too?<br /><br />3b.This (non-)accountability report will likely be written by the vendor themselves if recent trends continue.&nbsp; This seems to me like doubling down on a destructive practice. First, we give vendors custom written bills because they have curried the favor of only one or two legislators. &nbsp; The vendor  then self-reports learning gains, and the legislature uses that report to justify more  money.&nbsp; It worked for <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-H6tj6Ss9FVXRpbzdyMWk1ekk/edit">Imagine Learning</a>.&nbsp; I've been to various vendor sales pitches, and every one proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their product would drastically raise student achievement.&nbsp; I've never heard any claims of "mediocre learning gains" or "so-so achievement."&nbsp; These practices are unethical even if the program ends up being great for the students.&nbsp; That's very fortunate for the students, and may even be true of Imagine Learning, but it does not justify cronyism, political favors, pay-to-play, or not reporting useful data.<br /><br />Here'e the language cut and pasted from the bill.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2013/</a><wbr></wbr><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm">htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm</a><br /><br />Custom RFP.&nbsp; What company already knows this is coming?<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;<u><i>(3)  In selecting a program, the board shall consider the following criteria:</i></u><br />  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 44  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(a)  the program contains a strong instructional component focused on problem solving,</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 45  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>number sense, and basic skills;</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 46  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(b)  the program provides explicit instruction with a strong focus on highly effective</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 47  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>and evidence-based strategies and comprehensive resources to address learners in need of both</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 48  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>strategic and intensive supports, including English language learners;</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 49  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(c)  the program is self-adapting to respond to the needs and progress of the learner,</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 50  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>including allowing for increasingly intense instruction and additional practice opportunities</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 51  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>based on individual student needs;</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 52  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(d)  the program provides opportunities for frequent, quick, and informal assessments</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 53  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>and includes an embedded progress monitoring tool and mechanisms for regular feedback to</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 54  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>students and teachers; and</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 55  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(e)  the program is self-paced.</i></u></blockquote>&nbsp;Can't require??<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;<u><i>(4)  The board shall make the program available to school districts and charter schools</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 57  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>that apply for the program based on the number of students in kindergarten through grade 6.</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 58  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(5)  A school district or charter school may:</i></u><br /> </blockquote><blockquote><hr /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 59   &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(a)  provide the program to a student by scheduling additional instructional hours or</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 60  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>other means; and</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 61  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(b)  may not require a student to participate in the program.</i></u></blockquote><u><i><br /></i></u>But  will report learning gains??&nbsp; How?&nbsp; Compared to what?&nbsp; <br /><br />62  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(6)  On or before November 1, 2013, and on or before November 1 each year thereafter,</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 63  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>the board shall report final testing data regarding a program provided under this section,</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 64  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u><i>including student learning gains as a result of the program, to:</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 65  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(a)  the Education Interim Committee; and</i></u><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 66  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<u><i>(b)  the governor.</i></u>";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/1876949180123986400/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=1876949180123986400";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1876949180123986400";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1876949180123986400";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/urquharts-sb-279-help-me-identify-what.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-5536444075701146902";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-03-09T06:36:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-03-09T06:51:11.431-07:00";s:5:"title";s:179:"From the horses' mouths: SB 110 moves toward vouchers; SB 133, SB 82, and SB 257 are designed to gather all Utah students' data in one place and allow national vendors free access";s:12:"atom_content";s:11873:"<br /><u><b>SB 110 School-Based Budgeting</b></u><br /><br />During the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55834863-78/bill-principals-budgets-committee.html.csp">Senate Education Committee hearing</a>, Stephenson says, "I believe we could empower school communities to actually take charge of their budgets."<br /><br />Lisa Snell of the libertarian think tank, the Reason Foundation, says "This is not a new program. It’s not a crazy idea,"<br /><br />Later, <a href="http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/21871486/article-Change-to-Voting-Procedures-for-Lawmakers-Sent-to-Interim-Study?instance=newsletter_featured_articles_policy">Stephenson says</a>, "I’m fighting disinformation – they’re saying this is some kind of voucher bill, and it’s got nothing to do with vouchers.”<br /><br />Then Lisa Snell, co-author of Reason Foundation's <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/annual-privatization-2010-education">Annual Privatization Report</a>,&nbsp; says on March 5th "student-based budgeting or backpack funding is both <a href="http://reason.org/news/show/handbook-student-based-budgeting">all about vouchers</a> AND part of a movement toward a totally <u>new</u> public education system.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The growth of student-based budgeting in school districts and a few  states mirrors a national trend toward more decentralized school funding  where the money follows the child. In the United States, we are in a  transition period, moving from funding institutions to funding students.  K-12 education funding is moving closer to the funding model for higher  education, where <u>the money follows students to the public, <b>private</b> or  nonprofit school of their choice</u>."&nbsp; (Underline and bold text mine)</blockquote><br /><b><u>SB 82 </u></b><b><u><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Student Achievement Backpack</span></span> and SB 257 </u></b><b><u><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Personalized Educator Evaluation Technology </span></span>with SB 133 </u></b><b><u><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">School Performance Report Amendments </span></span>as an enabler making sure all of the data, every student's test score in every classroom of more than 10 students, is legally accessible.</u></b> <br /><br />In the <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574831/Bill-to-create-online-student-information-profile-clears-committee.html?pg=all">Senate Education Committee</a>, Jerry Stevenson says about SB 82 ""It adds transparency to what our education system is doing,"<br /><br />Judi Park of the State Office of Education says, ""It's going to be much more costly than what the fiscal note would suggest."<br /><br />Howard Stephenson says, ""I just support this bill 100 percent, and I think what we're hearing in  opposition to it are excuses for not wanting parents to receive this  information," he said. "Parents have a right to all the information in  the most easily accessible way."&nbsp; So it's all about the parents and their rights. <br /><br />I say, "Every parent in every district in the state can log into a website and see their student's grades, test scores, records, etc.&nbsp; This unnecessary bill,SB 82, is a transparent ploy for some other goal." <br /><br />Just before the South by Southwest (SXWE) educational technology conference <a href="http://gettingsmart.com/cms/blog/2013/03/the-data-opportunity-is-spelled-dqc-dln-ed-fi-alliance/">this week</a>, educational technology salesman and advocate, and friend and presenter at Parents For Choice in Education conferences, Tom Vander Ark, says,<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The Ed-Fi solution <u>extracts student information</u> from a variety of  educational data systems, and then standardizes, integrates and  <u>communicates it to</u> educators and <u>other parties</u> through Web-based  dashboards, reports and other applications.&nbsp; Ten states license the  Ed-Fi solution directly and four additional states benefit from  partnerships with <a href="http://inbloom.org/">inBloom</a>, which uses Ed-Fi XML interchanges to support states’ and districts’ adoption of personalized learning tools....</blockquote><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><a href="http://www.digitallearningnow.com/">Digital Learning Now! </a>created  a 10 element state policy framework that embraces the potential of  digital learning–all 10 elements rely on a great longitudinal data  system. &nbsp;DLN is releasing a Smart Series paper every month on critical  digital learning topics. &nbsp;The second paper <a href="http://digitallearningnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DLN-Smart-Series-Databack-Final1.pdf">Data Backpacks: Portable Records &amp; Learner Profiles</a> detailed next steps for states.&nbsp; </blockquote><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;States should:<br />Adopt the<a href="http://ed-fi.org/"> Ed-Fi </a>standards and join the Ed-Fi Alliance.<br /><br />District and school leaders should:<br />&nbsp;Encourage your state to adopt the Ed-Fi solution <u>to ease transfer of  gradebook data</u> and use of common dashboards and reporting tools. <br /><u>Work with a vendor on a super gradebook and expanded learner profile</u>. </blockquote>&nbsp;(underlining mine)<br />So Ed-Fi = inBloom = massive database of student data for vendors. <br />SB 82 = "super gradebook" necessary to "ease transfer of gradebook data" to Ed-Fi/inBloom<br /><br /><a href="http://gettingsmart.com/cms/blog/2013/03/sxswedu-halftime-report/">During SXSW</a>, Tom Vander Ark says, <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>Data is Beautiful. &nbsp;</b>inBloom is everywhere at SXSW with briefings, receptions, and parties. Along with the subtler Ed-Fi Alliance launch, <a href="http://gettingsmart.com/cms/blog/2013/03/the-data-opportunity-is-spelled-dqc-dln-ed-fi-alliance/">data plumbing, policies and tools </a>are all the rage in Austin.</blockquote>&nbsp;Marketing as education policy...<br /><br />The paper mentioned above, <a href="http://digitallearningnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DLN-Smart-Series-Databack-Final1.pdf">Data Backpacks: Portable Records &amp; Learner Profiles</a>, outlines the goals and connected programs of this "Big Data" (their words) push. <br /><br />To paraphrase the paper: It's hard to see your student's records with fees and forms.&nbsp; [Is this true anywhere in the US in 2013?] Data is in a "patchwork" of systems. [That's an obvious buzzword of the paper. Turn it around and say "States and districts have insisted on autonomy when choosing data and grading programs.]<br /><br />To quote from pgs 5-6:<br /><br />"This expanded Learner Profile <br /><div data-canvas-width="194.52400421619416" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 710.077px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.820776, 1);">must represent a holistic view of the </div><div data-canvas-width="207.0493378210068" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 727.677px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.824898, 1);">student’s unique learning preferences, </div><div data-canvas-width="218.59200473785396" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 745.277px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.821774, 1);">such as his or her best learning modality </div><div data-canvas-width="204.58533776760095" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 762.877px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.818341, 1);">(such as, “does the student learn best </div><div data-canvas-width="209.90933788299557" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 780.477px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.823174, 1);">through visual representations in some </div><div data-canvas-width="195.21333756446836" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 798.077px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.823685, 1);">cases and with hands-on learning in </div><div data-canvas-width="190.52000412940978" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 815.677px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.828348, 1);">others?”) and learning environment </div><div data-canvas-width="193.20400418758388" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 833.277px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.815207, 1);">(such as, “does the student perform </div><div data-canvas-width="193.16000418663026" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 300.005px; top: 850.877px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.818475, 1);">better in small-group or whole-class </div>settings?”)<br /><br />Next-generation digital <br /><div data-canvas-width="209.88000454902647" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 63.4667px; top: 157.611px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.810347, 1);">tools, services, platforms, and systems </div><div data-canvas-width="200.56667101383206" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 63.4667px; top: 175.211px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.828788, 1);">now give us <u>the opportunity to collect </u></div><div data-canvas-width="194.53867088317867" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 63.4667px; top: 192.811px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.824316, 1);"><u>and classify information down to the </u></div><div data-canvas-width="193.84933753490444" data-font-name="g_font_p1_2" dir="ltr" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14.6667px; left: 63.4667px; top: 210.411px; transform-origin: 0% 0% 0px; transform: scale(0.828416, 1);"><u>individual keystrokes</u> of comparable </div>students in parallel situations.<br />(Underline mine) <br /><br />Pg. 2 and 12: Make a new official transcript called the student backpack, specifically to enable the data (the uncomfortably specific data detailed above) to be shared with the inBloom database and mined by vendors.<br /><br />Pg. 11 sidebar: BloomBoard is the designated "personal teacher professional development plan" program&nbsp; SB 257 designed to be compatible with the new super gradebook SB 82.<br /><br /><a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/connect-dots-stephenson-adams-want-to.html">The dot</a>s have been connected.&nbsp; I half apologize to Common core conspiracy theorists.&nbsp; You got part of the scheme right; you just missed who was perpetrating it.&nbsp; Bill Gates and a bunch of unethical education technology profiteers want to eliminate student privacy and destroy neighborhood schools in order to enable a voucher system that funnels money to the best advertisers.&nbsp;<br /><br />Howard Stephenson, Stuart Adams, and Parents for Choice in Education shill for legislation in behalf of these national organizations who do not care what the majority of Utah parents want for our children.&nbsp; Their words talk about "students, not systems," but their actions show that their motive is just to force students into a different system meant to exploit them for the profits of connected individuals and companies.<br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/5536444075701146902/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=5536444075701146902";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5536444075701146902";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5536444075701146902";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/from-horses-mouths-sb-110-moves-toward.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-5823631161809931522";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-03-09T04:59:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-03-11T06:39:00.051-06:00";s:5:"title";s:149:"Has EVERY educational technology company that made political donations in Utah gotten a state contract? Open question, but I think the answer is yes.";s:12:"atom_content";s:40850:"<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>  <w:View>Normal</w:View>  <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>  <w:PunctuationKerning/>  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>  <w:Compatibility>   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>   <w:DontGrowAutofit/>  </w:Compatibility>  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>  <w:View>Normal</w:View>  <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>  <w:PunctuationKerning/>  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>  <w:Compatibility>   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>   <w:DontGrowAutofit/>  </w:Compatibility>  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]-->How do you win a statewide contract to provide educational software for schools in Utah?&nbsp; You could spend time pitching your wares to individual schools and districts--I've sat through a number of demonstrations myself.&nbsp; "If you use whatever program for a whole bunch of minutes each week, it will drastically improve an important skill x in the students.&nbsp; We will then print reports showing that they improved." <br /><br />But why waste your time thinking small?&nbsp; Only 1 or 2 of our state legislators taught public school, and they hold the purse strings to much larger sums of money than the districts with much wider latitude on how to spend it.&nbsp; Convince them that your product is a silver bullet--but making sure to repeat "I'm not saying this is a silver bullet"--as you hand them "research-based" reports showing your program drastically improved test scores in that one district in that one state.<br /><br />Those legislators can then write a bill with a Request For Proposals (RFP's).&nbsp; Those requests can be for "personalized teacher professional development plans," "special education specific reading software,"&nbsp; "handheld reading devices to give reading tests,"&nbsp; "reading software for preschoolers on a laptop with a dashboard," or whatever.&nbsp; These open Requests for Proposals are <i>supposed</i> to open up a competitive bidding process that ensures the taxpayer-funded school system has the latitude to purchase the best product at the best price.&nbsp; However, just <i>Imagine</i> the potential power in helping determine the specific wording and feature requests for one of these "open" proposals...&nbsp; I've taken to calling them <u>R</u>eferrals to <u>F</u>riends of ste<u>P</u>henson. <br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>  <w:View>Normal</w:View>  <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>  <w:PunctuationKerning/>  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>  <w:Compatibility>   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>   <w:DontGrowAutofit/>  </w:Compatibility>  <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--> <br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles></xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable  {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";  mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;  mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;  mso-style-noshow:yes;  mso-style-parent:"";  mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;  mso-para-margin:0in;  mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;  mso-pagination:widow-orphan;  font-size:10.0pt;  font-family:"Times New Roman";  mso-ansi-language:#0400;  mso-fareast-language:#0400;  mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style><![endif]--> <br /><div class="MsoNormal">I was put back on this horse when I was contacted by a blogger in Arizona, a retired high school English teacher, who had read my posts on Imagine Learning and Waterford's political spending and custom RFP's.&nbsp; A state senator there is running a bill opening up a <a href="http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/02/a-name-al-melvins-special-interest-contest.html">$30 million RFP</a> for reading software with a suspiciously specific list of requirements.&nbsp; This teacher and his commenters tracked down the company posed to benefit from this custom bill, Utah's Imagine Learning.&nbsp; He broke down the specific language of this year's bill and a past proposal to show how it was <a href="http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/02/ladies-and-gentlemen-we-have-a-winner-in-the-name-al-melvins-special-interest-contest.html">specifically crafted for</a> Imagine Learning.&nbsp; Then he posted about the fact that Imagine Learning is a <a href="http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/02/al-melvins-special-interest-education-company-the-alecgoldwater-institutejeb-bush-connection.html">paying member</a> of ALEC and then linked to <a href="http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/02/al-melvins-special-interest-education-company-how-they-do-business-in-utah.html">my posts</a> about Imagine Learning's political donations in Utah that of course had nothing to do with their statewide contract. </div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Statewide funding to Imagine Learning was first authorized in 2008.&nbsp; I  obviously suspect it was in SB 2, the omnibus, but I can't find it.&nbsp; Here is my post about <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-educational-software-company-gets.html">Imagine Learning's political donations</a> in 2009.&nbsp; The system has been updated since I first wrote that, and the political donations actually started in 2008, including money given to Becky Lockhart, Carl Wimmer, Aaron Tilton, and a candidate for the Canyons School Board.&nbsp; <br /><br />Imagine Learning has kept up the pattern of political donations in 2010, 2011, and 2012, only with a larger net.&nbsp; They have spent <a href="http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/823">over $57,000</a> (Is part of the return on that advocacy at the ALEC conferences from the Utah legislators?) over 3 years, donating principally to powerful Republicans (Herbert most of all, Jenkins, Hughes, Urquhart, Bramble, Osmond, many others), but plenty of Democrats too, especially strong education advocates. (Carol Moss, Marie Poulson, Karen Morgan)&nbsp; None of the legislators were even up for election in 2011 when Imagine Learning cheerfully donated $18,000 to various campaigns.&nbsp; They also donate money to groups that are code for donations to legislators, but they don't have to put their name on the forms.&nbsp; Donating to the Utah County Legislative PAC is giving money to Speaker Lockhart's control. Donations to the Utah Taxpayers Association are a donation to Howard Stephenson that he doesn't have to report either. <br /><br />Imagine Learning has also partnered with the Utah State Office of Education to sponsor teams to a popular road race run in teams, Ragnar, in both <a href="http://utahpubliceducation.org/2012/06/18/superintendents-fitness-challenge-and-imagine-learning-sponsor-wasatch-back-ragnar-relay-teams/#.URsT8vLRFSk">2012</a> and <a href="http://utahpubliceducation.org/2013/01/31/teachers-join-the-ragnar-relay/#.URsUJfLRFSk">2013</a>.&nbsp; There's nothing inherently bad about helping teachers run in a race, but any connection to learning or K-3 Reading is tenuous at best (healthy teachers is a good goal...except any teachers participating in this long race already run anyway...). I believe the firm is just cultivating influence wherever it can.&nbsp; Does buttering up the USOE decrease criticism of the political nature of their contract?&nbsp; I have to say the answer is possibly, "Yes."<br /><br />The program was reauthorized in 2010  in HB 2.&nbsp; The language is for reading software, but it apparently just  continues the existing Imagine Learning contract.&nbsp;&nbsp; Imagine Learning received $8,400,000 over 2010, 2011, and 2012, which is really a nice return on investment for their $57,000 in contributions. The amount the legislature gave the company detailed in their <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-H6tj6Ss9FVXRpbzdyMWk1ekk/edit">"accountability" report</a> which I will discuss more in a moment.<br /><br />I searched the entire list of<a href="http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch?type=CORP"> corporate donors</a> in Utah, and only one additional education company has donated any money since 2008.&nbsp; (The big national virtual school company, K-12, had a folder, but appears to have not donated since at least 2008.)&nbsp; <br /><br />That one other company out of thousands of educational technology companies, iSchool Campus, spent <a href="http://disclosures.utah.gov/Search/PublicSearch/FolderDetails/1411799">almost $10,000</a>, all donated to Republicans, in 2012, and...wait for it...they won a state wide contract too!&nbsp; It was even publicly acknowledged that they got to <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54973922-78/students-program-schools-dixon.html.csp?page=1">help write the bill</a>, and several representatives from iSchool accompanied the sponsor to the legislative committee presentation.&nbsp; No, I am not making this up.&nbsp; The bill sponsor, Sen. Jerry Stevenson, insisted the process was "fair". Sure they helped write it; sure I had them with me when I advocated for the bill; but they beat out three other vendors for an RFP they wrote, "fair" and square.<br /><br />So the only two companies listed as making political donations, Imagine Learning and iSchool, got what are essentially no-bid contracts despite proposals from other companies. And Waterford paid an unknown amount of money to a contract lobbying firm headed by an ex-state senate president which in turn spent an unknown amount on gifts, meals, and other methods of lobbying the legislature via various loopholes, leading to Waterford's software being bought for individual preschoolers around the state, via <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html">last minute inclusion</a> in an omnibus education bill. <br /><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54973922-78/students-program-schools-dixon.html.csp?page=1" target="_blank"><br /></a><br />All three companies, Imagine Learning, Waterford, and iSchool arrange for "news" articles that basically serve as free advertising with no investigation of their claims:<br /><a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/provo-s-imagine-learning-brings-online-education-to-children/article_ff335e10-295f-55e7-a102-b9a6d84c9d22.html">Imagine Learning </a><br /><a href="http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22560606&amp;nid=148&amp;title=utah-education-technology-company-gains-national-attention&amp;s_cid=queue-11">iSchool</a><br /><a href="http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20121226/NEWS01/312260008/Preschool-program-gives-kids-head-start?nclick_check=1">Waterford</a><br /><br />However, NO data has been released publicly on the performance of Imagine Learning or Waterford.&nbsp; (iSchool just started last fall)&nbsp;&nbsp; There have been some hyperbolic statements made by school choice people and legislators about how great they are, or anecdotal fluff like the articles above, but no proof of the software's quality or worth. There have been reports made to the legislature, but you probably haven't heard anything about them.&nbsp; Howard Stephenson doesn't insist that letter grades about his expensive pet programs be mailed to every home like he does for those lazy teachers.<br /><br />Here is Stephenson's Utah Taxpayers Association Newsletter from <a href="http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/September-20122.pdf">Sep. 2012</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/September-20122.pdf" target="_blank"><br /></a>Stephenson opines on technology in schools on pages 2 and 3.&nbsp; You can see his disdain for backward teachers who don't realize that iPads are smarter than them.&nbsp; The 3rd to last paragraph features his specific references to Imagine Learning and Waterford, just not by name, and his claim that they "improved student performance."&nbsp; But no evidence.&nbsp; That's just for socialistic reading teachers and the PTA.<br /><br />The next paragraph details the "best new" iSchool pilot program.&nbsp; He literally claims ALL students are on task ALL the time as they rotate on and off of the iPads.&nbsp; It's magic!&nbsp; And make sure you realize he had to have written this at the end of August/very beginning of September when school had been in for at most a couple of weeks in the first year of this pilot program.&nbsp; <br /><br />He has been finding tangentially related reasons to repeat how wonderful these schools are in every committee or floor hearing he can during the entire session. I would love to hear in the comments or via email from any teachers or staff at the three iSchool pilot schools. I listened to Stephenson during one of the first education appropriations committee meetings of the session, and on the radio, wax on about how these students were ALL glued to the screen with no disruptions all the time.&nbsp; He made it sound like he was a frequent observer, while I bet he went to one of the schools one time in August.<br /><br />Technology doesn't magically "personalize" and accelerate learning.&nbsp; It's often handy, and students do like using iPads, but it is not a silver bullet for better reading, writing, and thinking, especially not higher level skills.&nbsp; The "personalization" consists of ranking the students on a scale according to how many multiple choice questions they answer correctly, and then giving them a different ranking after the next test according to whatever unique and proprietary system of measurement that particular program develops.&nbsp; <br /><br />Senator Urquhart, although I frequently disagree with him, is usually someone I find willing to talk and reason with those in opposition to his bills.&nbsp; But he came down hard on education officials during another educational appropriations officials, saying something to the effect that "All the elementary reading gains in Utah are due to Imagine Learning."&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Based on what evidence?<br /><br />Yes, Imagine Learning donated&nbsp; a relatively small amount of money to his campaign.&nbsp; And yes, Sen. Urquhart is also running a bill, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0260.html">SB 260 First Substitute</a>, giving more money to Imagine Learning based on their claims of results. In fact, the bill allocates <a href="http://le.utah.gov/lfa/fnotes/2013/sb0260s01.fn.htm">just over $5,000,000</a> to Imagine Learning for 2013-2014, which is $2,000,000 more than they've ever received in a past year.&nbsp; Please look at the <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-H6tj6Ss9FVXRpbzdyMWk1ekk/edit">two-page accountability report</a> given to the legislature which is apparently the basis of Senator  Urquhart's and Stephenson's claims of increased student achievement.&nbsp; <br /><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument>  <w:View>Normal</w:View>  <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>  <w:TrackMoves/>  <w:TrackFormatting/>  <w:DoNotShowComments/>  <w:PunctuationKerning/>  <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>  <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>  <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>  <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>  <w:DoNotPromoteQF/>  <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>  <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>  <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>  <w:Compatibility>   <w:BreakWrappedTables/>   <w:SnapToGridInCell/>   <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>   <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>   <w:DontGrowAutofit/>   <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>   <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>   <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>   <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>  </w:Compatibility>  <m:mathPr>   <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>   <m:brkBin m:val="before"/>   <m:brkBinSub m:val="&#45;-"/>   <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>   <m:dispDef/>   <m:lMargin m:val="0"/>   <m:rMargin m:val="0"/>   <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>   <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>   <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>   <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>  </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"   DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"   LatentStyleCount="267">  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"    UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>  <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles></xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable  {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";  mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;  mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;  mso-style-noshow:yes;  mso-style-priority:99;  mso-style-parent:"";  mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;  mso-para-margin-top:0in;  mso-para-margin-right:0in;  mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;  mso-para-margin-left:0in;  line-height:115%;  mso-pagination:widow-orphan;  font-size:11.0pt;  font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";  mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;  mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;  mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;  mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style><![endif]--> <br /><div class="MsoNormal">The Imagine Learning report is basically useless.&nbsp; It is not an independent report generated by the users of the product, the schools or Utah State Office of Education.&nbsp; It is two pages provided by the vendor detailing how they fulfilled their contract and their claims of student achievement.&nbsp; They report that they fulfilled their contract by having friendly customer service, installing the program, and delivering headphones.&nbsp; Then they provide a table of student skill mastery data as measured by themselves.&nbsp; There is no context to understand it.&nbsp; 80% mastery of those concepts as defined by Imagine Learning in an unknown number of exercises would correspond with what CRT, DIBEL, or anything? &nbsp; The 4th column reports much higher percentages of students with skills mastered than I get from dividing the second column of total students by the first column reporting how many students mastered at least 80% of the skills per area.&nbsp; What numbers and context are missing? &nbsp; This is data by the vendor to show that the vendor's program worked.&nbsp; What was the chance of those numbers showing low achievement?&nbsp; 0%?&nbsp; The data just seems cherry-picked to appear high with further results available "on request."&nbsp; Take a guess how many legislators requested any more specific data... Or take a guess how many times Howard Stephenson ranted about "funding inputs" in relation to Imagine Learning's intrepid providing of headphones. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div>I have only done a cursory read through the extensive <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5-H6tj6Ss9FbWJCc3puYXNsa0k/edit">Waterford 3-year evaluation data</a>.&nbsp; This at least gives the appearance of rigorous comparison with the state's scores, but I have not put the necessary time in to dig through this all and see if it's valid.&nbsp; This was presented by a Waterford Rep. and the first page is another mini-sales pitch. There is a claim that a test given halfway through kindergarten shows that children who used the Waterford software program score higher on a reading test than those students who did not take the test.&nbsp; There are still many questions about that test, whether the difference is meaningful and will still be there in first grade, and whether the degree of any positive effects justify the cost.<br /><br />Or put differently, could we accomplish the same and more by spending that money somewhere besides to one well-connected company? And why didn't Stephenson or the legislature talk publicly about this or past reports they assumably received about the Waterford UPSTART program?&nbsp; There is often no real attempt to negotiate with educators about the best use of funds when Stephenson determines a software vendor can do something better than teachers.&nbsp; <br /><br />I was surprised, though maybe I shouldn't have been, that both "accountability" documents were written up by the vendor themselves.&nbsp; The claims to "increased student achievement," merited or not, were apparently carried through the ALEC network to Arizona as well, where Imagine Learning is trying to repeat the same pattern by winning education contracts from politicians rather than educators.&nbsp; <br /><br />Howard Stephenson has a record believing marvelous "21st century" claims of vendors and then shilling for <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-technology-integration-issue.html">specific</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/collection-of-articles-about-procert.html">companies</a>. (That last link has so many revealing underlined quotes.&nbsp; Read and see Stephenson's numerous comments.)&nbsp; A Utah district got suckered by a vendor I have had some experience with, Plato Learning, into spending <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/09/challenge-of-effectively-integrating.html">over $75,000</a> on worthless learning "games," that last I heard are boxed up and ignored after less than a year of use.&nbsp; I've attended various sales pitches in our district and a lot of them are solutions looking for problems...and really broad problems like "reading" where they can claim "It's only one piece of the process" if scores do not go up, but claim to be the definitive cause of any improvement.<br /><br />Software can be an important tool, but programs are receiving state contracts via custom RFP's because they can convince or donate to one or two key legislators, or just based on the ideology that technology can more cheaply accomplish something as complex as educate a child.&nbsp; <br /><br /><u>Howard Stephenson and his buddies, along with Parents for Choice in Education, are running vendor specific bills cloaked in language of open RFP's.</u>&nbsp; We know those who have openly donated in the past; we will find out more in months to come when 2013 political donation reports are due; and we may never learn if some companies are members of ALEC or the Utah Taxpayer's Association, where their payments are merely a "private transaction" rather than a bribe.&nbsp; <u>It's an open secret that is just as bad as anything John Swallow did.</u><br /><br /><u>It should be illegal.&nbsp; It certainly isn't ethical.&nbsp; And in contrast to all of their rhetoric, it is certainly not about helping kids learn.</u>&nbsp; It's all about directing easy chunks of taxpayer money to political cronies.&nbsp; <br /><br />Just a few 2013 vendor bills:<br /><br />SB 133, SB 82, and SB 257 which are <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/connect-dots-stephenson-adams-want-to.html">a package deal</a> literally meant to enable a private database of individual, identifiable information of every student in Utah so vendors can use the data to sell us stuff. SB 82 and SB 257 have specific vendors already chosen by the bill sponsors.<br /><br />SB 260 More money for Imagine Learning as detailed above.<br /><br />SB 175 requires the state contract with an ACT Prep software company with a strangely specific <a href="http://le.utah.gov/lfa/fnotes/2013/SB0175.fn.htm">$150,000</a> cost, leading me to believe Stephenson already knows a company will make that bid. Even though the official ACT site already has as many <a href="http://www.actstudent.org/sampletest/">free test questions</a> and study materials as I think most students need, the official <a href="http://www.actstudent.org/onlineprep/">ACT purchasable online prep program</a> may be the target company here.&nbsp; Its buzz words match the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillamd/SB0175.htm">prewritten RFP</a> in the bill very well. (Lines 229-258) But at $19.95 a pop, that would only cover 7500 students, not nearly enough.&nbsp; This one even makes it law that districts have to "encourage" the use of the program.&nbsp; No micro-managing here.<br /><br />SB 79 Makes an RFP for a "consultant" to guide the state and schools in creating "blended learning models." Money can also be granted with no oversight to buy software or online curriculum material.&nbsp; Who does Stephenson know who consults and has a handy set of online materials ready for purchase?<br /><br />HB 343 tried to ban schools from purchasing paper books....Well why don't you try our lovely daily online reading program?<br /><br />SB 284&nbsp; More money for iSchool? A 1-to-1 device to student ratio pilot?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/5823631161809931522/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=5823631161809931522";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5823631161809931522";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5823631161809931522";s:4:"link";s:73:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/has-every-educational-technology.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-7279447649248252112";s:9:"published";s:29:"2013-03-05T04:24:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2013-03-09T06:41:54.877-07:00";s:5:"title";s:169:"Connect the dots: Stephenson & Adams want to give away public ed. money to connected companies…and enable a national database of Utah students to be mined for profit??";s:12:"atom_content";s:15413:"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST 3-9-13)<br />I’ve got a lot to say about custom RFP’s (Referrals to Friends of stePhenson) this session and in the past (Imagine Learning, iSchool, Waterford, etc.), but I’ll have to limit my focus tonight.  Senator Stuart Adams had become PCE’s admitted newest waterboy over the last couple of sessions, and I’m fairly certain they coordinate and spread around which of their legislator friends will carry certain bills.<br /><br />1. Senator Howard Stephenson wants to make sure all legal obstacles to accessing and publishing teacher data—student scores grouped by teacher—are removed with his <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0133.html">SB 133</a>.  He claims the public will benefit from teachers being ranked and compared by standardized test scores.  All questions of population and demographics, and the inevitable screwing over of special ed., ELL, and other poor students, are <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55930879-78/data-parents-teachers-education.html.csp">waved off</a>: “There will be plenty of context.”  (The simple fiscal note also took a month to be returned, resulting in this bill being slightly hurried in the second half of the session.)<br /><br />As a separate caveat that will be important further down, remember that all of this supposed “teacher data” is more accurately a bunch of individual student test scores.  The scores of actual Utah students attached to records containing names, grades, and social security numbers.<br /><br />(The whole concept is wrong because of important technical and practical considerations, as well as questionably moral.  Here is a <a href="http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/category/race-to-the-top/value-added-teacher-evaluation/">one link</a> to the posts on VAM (Value-Added Measurement) by an educational statistician at Rutgers, with a large focus on New York where this has already happened and been demonstrated inaccurate and harmful to teachers AND thus students. )<br /><br />2.  Senator Jerry Stevenson is now running <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0082.html">SB 82</a>, Student Achievement Backpack.&nbsp; This bill’s original non-public drafting was requested by Howard Stephenson, and the numbered bill was listed under his name until a few days ago.  Somehow the bill got switched to another senator; I suspect this was in order to diffuse the concentration of educational software bills being promoted by Stephenson.  (This bill was not revealed to the public until late February and then was held in committee for two more weeks, ensuring that it will not have to go through the House Education Committee and face more testimony from the public.  It will instead be rushed right to the House Floor Calendar if it passes the Senate. The public may not comment on the floor, unless they have the legislators’ personal cell numbers to text like the lobbyists do.)<br /><br />I believe every school district in Utah has an online portal where parents can access their student’s records, seeing their current grades and past test performance.  I could be wrong about some rural district, but I doubt it.  All parents have to do is log in.  In keeping with local control and budget priorities, the contracts for providing these online services are handled by the individual districts.  When students switch schools, the records with grades and test scores are sent on with the student, with a slight delay while the new school requests the record from the old one.<br /><br />So the bill really is pointless.  Half a million dollars this year and $110K a year to duplicate what already exists, but centralized and controlled by the state.  However Stephenson was <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574831/Bill-to-create-online-student-information-profile-clears-committee.html?pg=all">vehement</a> in his support for the concept and criticism of the educators who were explaining this to the Senate Education committee. All of the concerns about duplication and wasting scarce education fund money were only “excuses for not wanting parents to receive this information.”&nbsp; It’s all about the children you selfish teachers! (Notice that the sponsor has chosen not to make the fiscal note public. Does it contain any concerns that the claimed costs are too low?)  PCE’s spokesperson perpetuated the misconception that having access to your student’s records was some new innovation.<br /><br />3.  Stephenson certainly has a specific company, who may or may not be one of the Utah Taxpayers Association’s secret clients, in mind to design and administer this database.  He has demonstrated in the past that he has no qualms about tailoring RFP’s (Requests For Proposals) in order to ensure that a favored contractor wins the government contract.<br /><br />4.  There’s a larger playing field of educational philosophy these bills are being positioned on.  Both bills are based on and tacitly strengthen the assumption that teachers are the only variable that matters in education, and that their interests are opposed to students.  There are many horrible teachers lazing around, and if we only pressure them more by centralizing this newly available data on teachers and students, we’ll quickly and innovatively find magic silver bullets to educate poor students that are cheap AND effective!  (One of those assumptions is actually true, and leads to substantial profits for those involved…)<br /><br />Both also lay the ground for a largely privatized system of “backpack” funding, the euphemistic term for vouchers, where students are constantly switching schools or “voting with their feet” in a competitive arena of variously priced schools.  Of course, continually jumping back and forth between schools and losing most neighborhood schools, except those still educating the very poorest and most disabled students, won’t harm the students academically or socially.<br /><br />4.  Having all Utah students’ data in one expensive, redundant database at the state would I guess allow for slightly easier transfers in such a scenario.  Charters often struggle a little bit more sending information in a timely fashion as they don’t always have the same staff and experience with the paperwork as the districts, but it still seems a bit weird to be pushing this so hard.<br /><br />5. So now look at Senator Adam’s other seemingly unconnected bill which was the most out-of-the-blue bolt of technological wonder in a session full of software that will save education, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0257.html">SB 257</a>, Personalized Education Evaluation Technology.&nbsp; (This bill wasn’t revealed to the public until the last day of February. It too will skip public comment in the House Education Committee.)<br /><br />Wow.  What a concept!  We’ll push the total dismantling of district economies of scale and teacher contracts with <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/SB0110.html">SB 110</a>, mandating a huge increase in principals’ budgeting and HR responsibilities, but then pilot a way to have a computer program replace their evaluations of teachers.  Maybe it makes a strange kind of sense.  If you plan on making the principal do what a staff of accountants and HR people previously handled at the district level, he or she will not have time for the unimportant work of observing and mentoring teachers.  It’s a great way to spend $70,000 this year before expanding the program next year and claiming that this isn’t taking away local control.  “21st Century local control” means you get to turn the computer on yourself.<br /><br />I don’t for a second believe Senator Adams (or even Senator Stephenson) came up with this chestnut alone.  Who in the world is pushing this solution searching desperately for a problem?<br /><br />6.  While my head was spinning from the ridiculousness of this newest way to claim technology can replace teachers and principals (ridiculousness that passed the Senate Education Committee on a 5-1 vote earlier today), I saw a bunch of tweets from some national education people I follow about the Gates Foundation’s national student database.  I continue to be very “meh” on the Common Core, but have largely dismissed the conspiracy theorists claiming the national takeover.  It was hard for me to swallow their hypocritical denunciations of the Gates Foundation funding and backing, when they accepted their money and theories, as well as other out-of-state millions from Walmart channeled through Parents for Choice in Education, when they backed their pet proposals for merit pay or vouchers.<br /><br />But this new information about what the Gates foundation is doing along with Fox New’s educational software company, Amplify, and others, is something that may unite varied groups in Utah against national student databases.  It’s not the government gathering student data into one place to exploit our children; it’s educational software companies...<br /><br />A few excerpts from a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/03/us-education-database-idUSBRE92204W20130303">Reuters article</a> from the SXSWedu technology conference going on right now in Texas:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">But the most influential new product may be the least flashy: a $100 million database built to chart the academic paths of public school students from kindergarten through high school.<br /><br />In operation just three months, the database already holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school - even homework completion.<br /><br />Local education officials retain legal control over their students' information. But federal law allows them to share files in their portion of the database with private companies selling educational products and services.<br /><br />Entrepreneurs can't wait.<br /><br />…<br /><br />The database is a joint project of the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided most of the funding, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and school officials from several states. Amplify Education, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, built the infrastructure over the past 18 months. When it was ready, the Gates Foundation turned the database over to a newly created nonprofit, inBloom Inc, which will run it.<br /><br />…<br /><br />Schools do not need parental consent to share student records with any "school official" who has a "legitimate educational interest," according to the Department of Education. The department defines "school official" to include private companies hired by the school, so long as they use the data only for the purposes spelled out in their contracts.&nbsp;</blockquote><br />The article interviews several software executives who will use this database to “personalize” programs for students as they sell them.  Then it interestingly moves on to professional development for teachers.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Companies with access to the database will also be able to identify struggling teachers and pinpoint which concepts their students are failing to master. One startup that could benefit: BloomBoard, which sells schools professional development plans customized to each teacher.<br /><br />The new database "is a godsend for us," said Jason Lange, the chief executive of BloomBoard. "It allows us to collect more data faster, quicker and cheaper."&nbsp;</blockquote><br />What a fortunate coincidence!  Read the “open” RFP for software in <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillint/SB0257.htm">SB 257</a> lines 55-76.&nbsp;  This program must contain “personalized professional development plans” with a “reporting dashboard,” a “free observation tool,” and a “free online library of professional development. ”  Now go to Bloomboard’s <a href="http://www.bloomboard.com/">website</a> and see what three features are offered on the front page:<br /><br />•  Free observation &amp; evaluation tools for districts<br /><br />•  Individualized learning plans &amp; personalized support recommendations for teachers<br /><br />•  An open marketplace of workshops and resources for professional development<br /><br />Next, scroll down one page to watch the handy video, remembering that lines 64-66 of the bill require the program to tell you the most effective resources according to “data on the implementation of professional development activities.”  Another lucky break!  This program happens to claim that exact function. (1:13-1:26 in video.)<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VYZZT67GWGM?feature=player_detailpage" width="640"></iframe> <br />Very convincing.&nbsp; Evaluations are <i>hard</i>! <br /><br />One page below, the sample dashboard with three tabs is even more convincing.  The very non-generic evaluation and goals under the “Coach” tab are powerful, and the “Connect” tab shows an “online library of professional development” complete with articles and videos of classroom games, all apparently categorized on Levels 1 to 4.  You just plug in a teacher’s test scores and a video, and this program, based on a proprietary collection of data that is 100% trustworthy, will give us personalized weblinks to other peoples’ educational training that we never could have googled ourselves.  The program will pay for itself because now we can stop paying teachers to meet together for professional development.  They will just go home and on their own time read a few links of “online resources” that are “more personalized” than face-to-face training. It’s brilliant!<br /><br />7.  And the key to making this marvelous miracle of 21st Century education work…a database with all of the students’ scores, identified by teacher and class, gathered to one central location.<br /><br />This would normally seem an insurmountable obstacle in a state devoted to protecting its children.&nbsp; However, in *<i>another</i>* fortunate coincidence, SB 133 allows the necessary data to be made available, and SB 82 unnecessarily gathers it into one central database.  SB 257’s coincidental match with Bloomboard’s specifications will then not be in vain, and BOTH school choice AND school profits will be enabled.  And all for the children.<br /><br />Life is just full of surprises.<br /><br />UPDATE:&nbsp; Well, I found some smoking guns of a sort.&nbsp; There is no more need to only infer what is happening from the non-coincidental program links.&nbsp; I have quotes from those organizing the massive database, inBloom or Ed-Fi. The dots have been <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/from-horses-mouths-sb-110-moves-toward.html">connected</a>.&nbsp; They make a cute picture of a dollar sign: $ :which is now hanging on Bill Gates' refrigerator.&nbsp; <br /><br />";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/7279447649248252112/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=7279447649248252112";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/7279447649248252112";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/7279447649248252112";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2013/03/connect-dots-stephenson-adams-want-to.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-4218953744388212096";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-03-13T00:23:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-03-13T03:15:13.922-06:00";s:5:"title";s:120:"PCE wants pro voucher State School Board candidates by Thursday for flawed elections, and UEA "monopolizes" the caucus??";s:12:"atom_content";s:8166:"Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) appealed to supporters today to file and run for the State School Board.  They realize informed advocates of public education on the board often intelligently oppose PCE initiatives to weaken public education and want a majority of sympathetic votes.  <br /><br />The Parents for Choice in Education PAC operates on extremely large out-of-state donations from anti-public ed. organizations and individuals.  <u>They literally have no grassroots financial support in Utah.</u> They reported over $209,000 dollars sitting in their PAC account on their August 2011 report, which is the most recent posted at the Lt. Governor's website.  This money came from large donations in the election years of 2010 and 2008.  (The state switched systems in 2008, and the reports showing the millions of out-of-state money received during the voucher fight in 2007 and the systematic support of pro-voucher candidates in 2004 and 2006 do not show up.  I know there's some way to link to the old system.  I would be grateful if anyone could post a link in the comments.)  <br /><br />The PCE PAC received $179,000 in 2010. $4000 was from the Conservative Caucus of Utah politicians; the other $175,000 came from two national anti-public education organzations:  All Children Matter, founded by the DeVos and Walton families, and The American Federation for Children, a new group (with the same founding board as the National Alliance for school Choice) founded by the same people apparently to avoid the <a href="http://www.k12newsnetwork.com/2011/04/from-guest-blogger-rachel-tabachnick-talk-to-action-voucher-advocate-betsy-devos-right-wing-think-tanks-behind-koch-style-attack-on-pa-public-schools-section-2/">bad publicity</a> from All Children Matter being fined <a href="http://americansocietytoday.blogspot.com/2011/04/education-pac-fined-52-million-for.html">$5.2 million</a> for hidden illegal campaign contributions in Ohio.  (It looks like PCE was one of the final recipients of All Children Matter funds before it became defunct) The AFC is apparently also <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_American_Federation_for_Children">closely affiliated with ALEC</a> and its proscriptive model bills to weaken public education.  In 2008, the PAC received just over $342,000.  $175,000 came from All Children Matter; $164,000 came from Patrick Bryne, the Overstock.com CEO who contributed millions in 2007 to the voucher campaign and continues as one of the only 3 sponsors of Howard Stephenson's Red Meat Radio program; the other $3424 was donated by the Board Members of PCE.  <br /><br />PCE has <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/state-school-board-already-infiltrated.html">poured</a> tens of thousands into State School Board elections before, and appears to be ready to enter the fray this year again.  They are looking for candidates in all districts having an election this year: 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15.  Here is part of PCE's plea:<br /><blockquote>Dear School Choice Supporter,<br /><br />If we want to empower parents with quality school choice options, both public and private, we absolutely must recruit like-minded candidates for the State Board of Education. The innovation and reform necessary to improve our public school system will require a majority of supportive board members - something we currently do not have. This upcoming election provides us with a rare opportunity to change this!<br /><br />We urge you to please consider becoming a candidate for fthe Utah State Board of Education. If, we ask you to help us recruit good candidates to run for the 9 spots up for election this year. <br /><br />We need committed individuals to serve who understand how critical it is that we find solutions for an outdated public school system that will better meet the diverse learning needs of our students. 21st century innovation has the power to transform our one-size-fits-all system. The State Board of Education and the legislature have the most direct influence on our state's K-12 education. We can't expect change unless we are willing to get involved!</blockquote>The whole process for State School Board elections is literally run by special interests, as a committee of industry lobbyists and then the governor get to select which candidates the public gets to vote on in this non-partisan election. This is detailed <a href="http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-process-for-selecting-state.html">here</a>, <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-blatantly-will-state-board-of.html">here</a> (with more links to the 2008 vote), and <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/05/answer-to-previous-post-very-blatantly.html">here</a>.  (Gov. Herbert has expressed his desire for an open election, but the latest in many attempts to un-rig the elections, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/status/hbillsta/hb0331.htm">HB 331</a>, appears to have had a weird provision for the primary date, increasing costs, and was killed by the House Education Committee without a hearing) <br /><br />In 2008, there were shenanigans in my State School Board district 13, where the election winner <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11006927">resigned</a> the day the election was certified because he suddenly "discovered" that he didn't live in the district, ensuring that the BYU Education professor who would have otherwise been eligible to contest the seat had no opportunity.  The erstwhile winner, C. Mark Openshaw <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/state-school-board-district-13.html">refused</a> to answer opinion surveys and emails while campaigning, literally putting up no signs and making no campaign appearances.  His family's blog said he didn't even want to <a href="http://utahopenshaws.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-is-president-obama-accepting-his.html#comments">win</a>!  <br /><br />It appears Mr. Openshaw is running again from the state candidate <a href="http://elections.utah.gov/election-resources/2012-candidate-filings">website</a> (Scroll to the bottom), and <i>unopposed</i>, though his paperwork is not linked like the others as of this moment.  What kind of school board member was he the last 4 years?  I have no idea.  Maybe I would actually love his representation on the board, but I have no easy way of knowing.  I saw his name mentioned <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50804032-76/board-grading-schools-idea.html.csp">one time</a> in the paper with a lukewarm comment about the upcoming school grading system.  The State School Board needs to get some sort of public vote display up on their website showing official votes of each individual on proposals.  That would be positive all around and give voters better information on which to base their votes.  <br /><br />Two of the districts, 10 and 12, have no candidates filed today, two days before the deadline.  The positive thing is that if only two candidates file for a district race, they get to completely avoid the flawed lobbyist selection board and governor narrowing.  The scary thought is that some of these candidates might run unopposed.  Who will sign up for an automatic State School Board seat on Thursday afternoon? We'll see how it shakes out.<br /><br />PCE also encouraged supporters to run for delegates at the caucus with this comment: <br /><blockquote>The teacher's union works hard to monopolize the caucus system, ensuring their powerful stronghold and dominance over our taxpayer-funded, public school system. YOU can make sure this doesn't happen! Get involved in the legislative process and become a Delegate.</blockquote>After years of barely fighting off destructive voucher proposals and other bad policy, I only wish public education supporters had more "dominance" PCE.  I only wish.  If more teachers would run and become delegates, maybe we could get support for more legislators in Utah Valley who value public education like the silent majority does.  Our "taxpayer-funded, public school system" needs to continue to serve the public, not the whims of out-of-state multi-millionaires. <br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/4218953744388212096/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=4218953744388212096";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/4218953744388212096";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/4218953744388212096";s:4:"link";s:75:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/03/pce-wants-pro-voucher-state-school.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-3850529908233653117";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-03-09T00:34:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-03-09T01:08:09.562-07:00";s:5:"title";s:85:"The education related items the legislature resolved to study before the 2013 session";s:12:"atom_content";s:6628:"<a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/sbillamd/sjr003.htm">SJR 13</a> is the Master Study bill for the interim.  There were 155 items to study before a last minute bunch of at least 19 additions.  They are all under line 431 with letters in the current draft of the bill to explain how it will look when I list some below.<br /><br />There is not even a miniscule iota of a chance that all of these items will get looked at by the legislature and their staff during the entire next year, let alone in the 8 or 9 interim meetings the legislators will have.  <br /><br />I am going to list below the study items that have to do with education.  Who decided which ones will they <i>actually</i> study?  I'm betting Stephenson's priorities won't be skimped on, such as items 25, 30, 32, 34, and 431w.  <br /><br />The elections will be over, and it will be the year to push more strident anti-public ed. stuff in the off year.  He's already stated his <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765557598/Nobodys-in-charge-of-governing-Utah-education.html">intention</a> of pushing in 2013 Sen, Reid's destructive constitutional amendment to eliminate the State Board of Education, replacing them with the Governor and an appointed Secretary of Education.  After the best year I can remember for public ed. (thanks to the House stopping some bad Senate bills), I predict 2013 will be rocky.<br /><br /><b>Education Related Study Items</b><br />    <blockquote>23. Academic Achievement Gaps - to study high quality preschool impacts on academic achievement gaps for at risk students.<br />    24. Alternatives to GED - to study whether to issue high school diplomas to adults and those who do not graduate with the class instead of awarding a GED, to study the relative value between a high school diploma and a GED in the employment marketplace, and to study how to eliminate the GED in Utah and give diplomas instead, to give these students a higher value.<br />    25. Charter School Local Replacement Funding - to study whether school districts should contribute an amount equal to per pupil district property tax revenues for each resident student enrolled in a charter school.<br />    26. Charter School Mission and Online Education - to study whether a charter school student should be denied permission to take an online course through the Statewide Online Education Program because the charter school's mission is inconsistent with the online course.<br />    27. Concurrent Enrollment - to study the current program structure, cost, delivery, and coordination of public education and higher education.<br />    28. Credit for Teacher Professional Development in Technology - to study options for giving credit on the pay scale for teacher professional development in technology unrelated to college credit.<br />    29. Education Interim Committee Reports - to study whether one or more reports required to be submitted to the Education Interim Committee should be discontinued.<br />    30. Enhanced School Calendar Incentives - to study how to encourage school districts and charter schools to utilize their buildings year round to extend calendars, and how to offer teachers a 50% pay raise with no additional costs to taxpayers, with added benefits like paid vacations, holidays, and class room aids.<br />    31. Financial Literacy - to study ways to promote financial literacy.<br />    32. K-3 Class Size Reduction - to study caps on K-3 class sizes and class size reduction line item accountability (S.B. 31).<br />    33. Necessarily Existent Small Schools - to study the current distribution formula, review cost differentials between small and isolated schools and other schools, and determine the best funding mechanism.<br />    34. Pay for Performance Impact on Student Achievement - to study the impact of teacher pay for performance on student achievement and performance gains.<br />    35. Professional Development Classes - to study the impact of enabling professional development classes or tracks under "lanes compensation" schedules.<br />    36. Public Education Funding - to study and carefully review the formulas currently in use and determine if they are meeting the needs of the current education environment.<br />    37. Public School Funding Criteria - to study how money is distributed to public schools based on prior year enrollment, and whether public schools could receive funding based on current year enrollment instead.<br />    38. Quality Teacher Incentive - to study an incentive program to retain quality teachers in the public schools.<br />    39. School District and Charter School Postemployment Benefits - to study how school districts and charter schools are addressing any continuing liability to provide postemployment benefits to employees (H.B. 460).<br />    40. School Funding - to study long term funding options for public education.<br />    41. Sex Education Through Online Video Components - to study in collaboration with the State Board of Education the delivery of online sex education through video components in lieu of in-class instruction, with each component to be approved by the parents before the student has access to the materials.<br />    42. Specialized Student Counseling - to study ways to provide specialized career college counseling, focusing on admissions and scholarships, for high school students (H.B. 65).<br />    43. Student-based Budgeting - to study whether to require a school district to distribute certain revenues to schools in accordance with a weighted student formula and to require a principal to determine how to use revenues available to the school to meet student needs (H.B. 158).<br /><br />    115. Trust Lands Issues - to study and receive a report on school and institutional trust lands issues from the Children's Land Alliance.<br />    116. Utah Land and School Trust Funds - to study the protection of Utah lands and school trust funds (1st Sub. H.B. 209 and amendment #2).<br /><br />    118. Allocations to Schools - to study school allocations measured by property tax (H.B. 507).<br />    119. Computer Software Exemption - to study whether to provide a sales and use tax exemption for certain computer software.<br /><br />    137. School District and Charter School Postemployment Benefits - to study how school districts and charter schools are addressing any continuing liability to provide postemployment benefits to employees.<br /><br />431o. Comprehensive overview of the WPU in public education<br /><br />431w. School funding - study of the statewide equalization of school funding.</blockquote>";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/3850529908233653117/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=3850529908233653117";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/3850529908233653117";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/3850529908233653117";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/03/education-related-items-legislature.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-8940724738317410371";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-29T00:48:00.006-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-29T03:54:57.894-07:00";s:5:"title";s:117:"Senator Morgan's SB 31 is a "runaway bill" that doesn't help with classroom size, but we're fighting about it anyway?";s:12:"atom_content";s:15530:"Senator Karen Morgan proposed a bill, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0031.htm">SB 31</a>, that mandated certain small class sizes for grades K-3.  <u>The bill started out as a mandate to the legislature, to allocate the money necessary to add more teachers or paraeducators as necessary to meet these classroom size caps.</u>  The limits started out as 18 for Kindergarten, 20 for 1st grade, 22 for 2nd grade, and 24 for 3rd grade.  In a very reasonable compromise, Senator Morgan later amended two of these caps to 20 for kindergarten and 22 for 1st grade.<br /><br />I heard her interviewed on KSL the day I was in Salt Lake for the Utah Taxpayers Association's pre-legislative sales pitch.  She explained at length about the money allocated.  It would range from $12 million to $22 million if only para-educators were hired, and up to $40 something million if new teachers were hired.  I believe the fiscal note on the bill originally explained this also, though it does not in its current form.  Here's one <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705397916/Senate-committee-unanimously-endorses-bill-that-caps-Utah-class-sizes.html">article</a> explaining this initial version of the bill and how the Utah Taxpayer's Association was against the bill.  <br /><br />As the article explains, the expensive bill passed the stacked Senate Education Committee, which was really the first sign that mischief was afoot.  Senator Stephenson revealed his strategy in the hearing:<br /><blockquote>Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said he supports the bill and would like to see it integrated even if funding for it isn't available this year. <br /><br />"If we're not able to get this fiscal note funded, we ought to push the bill forward anyway and begin to impose a standard for these grades that you have identified," Stephenson said. He suggested that since districts already receive state dollars for class-size reduction, there ought to be a standard in place to ensure they actually do it. </blockquote><br />By the time the bill passed the 2nd Senate vote (it has to pass a committee vote, and then two votes in the Senate), it was gutted by Howard Stephenson's amendment. This <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53432649-90/bill-class-education-grade.html.csp">article</a> about the vote features Sen. Jerry Stevenson commenting that <u>he wanted to make absolutely sure that the mandate didn't apply to the legislature or funding.</u>  The article also explains that the money allocated had been reduced to $3.6 million and delves into the legislators' false premises for Stephenson's amendment:<br /><blockquote>Before lawmakers approved the bill, Morgan amended it to raise the caps slightly, reducing its cost to $3.6 million. Lawmakers also amended the bill to specify that in order to continue to receive state money that’s long been distributed for class size reductions, schools would have to meet the new caps....<br /><br />...Several said they liked the idea of holding schools accountable for the money they’re already getting to reduce class sizes.<br /><br />A 2007 legislative audit showed that $460 million meant to make class sizes smaller in Utah over seven years hadn’t led to any change, though some have said class sizes would have been even larger if not for that money.</blockquote>In an important sidenote, Ms. Schencker got a little lazy with her background info here.  Her assertion about the 2007 classroom size reduction audit is apparently her summary of info given her by Senator Stephenson when she <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53199923-78/class-sizes-grade-education.html.csp?page=1">interviewed him</a> about this same bill the month before.  She just pasted in the <i>exact</i> same paragraph here with no explanation that this spin of the 2007 audit came from Howard Stephenson.  <br /><br />Let's look at what the report actually says.  The 2007 audit is available <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/07_14rpt.pdf">online</a>. (Hat tip to <a href="http://productiveactivities.wordpress.com/">Cameron</a> who first commented on this audit and sent me the link.)  It explained that not all districts were accounting specifically for the classroom size reduction money before mixing it with their general funds.  This was because the legislature specifically released them from tracking and reporting that to in part reduce the amount of reports to the legislative interim education committee, pg 14. Pgs 7-9 show that the districts specifically tracking the money used 100% on teachers to reduce classroom sizes and supplemented beyond that because the CSR money had not kept up with inflation.  The next few pages explain other measures taken that indicate that it is a reasonable conclusion that the districts not tracking the money specifically still used 99%+ of the money on classroom size reduction.  <br /><br />The biggest reason that classroom sizes did not go down is detailed on pg 23. <u>The legislature never once funded enough reduction money to match enrollment growth from 2001 to 2007, contrary to the language in their own statute allocating the money.</u>  Pgs 24 and 25 also explain that charter schools, many with charters already committing them to small class sizes, are also diluting the available CSR money for those districts with the largest classes.  <br /><br />So the audit concludes that 99% to 100% of the hundreds of millions allocated were spent appropriately to reduce class sizes, and that money still didn't keep up with student growth.  This shows that the faulty Stephenson/Schencker summary of the audit should really be stated as "<i>Of course</i> class sizes would have been even larger if not for that money." <u>Stephenson, Waddoups, and other legislators claiming that the large amount of classroom size reduction money "hadn’t led to any change," implying that the districts are diverting money to administration and other "fat," are purposefully misrepresenting the content of their own audit knowing that most people will never read the audit and find them out.</u>  It also shows the absolutely false premise of the current SB 31 as amended, that the districts have to be "held accountable" because they are misusing funds.  <br /><br />Stephenson's amendment made it so the school districts has to achieve these very small class sizes with $3.6 million or lose the $100+ million that had already been proven to be insufficient to keep up with growth.  Meet a moving target with insufficient resources, or we'll take way those insufficient resources until you do.  I've said it before--the legislature's mandates could make great Dilbert punchlines.<br /><br />SB 31 was amended again before passing its 3rd Senate vote and moving to the House, taking out all of the money allocated.  <u>The only thing left in the bill is a mandate for districts to restrict K-3 class sizes to the prescriptive levels or lose the $100+ million that the audit has already proven to be insufficient to keep up with growth.</u>   Sen. Morgan's <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865550936/Class-size-bill-draws-concern-from-state-education-board.html">new comments</a> about the bill are troubling and very different than her initial excitement to increase funding in order to reduce class sizes.  <blockquote>Morgan's bill would add penalties to the existing law, which could mean school districts losing class-size reduction funding if they don't meet state standards.<br /><br />"I have no problem with that," Morgan said of the change. "I believe in fiscal responsibility."<br /><br />"We can only do one piece at a time," she said.<br /><br />"The districts can implement this with the money we're giving them," she said.</blockquote><br />"The money we're giving them" refers to the fact that the legislature plans to increase the WPU (general funding for all public ed.) by $3 million rather than specifically allocating additional monies to the classroom size reduction mandates. Putting the money in the WPU is a very different thing.  WPU changes almost every single year.  WPU has gone down significantly over the last few years, with no new money for even new students.  It is completely different than what Senator Morgan originally proposed.  It just seems unlike her to put in a penalty as the first piece without the resources to meet the standard.  She's parroting Senator Stephenson so much that I jokingly wonder about what incriminating pictures he has of her.<br /><br />That last link also explains how the State School Board discussed the new state of the bill in one of their meetings and were concerned about the unfunded mandate.  They discussed various options, took a vote, and ultimately left their official position as "supporting the bill in concept" just as they had before the changes.  Senator Morgan heard of this or read the article, and reacted very strongly to the word "problematic" in a <a href="http://www.utahsenatedemocrats.org/archives/1453">post</a> to the Senate Democrats' Blog, saying that "Their lack of understanding of the state public education budget is what’s problematic." She roundly criticized the State School Board, implying that they don't care about kids if they don't support her bill--another Stephenson move--and herself supporting the false premise that the districts have not been "accountable" for the current classroom size reduction money.<br /><br />I was flabbergasted when I saw her comments.  It seems to me that she's staked so much of her pride on getting something...anything...passed with the words "classroom size" in the title, that she's compromised her principles and reverted to hostile anti-public ed. talking points about the State School Board.  What next?  <br /><br />The evidence is clear Senator Morgan and the premise of your borrowed criticisms is demonstrably false.  Read the audit again and evaluate the claims.  I have a daughter in a 1st grade class of 30 and know how hard that is for her.  That doesn't make these draconian mandates right.  Your bill has been subverted from an intended aid to K-3 children and public education into a hostile bill with severe penalties for not reaching impossibly high standards.  The consequences for not meeting the caps are enormous, and the nice, but not drastic benefits of a paraeducator in a classroom of 30 kids do not equal that risk.  Howard Stephenson <i>wants</i> these classroom size caps as a way to spin the removal of existing classroom size reduction funds while also discrediting public education.  Why pretend it's the school board's fault when the politicians and PCE spokeswoman quoted in these same articles are very open about their goals for "more dynamic reform?"  Is your bill making those negative policies more likely to be enacted?  <br /><br />Please reconsider what you really wanted to accomplish and what SB 31 does now.  Would a January 2012 Senator Morgan even recognize the bill?  Your original called for <i>$22 million in a dedicated revenue stream</i> just to put a paraeducator in K-3 classrooms.  You also openly hoped funding could be found to make the increased personnel actual teachers, which is a much superior option to just paraeducators. Now your bill punishes districts for not adding a paraeducator in every K-3 classroom with <i>$3.6 million lumped into the general operating funds</i> needed to meet other increased mandates from the legislature as well.  You have empirical evidence from the audit that the districts will be unable to meet this mandate, despite being 100% responsible with the previous money.  <u>SB 31 will likely lead to *larger* classes as schools inevitably start losing the current, but insufficent, classroom size reduction assistance.</u>  You are on the verge of pushing through one of the most damaging bills in the session.<br /><br />I'll end with my comments on the blog of another person I respect, Karen of the <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/">Utah Moms Care</a> blog.  Sen. Morgan apparently handed her the statement from the Senate Democrats Blog above and asked her to urge her readers to call their legislators about SB 31.  She said the WPU funding was enough and implored parents to tell their legislators they value smaller classes.  I am frustrated with her framing of this issue as any opponent of this mutated SB 31 must not want smaller classes for their children and said so.  My young children will all be affected by large K-3 classes, but I have to bear their whole education in mind when evaluating policy.<br /><br />My comments on <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2012/02/sen-morgan-responds-to-state-school.html">this post</a> are only slightly different from above, but I want to link the Utah Moms Care post as comments and conversation might happen at either spot:<br /><blockquote>I have to strongly disagree that what this bill has become is beneficial to schools.  The WPU is a general resource with many competing needs, especially after the cuts of the last three years.  They PR'ed it as "not funding growth,"  but the same amount of money (no increase 2 yrs, small increase last year) got spread over 30,000+ more students, the equivalent of a cut much larger than 1%.  (Math help here anyone?...What would be the equivalent %?)<br /><br />So we are at a huge low point in funding with class sizes increasing all over the state.  <b>The existing "classroom size reduction" money wasn't enough to keep up with growth, even in 2007 when funding and WPU were at a high point.</b> <br /><br />So increasing this current lower WPU amount by 1% is suddenly enough to achieve what we couldn't in 2007? And if we don't drastically rearrange resources to damage 3-6 grade class sizes (both you and Sen. Morgan know there's not all this budget fat lying around to be used "more effectively" as PCE, etc. claim), we agree to lose the much larger amount of previous classroom size reduction money that was never enough either?<br /><br />Stephenson is laughing his way to the bank, getting Sen. Morgan to carry his water for him.  I seriously don't get this. It seemed to me that Sen. Morgan agreed to the punitive trigger for failing to meet a damaging standard in an unwise attempt to preserve the bill when it <i>had</i> dedicated money, and is now holding on to this shell with no money and only the bad "reform" just to make it look like she's actually getting things done.<br /><br />Then she flies off the handle with such a strident public statement when it is obvious she had neither listened to the actual discussion online or spoken with a State School Board member.  The board members were much more diplomatic than me in their discussion, even those who who were concerned with the bill's provisions.  And they deadlocked on their vote, leaving the official "supports concept" designation on the bill as Mrs. Ziegler pointed out above.<br /><br />So instead of working with people she has worked with so well many times in the past, Sen. Morgan hands a note to you asking parents to email in support of her damaging bill?  I constantly realize how little I know of the personal dynamics and relationships up there on the Hill, but this whole thing just seems strange.  Framing the bill as the State School Board doesn't support small class sizes is something Howard Stephenson would do. The financial realities mean this bill has become only punitive. <br /><br />Please help me see what I'm missing here...</blockquote>";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/8940724738317410371/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=8940724738317410371";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8940724738317410371";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8940724738317410371";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/senator-morgans-sb-31-is-runaway-bill.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-2842971330175683971";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-24T03:51:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-24T04:16:47.244-07:00";s:5:"title";s:106:"The supposedly noble fight for Utah education funding by *taking* public lands from the federal government";s:12:"atom_content";s:5333:"Jesse Harris posted a <a href="http://opinionated.coolestfamilyever.com/2012/02/23/the-federal-lands-fight-is-worth-it/">short opinion</a> about his support of the legislature's push via lawsuits and eminent domain proceedings to take ownership of the extensive federal lands in Utah. Here are <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53558582-90/federal-utah-state-lands.html.csp">two</a> <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=19311461&title=legislature-to-feds-give-up-public-lands&s_cid=queue-7">articles</a> about the coordinated push and claim that it's the federal government's fault Utah doesn't better fund public education. <br /><br />You'll have to follow the first link and read Jesse's post and two other comments to get some of what I am referring to in my following comment, since I just copied my comment on his post and pasted it here as is.  Here are <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52091521-78/education-utah-funding-effort.html.csp">two</a> <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52107490-82/education-utah-public-legislature.html.csp">more</a> links with background on how the legislature reduced the state's public education funding effort over the last two decades.<br /><br />My comment with one addition I put in italics:<br />I’m very dubious for all these reasons. I read the Enabling Act <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Utah_Enabling_Act,1894">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Utah_Enabling_Act,1894</a> and I think they’re making up history. I am not an expert in “implicit” promises made upon statehood, but the legislature has demonstrated numerous times that they are not experts either and frequently massage the facts to their liking.<br /><br />The bills <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0091s01.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0091s01.htm</a><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hcr001.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hcr001.htm</a><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0148.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0148.htm</a><br />depend on their reading of Section 9, and I think they’re blowing smoke. They interpret it to mean the fed gov “shall” sell the lands as in must.<br /><br />Read Section 3, paragraph labeled Second for this:<br /><blockquote>“Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof;”</blockquote><br /><br />Then read the one sentence of Section 9:<br /><blockquote>SEC. 9. That five per centum of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.</blockquote><br /><br />It looks to me in context that it means any lands the fed gov does sell, they must give 5% to Utah schools, not that they “have” to sell them. <i>The emphasis on "<u>which</u> shall be sold" rather than "which <u>shall</u> be sold" seems obvious when viewed in light of Section 3. They're saying the feds have to share proceeds from land sales after statehood, but not before.</i> I don’t think any precedent will support the leg’s reason.<br /><br />To Ronald Hunt’s concern, I can’t find in the 4 bills I’ve looked at where the $3 million is coming from, but I’m almost sure that when I heard a few minutes of Rep.’s Barrus and Ivory presentation to the State School Board last week that they intend it to be education money with supposed increased return as a result. I find it very unlikely.<br /><br />I think the concern is largely driven by rightwing ideology as you say Jesse rather than true concern for education funding, as the state’s effort has been in a documented decline since the 90′s. I think they’re trying to shift the blame in a politically popular way.<br /><br />And finally, I don’t think the Eastern states lack of fed lands that was a natural process is a good analogy to what would happen if suddenly the feds had to sell all or a large percentage of all the land in Utah. There is no precedent. The leg has a record of valuing energy/industry concerns highly while dismissing environmental ones. I think “barren wasteland” is hyperbole, but I would worry about losing one of the best features of Utah–the freedom to explore so much public land, even as I would be happy about the increased education funding. It’s not worth any and all costs, and I don’t have the ideological hatred of the fed gov that is driving this.<br /><br />I think they should sue for something more realistic like you suggested – sue for better regulations to make leasing quicker and cheaper while still allowing some voice for environmental concerns. The fed gov would have somewhere to compromise with that goal rather than just litigating the claim they ‘have’ to sell. That goal may make a settlement more unlikely…<br /><br />(Heck, after all that, maybe I’ll just copy this as a post on my blog.)<br /><br />And so I did.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/2842971330175683971/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=2842971330175683971";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2842971330175683971";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2842971330175683971";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/supposedly-noble-fight-for-utah.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-8288913693380834979";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-24T01:35:00.007-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-24T03:50:43.837-07:00";s:5:"title";s:144:"Online education silver bullets: Big fights today over funding Electronic High School, but really the repeal of SB65 virtual vouchers via HB 147";s:12:"atom_content";s:13382:"I try to know everything about everything, but I just don't know a lot about the Electronic High School of Utah.  This post will probably be less informative than some, but I'm hoping to get some clarification from comments and/or if I can listen this afternoon to the House Education Committee hearing on two related bills.  I did learn as I wrote the post that Rep. Brad Last's HB 147 contains a final section REPEALING Howard Stephenson's SB 65 Statewide Online Education program that falsely divided and diverted education funding into online vouchers.  That explanation comes after I explain some background on last year's bill and others this year.<br /><br />The Electronic High School currently gets funded a lump sum and is available in a non-competitive role as a public school.  Students can completely enroll there, take just a few classes, or make up classes they failed.  Last year's SB 65, Howard Stephenson's "virtual voucher" bill, authorized payments of a large percentage of student funding to any public online school per class that a student enrolled in. During the <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/virtual-vouchers-bill-sb-65-by-howard.html">committee hearing</a> on the bill, Stephenson said he supported Electronic High School at first, but that it was time for it to transition over to competitive funding and stand on its own.  I am not 100% sure what actually happened in the wording of the substituted and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/sbillenr/sb0065.htm">amended bill</a>.  Lines 79-89 address Electronic High School, and lines 182-190 show that it is eligible one year later than other entities to participate somehow...and that's all my tired brain can do right now.  I'm not sure when or if Electronic High School loses its dedicated funding stream.<br /><br />SB 65 diverted big chunks of per student funding to any online provider (even private as Stephenson envisioned, but he was eventually forced to amend the bill to only address public online classes) under the false paradigm that per student funding statistics are true marginal costs, when student funding is actually pooled and shared hyper-efficiently.  (See my recent <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/sb-151-stephensons-anti-voucher-voucher.html">post</a> on Tuition Tax Credits for a long explanation of the funding pie.)  Schools cannot maintain current programs and function when too much money is diverted away to other programs.  <br /><br />This year, Stephenson is running <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0178.htm">SB 178</a>, which amends his SB 65 from last year. I'm really unsure that I have my head around what this bill and the next two I will discuss actually do.  There are moving pieces and multiple ripple effects as funding and enrollment of charter and traditional schools are modified.  SB 178 appears to decrease the amount of funding flowing from districts and charter schools to online programs per class.  The bill also deals with how much FTE a student can count for (The district subdivides its pooled funding per student further, dictating how many teachers a school can hire, which is just an arbitrary method of distributing funds evenly. This unit used on the district level is called FTE.), but I don't get how it is different than the original SB 65. I doubt it's really too hard on online providers or great for districts, but I could be wrong here. Another sign is that Parents for Choice in Education bill tracker says they "initiated" this bill. (A revealing <a href="http://choiceineducation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=144&Itemid=192">list</a>. who's carrying PCE's water?) SB 178 passed a Senate Education committee hearing and is on the Senate floor. <br /><br />There are two additional bills dealing with Electronic High School scheduled to be debated in the House Education Committee today at 4:00 pm. (<a href="http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=utahlegislature_55acd94bb76b58fb5f329b83343d9f09.pdf&view=1">Agenda</a>) <br /><br />The first is Rep. Sandstrom's <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0336.htm">HB 336</a>. I definitely don't understand the ramifications of this one.  Its <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0336.htm">summary</a> states:<blockquote>This bill:<br />             12          .    specifies the purpose of the Electronic High School;<br />             13          .    provides that the Electronic High School may only offer courses required for high<br />             14      school graduation or that fulfill core curriculum course requirements;<br />             15          .    removes the Electronic High School as an online course provider in the Statewide<br />             16      Online Education Program; and<br />             17          .    makes technical amendments.</blockquote><br />I don't know what removing Electronic High School from the SB 65 program really does to it.  I'm not sure what classes are being offered currently that <i>do not</i> fulfill graduation requirements.  I also don't know what the intent language in lines 55-64 does as it seems to just repeat the lines that were crossed out, Lines 79-91.  But PCE opposes this bill with this complaint:<br /><blockquote>Allows EHS to continue to operate with line item funding, no accountability for student outcomes, and no accountability for funding with a reported 30% - 50% completion rate</blockquote>So it appears that this keeps EHS open for all students to attend as it currently functions.<br /><br />Brad Last's <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0147.htm">HB 147</a> has some identical provisions to HB 336, and also seems to share other provisions with SB 178.  But PCE is spitting mad about this one and is email blasting its followers with all caps warnings that defeating this bill is its <u>#1 priority.</u> (Emphasis is my representation of theirs). The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0147.htm">summary</a> reads:<br /><blockquote>This bill:<br />             12          .    specifies the purpose of the Electronic High School;<br />             13          .    provides that the Electronic High School may only offer courses required for high<br />             14      school graduation or that fulfill core curriculum course requirements;<br />             15          .    requires a school district or charter school to offer online courses at the grades 9<br />             16      through 12 level and online concurrent enrollment courses to students enrolled in<br />             17      the school district or charter school in grades 11 and 12;<br />             18          .    allows a school district or charter school to develop and teach online courses, and to<br />             19      ensure a wide selection of high quality online courses are offered;<br />             20          .    requires a school district or charter school to contract with an entity for online<br />             21      course content or online course instruction;<br />             22          .    allows a school district or charter school to form a consortium with other school<br />             23      districts or charter schools for the purpose of contracting with an entity for online<br />             24      course content or online course instruction;<br />             25          .    allows a student the option to enroll in online courses for a certain number of course<br />             26      credits each year;<br />             27          .    provides that online course credit hours are included in daily membership, except a<br /><br />             28      student may not count as more than one FTE, unless the student intends to complete high<br />             29      school graduation requirements and exit high school early;<br />             30          .    provides that a student enrolled in an online course may not take more than a full<br />             31      course load unless:<br />             32              .    the student intends to complete high school graduation requirements and exit<br />             33      high school early; or<br />             34              .    if allowed by local school board or charter school governing board policy;<br />             35          .    provides for the administration of statewide assessments to students enrolled in<br />             36      online courses;<br />             37          .    repeals provisions relating to the Statewide Online Education Program; and<br />             38          .    makes technical amendments.</blockquote>Which seems very similar to these lines from SB 178:<br /><blockquote>prescribes procedures for the completion of a course credit acknowledgement;<br />             26          .    prohibits a student who enrolls in an online course from being counted in<br />             27      membership for a released-time class, if counting the student in membership for a<br /><br />             28      released-time class would result in the student being counted as more than one FTE;<br />             29          .    permits a student taking an online course to take more than a full course load if<br />             30      allowed under local school board or charter school governing board policy;</blockquote><br />Both prohibit a student from counting as more than one FTE and allow more than a full course-load to be taken with permission, but the technicalities of the other differences escape me right now.  SB 178 has the language about not being able to take released time, which is the current vogue false accusation of PCE and certain charter lobbyists right now, that schools are getting overfunded when students are at seminary or ATC.  I don't know if that is the whole issue, or if SB 178 totally cuts dedicated funding to EHS.  There's a bunch of stuff about districts workign together to make quality online programs, and I can't see why that would be especially controversial.<br /><br /><b>2 minute later update -</b> PCE has once again helped me better understand the bill.  Their complaint reads:<br /><blockquote>Repeals the Statewide Online Education Program, strips the student's ability to choose the courses that best meet their academic needs, no longer allows funding to follow the student</blockquote>Just part of their Email Alert reads:<br /><blockquote>PCE IS TARGETING HOUSE BILL 147 AS OUR #1 BILL TO DEFEAT this session! This bill would REPEAL our biggest school choice victory last year, the Statewide Online Education Program signed into law last year...PLEASE CALL AND EMAIL EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER AND ASK THEM TO VOTE NO ON HB147. TELL THEM NOT TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT TAKES AWAY SCHOOL CHOICE!<br /><br />PLEASE CALL AND EMAIL THE BILL SPONSOR, BRAD LAST, AND ASK HIM WHY HE IS REPEALING A SCHOOL CHOICE BILL!<br /><br />We can't defeat this without your help! <br /><br />    Call and email all Representatives on the committee.<br />    Please forward this email to friends and family. </blockquote><br /><br />I see now that Line 37 of the HB 147 summary is a doozy: "repeals provisions relating to the Statewide Online Education Program;..." I thought it was something just related to EHS when I first saw that, but lines 237-262 of the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0147.htm">bill</a> appear to repeal most of the language of SB 65. <br /><br />I don't approve of the method of sticking this on the end of a bill on a very loosely related topic, despite SB 65 damaging EHS, but I fully support this concept.  Wow Rep. Last!  I REALLY want to hear his committee presentation now to hear his motivations.  Does he get the false paradigm based on bad funding numbers that I keep explaining?  Or that pitting public schools against each other damages rather than strengthens student achievement and sense of community? I guess we'll find out.  <br /><br />This is a great idea, therefore PCE will stack the committee hearing like always with their highly motivated folks (How many times will they quote the national school choice guy who said Utah is #1 in online ed?), and a LOT of peer legislator pressure will be brought to bear. I predict HB 147 as written fails because legislative leadership is committed to silver bullet technology both as excuse for large class sizes and as their camel's nose in the voucher tent, though I could see some sort of substitute/compromise being worked out where the EHS stays funded as in both HB 147 and HB 336.<br /><br />HB 336 will be heard right before HB 147, and I don't think both of them can be law simultaneously.  They would also seem to conflict with Stephenson's SB 178.  If HB 147 passes by some miracle, there will be definite conflict between the bills/agendas. <br /><br />Sorry for the sort of stream-of-consciousness research here. I have learned more just as I typed this up.  I urge you to contact your legislators in support of HB 147, explaining the false assumptions behind SB 65 and the practical problems they are causing.  Legislators of the House Education Committee, be aware of the manufactured wave of opposition coming your way.  Support public education by opposing efforts to fracture its funding based on purposeful misrepresentation of how education funding works.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/8288913693380834979/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=8288913693380834979";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8288913693380834979";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8288913693380834979";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/online-education-silver-bullets-big.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"4";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-2128450345019889872";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-20T19:36:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-21T01:11:38.680-07:00";s:5:"title";s:98:"More on why Tuition Tax Credits may be more profitable for interested parties than simple vouchers";s:12:"atom_content";s:3846:"First, the difference between a private school tuition voucher and a Tuition Tax Credit for donating to a private school tuition scholarship fund is only <i>when</i> the money comes out of the General Education Fund.  <u>The money comes out of the exact same place. Do not believe any claim that the two are substantially different in how they affect available funds for public education.</u> <br /><br />The money depleted from public education funds is the same; there is, however, a major difference in <i>who</i> saves money on the two proposals.<br /><br /><b>Vouchers -</b> 1. Everyone pays state income tax to the General Education Fund.  This money has to be used for public education or higher education.  It can be used for no other purposes.  2. The state issues vouchers from that fund to private schools to subsidize up to a certain amount of the tuition of individual students who qualify. (The 2007 voucher amount was $3300 in an attempt to make it more palatable to the public; most proposals try and make it higher.)<br /><br /><b>Tuition Tax Credits -</b> 1. Everyone pays state income tax to the General Education Fund.  This money has to be used for public education or higher education.  It can be used for no other purposes.  2. During the year, individuals or corporations make donations to private school tuition scholarship organizations of up to $500 for single filers or $1000 for joint filers.  3. Those organizations issue scholarships to subsidize up to a certain amount of the tuition of individual students who qualify.  (Stephenson's 2012 bill, SB 151, set the caps at $5500 for these scholarships.) <b>The difference:</b> <i>4. Those who donated receive a dollar for dollar <u>tax credit</u> from the General Education Fund when they file, not a tax deduction, for their donations up to those limits.</i><br /><br />Think about that.  Utah's flat tax is 5%.  So the most the donor would have otherwise paid in taxes for that $1000 in income is $50 (or $25 for a $500 donation) before any other deductions.  The donor not only saves the $50 they would have paid into the education fund, but gets the $1000 credit free and clear, which is equivalent to the amount of income tax (which goes exclusively into the General Education Fund) they would have paid on income of $20,000. They presumably also receive the normal tax deduction for charitable giving for any donations exceeding those limits, simply not paying taxes on that donated income.  <br /><br />So the money to subsidize private school tuition comes out of the education fund under either mechanism, vouchers or Tuition Tax Credits.  But the Tuition Tax Credit plan also allows the relatively small pool of private school scholarship donors, who would also largely overlap with political supporters of Howard Stephenson and/or secret clients of his Utah Taxpayer's Association, to save the equivalent of paying state income tax on $20,000 of income.  <br /><br />My post last year on Tuition Tax Credits, when Carl Wimmer ran the same idea, included a Dilbert comic about a "<a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/wimmers-tuition-tax-credits-vouchers.html">Dutch Sandwich</a>." The sandwich for the rest of us makes even more sense now as I analyze the financial impact Tuition Tax Credits would have.  Stephenson claimed in the pre-legislative session I attended that Tuition Tax Credits would have a positive financial note because it would save money per student.  That is a lie as I <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/sb-151-stephensons-anti-voucher-voucher.html">explained</a> in detail recently. Whatever examples Stephenson cooks up in his interim study of other states, realize who is really profiting from these "reform" schemes based on dollars rather than research or concern with true education of all students.<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/2128450345019889872/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=2128450345019889872";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2128450345019889872";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2128450345019889872";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-on-why-tuition-tax-credits-may-be.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-8547325187225525439";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-20T12:48:00.007-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-20T17:40:23.549-07:00";s:5:"title";s:129:"Why do we allow Howard Stephenson to drive Utah's education agenda? 2012 Edition - "Intent Language" to circumvent public process";s:12:"atom_content";s:11407:"I asked <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-do-we-allow-howard-stephenson-to.html">the question</a> a few months before the 2011 legislative session, and I ask it now again halfway through the 2012 session.  Before I discuss Stephenson's claims about the Feb. 15 Public Education Appropriations Committee that spent 2 hours on a 10-minute agenda item titled "Other Business," I want to review his actions over only the last few years.  He has been in office since 1992 -- imagine what else he has pulled in those 15 years before I was paying attention. (If we're getting rid of Hatch and Bennett, why not this deadwood in 2014??)<br /><br />Much of what I wrote in 2010 still applies:<br />"Howard Stephenson thinks public education is <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/october-admission-representative-frank.html">socialism</a> (Very end of post).  He runs public education bills to benefit <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html">specific</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-technology-integration-issue.html">companies</a>, hypocritically overriding local control and <i>increasing</i> the costs of public education when it's one of his pet projects.  He constantly misrepresents his bills and <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/06/list-of-bills-contained-in-sb2-omnibus.html">abuses</a> the legislative process in order to pass controversial provisions with little or no scrutiny: <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-omnibus-fun-sb-35-high-quality.html">2008</a> (plus an ongoing $190,000 annual expenditure of education funds just to spite an employee of the State Office of Education who ran against Greg Hughes at the county Republican convention.  Seriously.), <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/03/last-day-of-session-howard-stephenson.html">2009</a>, <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/03/education-budget.html">2010</a>.  He is unabashedly conflicted as a paid corporate lobbyist--he is the only legislator whose entire livelihood depends on the issues he supports and <i>how he votes on those issues</i>.  Combining his last two issues--he literally ran a bill in 2010 <i>authorizing</i> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/03/sb-188-howard-stephenson-sneaks.html">conflicts of interest</a> for charter school board members as a sneaky provision in a larger charter school bill.<br /><br />Senator Stephenson is on all public education interim and Senate committees in the state of Utah and is literally the sponsor of half of the education bills for 2011..."<br /><br />It's hard to believe the stuff Stephenson gets away with. He brings that US Congress ethic to Utah.  Stephenson constant refrain when others question his tactics is to claim they are just sore losers when policy they don't like passes.  The links above detail a variety of legislative abuses designed to pass his agenda with little scrutiny, even as he hammers Public Ed. about "transparency."<br /><br /><b>2008</b> -- Lumping failed personal bills together with teacher raises and other bills about to pass in an unconstitutional "omnibus" bill modeled after the pork bills we all hate from the national congress, one of which added $190,000 in unnecessary administration costs to route around a specific employee who ran for office.<br /><br /><b>2008 and 2009</b> -- Presenting bills in committee as one thing, then making last minute switches harmful to public education and trying to pass them without debate.  In addition, the link about specific companies details Stephenson going off about how the State Office of Education is hurting kids because they disagree with him, especially about which specific companies to give large contracts to. (<a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/collection-of-articles-about-procert.html">Extra articles</a>)  <br /><br /><b>2009 and 2010</b> -- Sneaking "minor" provisions into larger funding bills and hoping no one notices. Stephenson was ultimately unsuccesshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifful in forcing districts to further help fund charter schools in the Public Education budget bill in 2009 and 2010, the same dishonest policy he only partially forced through his 2008 omnibus and the same one he is trying to sneak around legislative process with his meeting this year.  <u>He did however succeed in specifically authorizing charter school board members to have financial conflicts of interest</u> as part of a larger charter school funding bill, as detailed above. Seriously.<br /><br /><b>2012</b> Let's now discuss the Public Education Appropriations Committee last Wednesday.  Stephenson, who thinks Public Ed. is socialism and that the USOE and USBE "hurt kids," is of course the Chair of this crucial committee and controls the agenda.  This meeting was scheduled from 5:00 to 7:00 as part of their required-by-the-Open-Meeting-Act public <a href="http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=utahlegislature_0aefcc1eec5e7bd83a07acfd41b0eff5.pdf&view=1">agenda</a>.  99.9% of the public has no idea what this committee does, what it was doing that night, or what is the history of practice in this committee.  I listened to about 45-50 min of this meeting in 3 different intervals, but I am a nerd.  They were basically going through a list of requests, whether from legislators' bills or from the USOE, and prioritizing which of the long list of items should receive the limited amount of funding available.  The first list of items is available publicly as a link on that agenda.  There was apparently a new list available for those in attendance that differed slightly from the linked one. Tyler Slack posted pictures of the 3 pages on Twitter, @tslack, scroll back to Feb 15.<br /><br />The last item on the agenda from 6:50 to 7:00 was Other Business.  I came home from some other commitments after 8:00 and was shocked to find that the committee meeting was still going in the window I had open on my computer. New lists of "philosophical items" were apparently provided to the committee, but not the public attending. The committee then debated these items for almost 2 more hours.  One of them was the very controversial proposal to divert local funds, specifically voted and approved for local districts, to charter schools statewide, which was rammed 25% through in the 2008 omnibus, but defeated in 2009 and 2010 when Stephenson tried to latch them onto the larger education budget bills.  This plan was put in as "intent language" for how the money in the budget should be spent.  I missed all this and returned to hear the committee discussing what they had done.  I heard Aaron Osmond say he was "taken back" and uncomfortable that he hadn't known of these important discussion items before the meeting and thought it wrong that those affected entities (school board, etc.) could not offer input.  A couple others said they hadn't known about the items either. Stephenson replied "Yea, we should have probably made the sheet available before the meeting." <u>If the members of the committee didn't know, and I'm betting most didn't though they won't publicly speak against Stephenson, how could the public know?  And how could that conceivably not be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?</u><br /><br />I would love to know what other philosophical items were debated.  The articles about the meeting all only mention the district funds proposal.  I think the document should be posted online when the minutes of the meeting are posted online, which apparently will not be for another couple weeks.  How about some member of the committee stepping up before then? <br /><br />I listened to about 20 min of the State School Board meeting the next day during my lunch, and heard them discuss what had happened the night before.  They were angry and of the opinion that the unannounced discussion of "major policy items" violated the Open Meetings Act.  I specifically heard a man state for the record that he had never seen the Public Education Appropriations Committee debate major policy items at the end under "Other business." They asked State Superintendent, Larry Shumway, to write a letter to the legislature asking them to disregard the intent language as it was not advertised on the public agenda beforehand. Schenker's <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53531997-90/appropriations-board-committee-districts.html.csp">account</a> from the Trib and the USBE's <a href="http://utahpubliceducation.org/2012/02/17/state-board-questions-legislature-on-appropriations-meeting-agenda/#.Tz7bw3n5bAQ">blog post</a> quoting parts of the letter.  I thought this was very well-stated.<br /><br />Stephenson's replied in the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53539703-90/board-committee-education-law.html.csp">Trib</a>:<br /><i>“I think Superintendent Shumway is playing to the crowd knowing that the Legislature, when somebody charges ethics, is always at a disadvantage in the court of public opinion and knowing that he is unfairly using this claim even though he knows very well this is the same process that has been used for decades and is currently being used by other committees this session.”</i> <br /><br />Then to <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=19282434&title=lawmakers-start-in-on-state-budget&s_cid=queue-4">KSL</a> (buried in the middle of this longer article):<br /><i>Subcommittee co-chairman Sen. Howard Stephenson called Shumway's letter a "cheap shot" at the legislative process. "He realizes that in the court of public opinion, issues tend to stick whether they have merit or not," the Draper Republican said.<br /><br />Stephenson, R-Draper, said the subcommittee conducted business like it has every other year without complaint. Furthermore, he said it only makes recommendations to the Executive Appropriations Committee, which vets and screens budget priority lists.<br /><br />"Nothing that was passed will be law," he said. "There must be one or two things they didn't like that elicited the complaining this year."</i> <br /><br />Senate President Waddoups echoed Stephenson in the Trib article above:<br /><i>“We wrote that law,” Waddoups said, noting the committee’s actions were nothing more than recommendations. “It’s not like we don’t know it and have legal counsel to advise us on it.”<br /><br />He called the school board’s request that the recommendations be set aside “totally out of line.”<br /><br />“I think what they’re doing is making an argument that they are against what the committee did and because they disagree with it and the results of what came out of there, they’re looking to change it without getting the committee itself to do it,” Waddoups said.</i> <br /><br />So it's just sore losers whining about a "normal" process that the person in the state School Board meeting said he hadn't seen in years of attending and Senator Osmond had not been advised about.  I know who I believe.  Read the USBE link, and if you're feeling really brave, try and listen to the 3:37 <a href="http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=55&clip_id=899">audio recording</a> of the meeting itself.  With his track record and documented efforts to subvert the process on this exact issue of diverting local funds, why should we listen to Howard Stephenson?<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/8547325187225525439/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=8547325187225525439";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8547325187225525439";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8547325187225525439";s:4:"link";s:77:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-do-we-allow-howard-stephenson-to.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-1035826289445916556";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-07T01:31:00.011-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-07T21:14:29.380-07:00";s:5:"title";s:121:"SB 151 Stephenson's "anti-voucher" voucher bill. Quick education funding points to consider while listening to committee.";s:12:"atom_content";s:13325:"<b><i>UPDATE: Stephenson <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53457194-90/bill-schools-students-private.html.csp">canceled</a> the committee meeting this morning because he wanted to work on changes to the bill.  He still threw out his claim this bill is not a voucher.  See my budget explanation below to see what you think.  Also stay tuned for when the bill comes back up for a committee hearing in the next week or so. Will it be scheduled on a Monday morning at 8:00 to make it harder for the public to attend?</i></b><br /><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0151.htm">SB 151</a>, Student Opportunity Scholarships, by Howard Stephenson, will be debated in the Senate Education Committee today, Tuesday, Feb. 4,at 4:00 pm.  Click on the legislature's <a href="http://le.utah.gov/">website</a>, scroll down to the Upcoming Events section, and you should be able to click on the <b>Live Now</b> option at 4:00 to listen live to the committee hearing. (The committees often start a few minutes late--keep refreshing the page if it's not up right at 4:00.  If you can't find it, post a cry for help on Twitter with the hashtag #uted, and the State School Board's account, @UTPublicEd will usually reply with a direct link.  I expect both the live committee room and the online following will be packed, so I have some worries about something going wrong with the feed, but the front page links have been working for me after a bad first week of the new website.)<br /><br />This is a new voucher bill "limited" to only some students.  A lot of well-off families can get a $5500 school voucher if their kid scored below proficient on even one of four state tests, if their school has gotten an F grade for two years under Utah's new law (I had some info wrong about this provision in some tweets Saturday), or if a young student is behind in reading at all.  <br /><br />Some quick (for me) and important points to think about:<br /><br />1.  <u>All voucher proposals are framed disingenuously by misrepresenting school funding.</u>  OK, this point ended up not quick.  But it's the most important.  I'll be posting further on this. I think many people could benefit from this hopefully easy-to-understand explanation of school funding.  <u><i>Consider forwarding this to others and asking questions about this to your legislators or in committee meetings.</i></u><br /><br />Here is a very long and chewy <a href="http://www.schools.utah.gov/finance/Minimum-School-Program/Fiscal-Year-2011/LegEstBook12.aspx">document</a> detailing the education funding for the state of Utah for last school year and the current school year.  I'll refer to some specific pages shortly.  The state spends most of our state income tax on K-12 public education.  (A very significant portion of income tax funds is also spent on our higher ed. system) The legislature designates a "WPU" or Weighted Pupil Unit amount each year.  The districts receive that amount of funding from state income taxes per student, with extra WPU's for special ed. students, administration, extra transportation money for small, rural schools, and some other programs.  This is NOT some specific amount of money it takes to educate one child or a "marginal cost" per student coming and going from the school. It is a blunt, fair way to evenly distribute money to the state's districts on a per student basis.  These distributed WPU's to each district are called "Above the line" funding and are summarized on page 8 of the document.  <br /><br />On pages 9 and 10 of the document, it summarizes further state income tax funds sent out as "below the line" funding for a variety of purposes such as transportation, ELL students, gifted students, students in custody, library books and equipment, school nurses, dual immersion language programs, classroom supplies, and the Beverly Taylor Sorenson Arts Program.  Notice these are not sent out on a per student basis.  They are lump sums.  That nurse, art instructor, or amount of money for classroom supplies has to stretch to cover however many students show up.  (Different programs are divided differently, some to pilot schools, some proportionally.  And the legislature changes the total amount of "below the line" funding every year as they debate specific programs.)<br /><br />Therefore, neither type of funding, "above the line" or "below the line," represents a marginal savings for an individual school.  If a student switches to a private school, the state will still send the same amount of "below the line" funding that year to the districts. The state will keep one WPU (designated as $2816 this year) in the general education fund for that student.  <u>So the total savings for a student moving out or switching to a private school = Near $0 for a local school or district.  One WPU of $2816 for the state education fund from income tax.</u> If that student is a special education student, some complicated formula will save the state some more of that money.  The local school wouldn't cut concrete costs much, but would save in faculty and staff time with the various meetings and paperwork.  The vast majority of students who were Below Proficient on one test or attend what will be labeled as "F" schools are not special ed. and will only save one WPU.<br /><br />This is because almost every cost at a school or district is a fixed cost.  If one student enrolls or moves out of a school, the only cost difference for that school is some paper.  The teachers, computers, library books, copy machines, training sessions, utilities, buses, bond payments, etc. do not change.  When a school loses 30-40 students, depending on the district and whether it's an elementary or secondary school, they lose a teacher.  30 * $2,816 = $84,480. 40 * $2816 = $112,640.  That more than covers the cost to pay that teacher and there is no net gain to the district from these changes.  <br /><br />Your child's district and school get funded from various other sources as well.   Local district funds via property taxes are voted on and approved by the residents of that district in LUMP SUM amounts for school programs, including maintenance and upkeep.  <u>No local district funds are collected or spent on a per student basis.The funds serve hundreds of students simultaneously in large fixed costs.</u>  Your student does not receive a pro-rated portion of the janitor's time.    See Heading II Local Revenue on pg. 11 of the funding document.  The state also collects some property tax and distributes it in lump sums in that orange box about leeways.  (<i>This fact is also important in understanding the claims that districts are funding "phantom students" and should give up this locally collected money to charter schools with no publicly elected governing bodies.</i>) Federal funds largely pay for lunches at all schools and for lots of extra help in Title I schools. <br /><br /><u>Therefore, representing a $5,500 voucher as a savings to schools is fundamentally dishonest.</u>  The schools and districts basically save nothing, and the state fund saves one WPU of less than $3,000 dollars.  Via the tax-credit-converted-to-scholarship-in-order-to-claim-it's-not-a-voucher, the private school actually receives substantially more public money than a public school for enrolling the same student.<br /><br />1B.   Many articles comparing states will lump all of that income tax money together, above the line and below the line, the property tax whether voted on and collected by the state or district, and then divide that total by the number of students in the state.  That gives a number of just under $5400 the state spends per student.  That raw number is semi-useful for blunt comparisons with other states when comparing funding effort, but it doesn't represent a marginal cost for educating each individual student as I've shown.  And it gets worse. Senator Stephenson and his lobbying organization, the Utah Taxpayer's Association, take that larger total and add the small amount of state income tax spent as capital funds to build new facilities, the huge construction bonds voted on by constituents of local districts specifically for building new schools (such as the $200 million dollar bond approved by Alpine District voters recently), and even sometimes count the federal funds specifically earmarked to meals and specific Title I schools, and count that as total funding as well because "it's all taxes."  Dividing that larger total by the number of students gives them a per student funding number of $7,000 or $8,000 per student.  They then claim this shows that a $5,500 voucher actually saves the state money. <br /><br />Think about what they're doing. The argument boils down to claiming that if a student in St. George leave public school and takes a $5,500 voucher to attend private school, money is incrementally saved on WPU's statewide, construction of elementary schools in Eagle Mountain, and school lunches in Logan.  It willfully misrepresents that number as actual savings to schools.  In this case, the state saves one $2,816 WPU from the general education fund that they don't send to Washington School District for that student, while giving out a tax credit of $5,500 from that same fund. Stephenson will use this false representation of total taxes spent on schools <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53457194-90/bill-schools-students-education.html.csp">today in committee</a>. Listen and understand.  Post questions here if you have any, and I will do my best to answer them within a day or two.<br /><br />I think most members of the public have not researched the annoying intricacies of public education funding and are largely at the mercy of the claims of others about the impacts of vouchers and other funding proposals.  So save that 99-page document and study up.  I don't understand much of it still and probably flubbed a detail in my explanation, but my main point about the allocation of education funds is verifiably true. <br /><br />I know Senator Stephenson and other members of the legislature understand very well the reality of how these funds are collected and distributed. I feel they purposely frame their arguments with misleading statistics in order to advance their ideological goals rather than help the public make informed decisions or represent their constituents.  These misrepresentations of school districts wasting thousands of dollars per student are a large part of the lack of trust most educators feel toward the legislature as they struggle with 30+ students in their classrooms.  <br /><br />2.  The program would allow <u>up to $5,000,000 to be taken each year</u> out of the general education fund via credits for donations to private school scholarship organizations. <br /><br />3.  Senator Stephenson admitted at the Utah Taxpayer's Association's pre-legislative conference (<a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/01/notes-from-utah-taxpayers-associations.html">my notes</a>: they're tough to read sometimes.  Scroll down to Stephenson's comments about 2/3 of the way down) that most private schools will not accept a student who scores below grade level or is not proficient in English.  He claims that the Catholic schools are eager to take these students.  I would love to hear someone from that system confirm that sentiment.   He also doesn't say how much capacity remains in those schools statewide.  I think I'm right in saying there is a waiting list to enroll in both Judge Memorial and Juan Diego high schools.  I am not familiar with the amount of Catholic elementary and middle schools in the state.  Would a generous estimate be that 200-300 additional voucher students could enroll?<br /><br />Stephenson says these vouchers would create a market for private schools focused on low-achieving students, so new quality schools would quickly spring up to better serve those students.  (At $5500 a pop with no mandated programs, he's right that some schools would take that money.)<br /><br />4.  There will be a very large number of students who qualify for the voucher-- <u>NOT just 2 or 3 difficult students from a class.</u> Off the top of my head, I would estimate at least 100-200 students of the 1200 at my school received at least one state test score below proficient last year.  (Schools with more affluent demographics will have fewer students, some Title I schools would have over 50% with at least one score below proficient.)  Each of those students who take a voucher represent up to a $2,684 loss to education funding ($5,500 - $2,816 = $2,684.)<br /><br />5.  The school grading bill is brand new and based on those same test scores.  Many Title I schools will get F's based on those standards.  No fancy program will "solve" the difficulties of educating all struggling students.  Senator Stephenson is <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=960&sid=17373725">on the record</a> as wanting to "dismantle" and privatize those schools that the school grading program sets up for F's.  This voucher bill would make 100% of the students at those schools eligible for vouchers, thus thousands of potential $2,684 losses.  Stephenson is pursuing his stated goal through indirect means.<br /><br />There's more to say, but it will have to wait.<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/1035826289445916556/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=1035826289445916556";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1035826289445916556";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1035826289445916556";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/sb-151-stephensons-anti-voucher-voucher.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"5";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-6113630698892186609";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-02-06T23:19:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-02-07T01:18:13.446-07:00";s:5:"title";s:61:"USOE details huge list of 35 education related "Boxcar" bills";s:12:"atom_content";s:5356:""Boxcar" bills are potential bills that are named and numbered by a certain deadline (Feb. 4 this year by the looks of it), but have no content publicly available besides that name and number.  The actual text and effects of the bill remain secret until the legislator decides to make them available to the public.  Once they are available to the public for 24 hours, they can be started in the bill process normally--being assigned to a committee and progressing through committee and floor votes in both houses of the legislature.  OR...a bill can be passed "under suspension of the rules," thus skipping committee hearings with pesky questions from the public and rushing to the front of the line to be considered on the floor.  for example, HB477, the GRAMA bill, controversially rushed from unveiling of text through two easy votes in the Senate and House to the governor's office in only a few days.  <br /><br />Bob Bernick wrote an excellent <a href="http://utahpolicy.com/view/full_story/16593472/article--Secret--Bills-Flourishing-on-Utah-s-Cahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifpitol-Hill">commentary</a> on the subject at the end of November.  At that time, 60% of the proposed legislation was still secret.  On Feb. 4, as near as I can tell, about 200 House bills, resolutions, and rules changes dropped into the system along with over 110 Senate bills, concurrent resolutions, and joint resolutions.  All but one or two of the House bills numbered from HB 330 to HB 510 read "2/4/2012 Bill Numbered by Title Without any Substance" as of late tonight, February 6.  The Senate, which is about 1/3 the size of the House, reads the same for all but one or two bills from about SB 173 to SB 279, plus a bunch of the resolutions.  The list of bills by number is <a href="http://le.utah.gov/session/2012/bills.htm">here</a>.  You can check the Bill Status links on each bill, and see that designation on Feb. 4, 2012, even later when the text of the bill gets added. <br /><br />Why would a transparency loving legislature maintain at least 30% of its proposed legislation secret two full weeks into the session?  Bernick said in the article above that "sources inside the Legislature tell UtahPolicy that the percent of “protected” bills is increasing, as legislators learn, from experience and talking to colleagues, that one way to avoid unnecessary attention in this day of emails, texts, and other instant communications, is to keep what could end up as a controversial bill under wraps."<br /><br />As Joe Pyrah commented about boxcar bills a couple of years ago when he was still a reporter: "They know DAMN well what will go into those bills."  <br /><br />I posted a list of ominous sounding Boxcar bills with commentary <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/boxcar-bills-waiting-until-last-two.html">last year</a>, and I am thankful the USOE blog beat me to it <a href="http://utahpubliceducation.org/2012/02/06/dozens-of-boxcar-bills-added-to-our-watch-list/#.TzC-FoFXfQp">this year</a> with a long list of education-related Boxcar bills with very uncontroversial sounding names such as: <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0371.htm">HB371</a> Tuition Reimbursement for Private Education — Rep. Keith Grover, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0375.htm">HB375</a> Improving Student Academic Learning in Schools — Rep. Merlynn Newbold, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0067.htm">SB67</a> Teacher Effectiveness and Outcomes Based Compensation — Sen. Stuart Adams, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0073.htm">SB73</a> Extended School Calendar Incentives — Sen. Howard Stephenson, and <a href="SB223">SB223</a> Pledge of Allegiance Reinforcement Act — Sen. Aaron Osmond.  (I've loved your rational tone on education so far Sen. Osmond...but really?!)  <br /><br />At least those boxcars are honest and descriptive.  The vague bill titles are even scarier, like: <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifllhtm/HB0331.htm">HB331</a> School Board Election Provisions — Rep. Jim Nielson, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0392.htm">HB392</a> Charter School Funding Revisions — Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0430.htm">HB430</a> Education Program Funding Amendments — Rep. Bradley Last, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0175.htm">SB175</a> School Grading Amendments — Sen. Wayne Niederhauser, <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0178.htm">SB178</a> Statewide Online Education Program Amendments — Sen. Howard Stephenson, and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2012/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0213.htm">SB213</a> Charter School Enrollment — Sen. Howard Stephenson.  they could possibly be minor technical alterations, but they are more likely crucial changes disguised in bland language.  As I documented in my <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/boxcar-bills-waiting-until-last-two.html">Boxcar bill post</a> last year, Senator Stephenson especially has repeatedly sprung large changes in the waning days of the legislature.  <br /><br />Sign up for updates of status changes on any bills you want at the bottom of the webpage for each individual bill.  Let others know what is happening.  It's probably not good.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/6113630698892186609/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=6113630698892186609";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/6113630698892186609";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/6113630698892186609";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/02/usoe-details-huge-list-of-35-education.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-1774655879861976504";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-01-22T23:09:00.009-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-01-24T15:11:52.691-07:00";s:5:"title";s:98:"Weird Waterford software and Imagine Learning software connection.  Who's getting state contracts?";s:12:"atom_content";s:4408:"1.  I posted extensively a few years ago about when the failed UPSTART bill for free laptops for preschoolers, or "Welfare for Waterford" bill was dishonestly lumped into an omnibus bill of dubious constitutionality.  <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html">http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html</a><br /><br />It passed, and then Waterford Institute received a whole bunch of money after a Request For Proposals was specifically tailored to obtain their sevices.  I would love some very solidly documented data on the demographics, locations, and initial Reading Scores of the students receiving these laptops.  Then I would like the follow-up scores, and a comparison of the free laptop kids with the other students at their respective schools.  Howard Stephenson, the omnibus sponsor, is all about accountability.  Is this data available?<br /><br />2.  I posted once last year about how a local software company got a statewide contract (a <i>mysterious</i> statewide contract--I have never been able to track down where, when, and why it was granted) to provide software to help students learn English after making $12,000 in campaign donations to prominent local Republican legislators and the governor.  <br /><a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-educational-software-company-gets.html">http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-educational-software-company-gets.html</a><br />Is there data available on how many schools used this software for how many students and how much they paid?  What about comparable before and after scores?  The program looks awesome, but do we know?  <br /><br />3.  The Daily Herald printed a <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/provo-s-imagine-learning-brings-online-education-to-children/article_ff335e10-295f-55e7-a102-b9a6d84c9d22.html">glowing profile</a> of Imagine Learning today.  <br />There were a few paragraphs profiling Susan Praetor, the Imagine Learning CEO, and she was a Vice President at Waterford Institute for 11 years.  She specifically was the head of the team that developed the Waterford Software being used on the laptops for preschoolers.  It's been years, but now she's the CEO who gets a state contract the year after Waterford and after donating $12,000 from her current company to influential politicians.  <br /><br />That is a really weird coincidence.  <br /><br />4.  The Beverly Taylor Sorenson arts program was also part of that 2008 omnibus bill, but was one of the about-to-pass bills held hostage for the failed bills.  The appropriated money got shaved by 1/3 during the recession, but this specifically designated program survived the hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts.  The program seems great, both in terms of effective learning and in enriching school for kids when so much is being sacrificed for literacy and math test scores these days.  Beverly Taylor Sorenson seems like a powerful advocate for the arts and an extremely generous <a href="http://www.usu.edu/ust/pdf/2008/november/itn11070810.pdf">philanthropist</a>.  I would love for my children to participate in her program integrating arts and other academic subjects.  She was also the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home2/51689748-183/democrats-donations-donors-gave.html.csp?page=1">top political donor</a> in the state in the 2010 election cycle.<br /><br />The impressive program <a href="http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=18912896&title=arts-program-finding-success-in-in-utah-schools-need-for-funding">needs $4 million in new funding</a> for next school year.  What do you bet she gets it?<br /><br />5. Initial conclusion: It doesn't appear bad programs are getting funded because of political contributions.  <br /><br />However, typically, education money from the state is sent to local districts to make spending decisions at the local level according to need.  A lot of good programs exist to meet a lot of important needs, and not every company gets the contracts they desire.  <br /><br />It does <i>appear</i> that the key to getting your particular good program singled out for a contract and funded at the state level, before being sent on to districts, is to make significant financial contributions to local politicians and/or hire an influential lobbyist.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/1774655879861976504/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=1774655879861976504";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1774655879861976504";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1774655879861976504";s:4:"link";s:77:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/01/weird-waterford-software-and-imagine.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-444816846562940842";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-01-19T23:27:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-01-20T00:31:06.199-07:00";s:5:"title";s:71:"Notes from the Utah Taxpayer's Association's pre-legislative conference";s:12:"atom_content";s:26424:"I attended the mostly informative and interesting Utah Taxpayer's Association's pre-legislative conference this morning in the Senate Building.  We met in the nice Room 210 with 3 large screens for the various powerpoints we saw. It was less than half full.  I counted during the private golf presentations, and there were about 82 people in the room, with a couple coming in and out from the hallway.  That is counting 4 people from 2 companies looking to manage or buy government golf courses, 2 ALEC people here for a press conference afterwards, a number of legislators who were presenting bills, charter school people - Chris Bleak who presented, Carolyn Sharette, Steve, Sheldon Killpack who presented - and a bunch of guys in suits.  People left after presenting and others entered.  The crowd may have topped out at 90 people.  <br /><br />I think there were fewer than 10 "regular" members of the public in attendance counting myself, and the rest were lobbyist/insider types there for work and looking out for their respective interests.  For example, the nice gentleman I sat next to ended up being a policy director for the UEA, but I Googled his name right at the end and didn't get a chance to really talk to him.  Another indicator of who the meeting was really about was the list of "sponsors" on the back of the agenda who apparently paid for the handouts, the muffins and juice at the door, and probably a room fee.  (Meetings of affluent lobbying groups apparently have sponsors.)  They were: Billy Casper Golf, a management firm who presented for 15 min. about allowing them to run government golf courses while causing other bills to be pushed off of the agenda, Red Leaf Resources, an oil shale firm who wants favorable laws, 2 companies wanting to manage or buy our state parks: American Land and Leisure and Recreation Resource Management, Questar Gas, and Rio Tinto--both of whom have various tax, regulation, and clean air laws frequently before the legislature.  But they of course did this out of the goodness of their hearts, wanting nothing in return; and our legislators would never be influenced by this, even if these companies are in fact paying clients of Senator Stephenson and the Utah Taxpayer's Association.  (A law firm specializing in business litigation, and environmental and mining laws, Parsons, Behle, and Latimer, "sponsored" the 2012 Fast Tax pamphlet which is actually a very cool summary of government taxes, fees, and revenue generators in Utah.  But they don't want any influence.  It is just part of their charitable outreach for politicians with printing needs.)<br /><br />What citizen could be cynical about conflicts of interest in our state legislature?  Conflicts of interest are products of the liberal media, unless we are talking about Barney Frank or Newt Gingrich.  But the real point is to never let the Utah Taxpayer's Association's euphemistic name and rhetoric mask the fact that the group is really just a lobbying firm with secret clients that makes a handsome living for its few employees, chief among them longtime State Senator Howard Stephenson.  The organization and its aims are not about regular citizens; it exists purely to lobby for laws that financially benefit its secret clients.  If Senator Stephenson stepped down from his influential position in the legislature tomorrow, the Association's revenues would immediately plummet.  <br /><br />The notes are long and fairly rushed as it was hard to keep up sometimes.  Royce Van Tassell, 2nd-in-command at the Taxpayer's Association under Stephenson, was the emcee of the event.  He frequently gave short introductions of the speakers and/or bills.  I often wrote the presenter's name, and then wrote VT for Van Tassell, followed by his introductory comment.  Hopefully, it's not too confusing.  [Comments in brackets are my own thoughts about what I am summarizing.]  I indicate questions with a ? followed by the question.  Assume answers come from the presenter.  <br /><br />A traffic jam on I-15 made me 10 min. late and I only caught the last bit of Speaker Lockhart's remarks.<br /><br />My notes: <br />Sitting by Jay Blain.  Googled him right at the end and he is a UEA bigwig.  I wish I had known and talked to him a little more.  <br /><br />Lockhart and Waddoups - Some issue will pop up.  Maybe national popular vote says Waddoups.<br /><br />9:19 Dougall – New revenue worst of times b/c of many requests.  <br />1-time money: $128 million  49 gen 79 in education fund<br />Ongoing revenue: $280 million, 91 general, 188 in ed fund<br /><br />Immediate needs:<br />Structural deficit 52 mill<br />Public ed growth  41 mill<br />Medicaid  68 , 44 one-time<br />Other Medicaid 28 M, 18 M 1-time<br />Legal  14 mill 1-time<br />Bldg myce  53 mill<br />1%WPU increase $23 mill<br />Employee bees  37 mill<br />Pay down debt  85 1-time<br /><br />These exceed revenue coming  in, both types<br />Reserve funds, Rainy Day gen 122 mill  Ed. 110  Disaster 12<br />Debt level graph, Stay below line slightly below limit.  Excessive debt limits flexibility.  What if other downturn?  7 yr cycle?  Started May 2008, 3 ½ yrs from next downturn?<br />Increased revenue volatility.  Sales, income, corporate tax volatility increasing.  Sales huge increase in swing since 1935.  Even bigger in income tax.  Showing Powerpoint graphs. Jay Blain points out big down swing in income coincides with Flat Tax implementation in 2007.<br /><br />Lyle Hillyard on phone – US lost bond rating.  Utah has never lost.  2 of 5 criteria are worrisome.  1. How much $ from Fed.?  Hill Air Force Base, other firms, like the money, can’t control this area.  Can control 2.  How close to bond limit?  We stayed at 40% historically.  Now at 85% for I-15 extra length opportunity.  Not stay here, but back down to 40-50% like used to be.  Pressure for state bldgs to keep bond limit high.  We’re pleased w/ Rainy Day Fund.  Volatility might need higher than 6% gen 8% ed fund levels.  Gov can make budget rec’s alone, not consensus of leg.  Only see Gov final product.  People see our deliberations.  Go to committee, not leaders.  Priority list, hearings, public process. People panic.  See tough decisions. Mid Feb brings final rev estimates.  Concerned w/ challenges.  Uintah Basin rev up says Sen Van Tassell.  Done at 9:33<br /><br />Privatization concerns, 3 items.<br />Sen. David Hinkins – Audit  Gen fund $ reduced rec to State Parks.  Reward park financial perf.  Business plan updated annually, max revenues, minimize expenditures.  Analyze capital investment.  Use lower cost staffing, seasonal employees, overlap of support staff eliminate.  Reduce law enforcement cost.  Reduce #, limited status, sep entity for enforcement at dept level, reduce retirement.   Audit recs consider closing high cost w/ low visits, transfer to local.  Privatize some, which best?  4 golf courses, 42 state parks, some heritage parks, This is the Place—if cut $800,000 they will give park back to us.  So better as is.  Benefit to state.  Benefit to taxpayers—expect recreation in Utah.  Why live here.  Not looking to close any, but streamline.  American Land and Leisure run Strawberry Res.  Concessionaires.  Most people don’t know diff.  Still good.  Not actually turning parks to individuals to make profit, just concessionaires.  Can do more efficiently in some cases.  Test case at Otter Creek St Park right now w/ concessionaire. They say their bus partnership model working.  Privatization premature. Audit made parks more accountable.  Now show costs of each park.  Responded to requests.  Costs are down.  Look at all alternatives.<br /><br />Billy Casper Golf Pres:  Douglas White and Mike Cutler, VP’s, Dan Parkinson citizen, and Billy Casper himself.   About quality.  Industry rounds played way down 10%.  4.6 mill lost golfers.  How retain golfers?  Price quality service in parks.  OP model must stop taking tax subsidies.  Myths of privatization: Rates increase state approves, Res lose access, conditions worse, loss of jobs (we seek good people), service suffers.  We have lower costs, expertise, buying power of nat org, municipality not manage day-to-day.  Muni funds all cap improvements.  Profits retained by muni.  3010 yr contract + renewals.  Increased rev examples across country.  Billy Casper is fav son.  He comes in to clinch the deal.  “I’ve never been in front of such wonderful people dedicated to the service of your fellow man.  Hope you can keep up with it.  Great to be with you.”<br />Ques from man—If eliminate Daylight Savings Time, how affect rounds?   We can be creative.  Manage capacity, peak and low times.  [No answer, just we’ll manage.]  <br />? Which type of 3 options do you prefer with muni?  I like lease.  Give up control, but pay capital.  But man agreement, you retain profits.  Make most sense here.  Of 70 muni course, nearly 50% are leases.  Van Tassel cuts off ?’s.  Other providers too.  Here:<br /><br />Mark Whetzel local golf course managed firm: I love Billy.  Since 1990, golf demand up 5% while supply up 60%.  We don’t pillage, take profits for 1 yr or 2, then leave.  We like long term manage deals.  Prefer 10 yrs.  We have 3 in N Utah, 2 S Utah, 1 in Mesquite.  We like to lease to own, take all risk.  <br />?Utah has high% of golfers right?”  So fertile ground right?  Yes.<br /><br />[40  42.  82 people counting 4 golf company dudes, Billy, Legislators, presenters.  Represent Utah??  How many lobbyists in the room?]<br /><br />Rep. Ryan Wilcox – DABC restructuring.   “Misdirection” powerpoint.  Chuckle to self.  I was an intern, then in leg.  I was not happy to find myself selling alcohol as leg.  I am religion against drinking.  Force all Utahns into bus.  Justifications.  But we’re not measuring right things.  DUI’s down and justification.  Compared to other states we’re not doing that well b/c our low #’s mask problems.  Where drunk?  Why?  Where teens getting?  Why?  Who’s irresponsible?  Need to measure more and base policy on right metrics.  12 leg audits in past 2 yrs of DABC.  Bad corruption and management.  Big rev stream not reason for agency or justification.  Always looking to sell more.  Not just prob w/ last few directors—culture spans 30 yrs.  Plan: Not relinquish control, but not a wholesaler or retailer.  Focus on what actually reduces teen drinking, DUI’s family consequences.  Use new measurement standards.  We want to take baby steps, trying to talk to all parties.  [Golf guy orange sweater leaves.]<br /><br />VT – Water even hotter topic than alcohol. How to pay and change long term usage and needs.  <br />Sen. John Valentine: Water allocation based on prior beneficial use.  But no system on how to pay for that water.  True cost of projects, delivery, and resource itself is masked b/c paid for by prop taxes.  When I started in House in 1988, I saw that costs were intended to be masked.  Jurisdictions say can’t do water projects on rates b/c not predictable, but say predictable enough for operations.  Disconnect.  Drafting bill now – phase out over 5 yr period prop taxes to water projects.  Will increase water rates, but not cost of water b/c of prop tax decrease.  [Kills renters??]  Rural Utah cannot fund just fro rates, esp. w/ fed gov lands.  CUP has big influence.  Many details to work out.  We should pay for water’s true cost and use, not masked in prop taxes. Low on details. <br />? How affect proj to dam Bear River planned 30 yrs?  Should pay w/ water rates so recog cost.  We hide allocation and use as if not scarce.  If proj will go, has 5 yr window, then must be financed by rates.  <br />? Across board, all users?  I want to.  But may have to compromise.<br />? Why should leg tell communities how to price services?  Leg has respon for nat resources of state.  City owns water right, but state has vital interest in nat resource.  Can’t say air above city is only respon of city.<br />? How will this extend to water districts which already levy taxes?  Not transparency in their budgets?  These are Water Conservancy and Special districts.  Must have trans period to ensure no bond defaults.  [People leave after water discussion]<br /><br />Chris Bleak – Head of State Charter School Assoc. – Ed is critical to state.  We need fantastic ed system.  Charters have grown at rapid rate since 10-12 yrs.  81 charters currently, 45,000 now, 50,000 students next yr.  Lumped as 5th or 4th biggest district.  Students chosing b/c so good.  Focusing on disadvantaged students.  Carolyn Sharette has 2 schools in SL Valley.  For new immigrants.  PProvide comp.  7.6% of all students.  Facilities are biggest charter problem.  Critical to way teach.  They pay much higher % rate than normal districts.  Districts can use full faith and credit state’s AAA credit rating.3 3.5 4 %  Charters paying 7, 7.5, 8% despite state schools.  Original charter ideas of renovating existing bldgs is not feasible b/c school bldg codes too strict.  $ back to east coast bond firms.  1.  Working with State Treasurer, Richard Ellis, Valentine, industry folks, to allow “moral obligation”  AA rating which would save $100,000 to $150,000 per year for carters.  2.  Only to those w/ strong track record of finan success, fgood management.  Need Investment Grade Rating—many in state have now.  No charter in country has failed in 20 yrs w/ Investment Grade Rating.  Even with 2 economic downturns.  3.  Create funding, State Charter Reserve Acct.  Pay premium from rates to create insurance if there were a problem to protect state.  Currently required to have 1-yr reserve anyway, other protections.  Save $150-200 k yr per $10 mill in debt.  More than 100 k in transaction fees. More buyers b/c more attractive bonds.  <br />? W/ reg schools, district is responsible entity.  Charters, the Assoc. is respon entity?  Group that gets charter is governing board.  Have open meeting, reporting req.s Non-profit.  They bond for their school.  ? WPU funding follows all students?  [Weird question.]  This is a state funded public school.  Income $ follow.  Charters manage operations off WPU.  <br />?What is context of “moral obligation” that gets ;lower rate?  State responsible if default?  Some Steve guy with Bleak– County provided rate for 9 charters but not respon.  Moral oblige for all students.  ? Why bank would give 3% less? Not contractually required for state to back loan.  But I believe state would.  So better rate b/c of State's "almost" promise.<br /><br />Sen. Howard Stephenson – Anti-voucher Student Opp Scholarship.  Universal vouchers rejected.  Unions sent out-of-state $ to say rich kids getting voucher, voters heard advertising and voted down.  [Pro-voucher out-of-states sent MORE.  Documented. He thinks people are brainwashed if disagree with him.] Somewhat legitimate argument that many best and brightest would leave.  When I visit teachers, I ask what is biggest challenge?  [When and where?]  They almost always say 2-3 most diff students whether behavior - I was one of those - or low scores.  I could really focus on other 24 in my room w/o the hard ones. This bill is focused soley on those 3-4 kids.  If parents want to add $, they should eb able to.  Not many priv schools that accept below grade level, but some.  Cath schools want ELL and low performers, We can teach effectively. This will create market for new priv schools.  Tax credit allowable if you donate to 501 scholarship orgs, you get 100% tax credit w/ “certain limits.”  They will then grant schools w/ req’s for parents to pay part, skin in the game. Takes diff kids out of school system.  Why not wait 10 yrs b/c voters rejected school choice?  Arizona law was found legal by Supreme Court.  OK to give public $ to vouchers, even religious schools.  That’s why this bill this year.  Myself and sev other legislators.  Right time.  Give lowest what they need b/c falling between cracks.  The name has a ring to it, not a voucher.  Already have Carson Smith special needs scholarship.  This could be Carson Smith 2.0.  Straw poll: Anti-voucher or Carson Smith 2.0.  Like 1 person vs. 5 people.  Most don’t raise hands.  Stephenson laughs at own joke.  <br />1 vote guy ? Union opp?  Yes, already.  ? School boards USOE support?  No.  How funded?  Would take income tax credits that otherwise would have gone to public school student.  System will actually have more money for studs that remain, positive fiscal note.  [Billy leaving]<br /><br />Sen. Margaret Dayton – Thanks to Royce and UTA.  What to name Howard’s bill.  Call it Student Opp Scholarship, SOS.   6-8 yrs ago opened bill to use ACT as eval for grad preparation.  To compare to nation.  Seemed like good idea b/c of state $ on state test.  State Board sais ACT not allow that and couldn’t afford that.  Former state sen. Dave Thomas, current State School Board member, now asked me to run bill to use ACT in place of UBSCT.  Has multiple pos effects.  10th graders realize what need to work on or realize they are capable.  Bill passed ed. interim committee.  Stephenson amended bill to include another test, a military test for students who anticipate post-high school ASVAP? Ed, but not college, free to states.  Still State Board rules.  Concern is maybe military cuts will cut free tests.  But state of Utah will provide readiness testing.  Can save money through some sort of applying money toward test costs.  [Didn’t understand.]  Anticipated will pass quickly.<br /><br />Sen. Wayne Harper – [Didn’t understand all of this.] Online retailer and phone comp must notify buyer of obligation to pay use tax.  Nexus tax says if physical presence in Utah, must pay some taxes here.  Like Cabela’s kiosks for online orders.  Help people comply with law and make it easier for them to know.  Mark Griffin – Internet industry guy –  Hard for online companies b/c of diff state rates, agri taxes, school supply exemptions, etc.  One state location cost us $350,000 and 2 months of programmer time to meet tax req’s.  We oppose state piecemeal proposals b/c of implementation costs.  Prob w/ those proposal.  Putting another hurdle, info, on web transaction hurts “conversion” of want to sale.  If do it on invoice, (other states want to do too) also has cost which may be more than tax collected.  We get customer service calls.  Cust serv calls from Utah cost us $5.  [Really??]  Internet not same as cash register.  We need fed standard which we are working on.  Nexus bill problems – This makes us collect tax to hire service guy in Utah.  We stop employing Utah subcontractors to save $.  State systems not good. <br /><br />VT and Rep. Hughes introduce and praise Dr. Nick Trombetta. Hughes – Revolves around turf wars.  We spend $3 bill yr. on ed. in Utah including all jurisdictions’ taxes. Adults fight over adult systems.  This guy came to reform diff way.  He was principal and Wrestling Coach in Midland, Penn, outside Pittsburgh. When steel mill disappeared, killed taxes and school.  One school district.  No other dist wanted cost of bussing and teaching.  Students were shipped to Ohio.  Trombetta would send wrestlers running down street to show public they exist.  Sent from dist to dist.  Midland kids would be sports, valedictorians, parents complain.  Tom Ridge allowed charter schools. He is a Democrat.  Dist sued over 70% costs paid to charter school.  System worked. 40,000 students in 20 states getting online school from Trombetta.  11,000 in Penn on online curric.  He came up against great opp b/c of turf, who controls.  I want you to meet someone than for any other reason for those kids in that town.  I want to see that model expanded in Utah.<br /><br />Nick Trombetta – I am the son of Italian immigrants who came after WWII.  My dad worked at steel mill.  He taught me that good ed. is great equalizer, the American ticket to the American promise.  Where you live matters in what quality of ed. you receive.  We lost $ for ed programs in my town.  Neighbors wouldn’t help. We had to buy services from another state.  25 person grant attracted national attention.  Many wanted.  In 4th yr, Rick Santorum enrolled his kids and enrollment grew to 4,000.  We dedicate lives to help kids get ed. whether online or brick and mortar.  In New Mexico yesterday, reservation kids online best students in area.  I am a proponent of school choice and should receive bipartisan support.  When inject free market, parents’ choice, good things happen to public schools too.  In Penn 10 yrs ago, under Dem Gov Rendell, charters increased a lot.  Opponents said 3 things would happen: 1.  Will hurt pub ed and test scores down.  2.  Teachers will lose jobs.  3.  Dry up cash, take money away.  But 3 things happened during Rendell– 1. Test scores went up statewide.  2.  More teachers in Penn with less students.  (Must look at that.)  3.  Record surpluses.  [B/C of charters or economy??]<br /><br />VT – Should we be paying districts for students who left?<br />Sheldon Killpack – Work w/ Academica West, Charter school management – In Utah, income tax goes to operations of pub schools. Prop tax goes toward facilities.  When charters created, WPU was easy.  Send to charters.  How make up for prop tax issue when students leave?  Easiest solution rather than battle of districts taking money to follow child.  What otherwise would have followed child, leg made in lieu money.  This money comes off top, fund in lieu taxes, unfair to districts w/o lots of charters.   Leg decided to take at least 25% of prop taxes for students.  Worked.  State still over $70 mill for charters.  13 yr phase in Rep. Menlove’s bill.  New students’ will get prop taxes from districts into charter pot.  Districts will get off top income tax money back.  Local prop. $ will follow child. There is flexibility w/ funds from WPU, not from districts,  Give districts flex to use prop tax money.  Why don’t districts want more?  Why not plan diff, fewer bldgs, more for operations.  Allows parity of opportunity for districts and charters.  HB 313.  Money follows child.  <br /><br />Rep. Jim Neilson – Severance tax biggest thing of leg.  Const amendment.  When we sever nat resources from ground, one-time sev tax.  Was put into permanent trust fund.  Takes ¾ vote and Gov sig. to spend money.  Only for more serious emergencies.  More diff to use than Rainy Day funds.   Only done once slightly after Olympics—not paid back.  Some 2008 const amendment allowed leg to divert $ BEFORE going to trust fund by only majority fund.  One-time monies.  If we spend sev tax fund today, not there for urgent need tomorrow.  New Const. Amendment to fix.<br /><br />Sen. Wayne Niederhauser – Procurement code.  [No idea what this is.]  No major changes since 1979 American Bar Assoc. code changes.  Will adopt much of modern lang. in 2000 Bar standards.  Lots of clean-up.  [Didn’t listen well here.]  Bad code makes bad media stories.  Teeth for intentional violation of procurement code.  <br /><br />Sen. Stuart Adams – Energy incentives.<br /><br />Sen. Ben McAdams – VT says get districts out of business of helping local developers.  Muni’s can charge up to 1% extra state sales tax.  50% to location of sale and 50% to location of population.  $100 spent at Gateway.  Local option 1%. $1 collected.  .50 to SLC and .50 to statewide fund distributed based on population.  SLC gets 8% of that other .50. Rough formula, not scientific, realizing population has costs.  Fairly reflective of where needs fall. Mostly fair.  SLC #2 in nation in daytime pop increase.  180,000 to 350,000 each day.  Costs w/ that.  600 S. use 90% by non-res, police, fire, etc.  Ran formula that SLC spends $280 on non-residents.  [Seems fishy to me]  Bro would have to spend $56,000 to make that in retail tax.  Retail doesn’t do all.  Tax incentives and population coming sometimes cancel out increased retail.  Cities chase too much sometimes.  Working w/ Rep. Nielson and Hughes, Sen. Stephenson.  Add a component along w/ point of purchase and population.  Add job wage $ to calculation, so not reject good jobs with costing facilities.  Figure out dist. of wages and distribute some sales tax on that.  Cities worried, don’t want civil war between cities.  Only accept if new revenue on table.  There is a federal movement to require online retailers to collect online sales tax.  IF that happens, we should change dist. formula.  We would see 5-10% increase.  Law triggers IF fed. Law passes.  <br /><br />VT Sen Madsen is neighbor of mine.  SB 27 film bill got wrapped up this morning.  <br />Madsen – I’ve been working for 3 yrs on film issue.  Text at 5:30 this morning that is resolved.  I’ve been trying to help largest independent movie studio in world, Raleigh Studios, lots of cities, for 3 yrs.  Wanted to come to Utah.  Came to state about draconian local land use authority, could use only 1/6 of space.  Tried to help over years.  People are sovereigns.  Delegate little auth to state, which then delegates further to local level.  Some say leave “local tyrants.”  Leg not accountable for that.  I disagree.  State has responsibility to ensure no gov in state turns into tyrants.  How many movies could have been made in 3 yrs?  How many jobs in that time?  [Only money matters]  If only gov understood, value of time.  Gov not understand.  [Lots of irony here about leg tyranny??]<br /><br />Rep. Patrick Painter – HB 41 Simplify Taxes on Personal Property.  Will help small business owners.  Reduce audits.  <br />? Prevent muni’s from raising other taxes to offset losses from bill?  May very slightly affect prop taxes on all businesses and home owners.  Makes it easier to do business.<br /><br />David Crapo – SB 27 Taxpayers Right to Refund  Some court ruled that individual had no right to ask for erroneously collected taxes if a vendor charged wrongly, gave to state.  State not responsible if state didn’t make mistake.  This amends code.  State can give back even if vendor makes mistake.  Puts burden on state to justify keeping $.  Retroactive to help past claims.  <br /><br />VT Casey Anderson is w/ Speaker Lockhart, so not talking.  Jonathan Williams and Megan Archer will do Utah Taxpayer’s Assoc. news conference in 15 min at cap bldg.";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/444816846562940842/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=444816846562940842";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/444816846562940842";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/444816846562940842";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/01/notes-from-utah-taxpayers-associations.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-5038551055513157761";s:9:"published";s:29:"2012-01-11T23:54:00.006-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2012-01-12T00:33:52.561-07:00";s:5:"title";s:108:"Stephenson and Utah Taxpayer Association's pre-legislative conference agenda: A voucher by any other name...";s:12:"atom_content";s:2692:"Long time, no blog.  I'm Twittering now and again for shorter examples of the hammer coming down on Utah Public Education from powerful legislators.  @UtahTeacher<br /><br />Saw the Utah Taxpayers Association's agenda for their pre-legislative conference today.  Lots of coded voucher varieties and increase of state control over education.  Reduce local district funding and control to give the legislature more power with less opposition. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=4153">http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/?p=4153</a><br /><a href="http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Tentative-PreLeg-Agenda-Agenda.pdf">http://www.utahtaxpayers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Tentative-PreLeg-Agenda-Agenda.pdf</a><br /><br />Some items from the pdf agenda:<br />10:00 Ed. Savings Accounts = Super "Backpack funding" = vouchers that students could just keep the money if they graduated early, also they virtually eliminate districts as entities and totally gut district programs, busing, Special Ed., ELL, magnet programs, closes schools in poor areas<br /><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/52592004-82/student-class-account-plan.html.csp">Further info</a>...<br /><a href="http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/blog/2011/09/30/%E2%80%98education-savings-accounts%E2%80%99-a-game-changing-idea/">Further spin</a>...<br />(Talking points = It's <i>for the children</i> vs. greedy teachers/districts, reward high achievers, family controls education, strategically ignore effects of destroying district programs = money directly to kids will solve all problems and provide all needed)<br /><br />10:05 Anti-voucher Student Opportunity Scholarship = Tuition Tax Credits = vouchers from front end of funding rather than back<br />10:20 HB 15 Statewide Adaptive Testing = test multiple times per year with low statistical "validity" (tied to performance pay/value-added measures) -- there is good to these as instruments, but rhetoric behind implementation and reality of multiple administrations and use as an objective data comparison = problems<br />10:25 Charter School Bonding - Charters get permission to use public bonds?  Screw districts?<br />10:30 SB 10 College & Career Readiness Assessments = New UBSCT = ACT?, eventual financial penalties for schools<br />10:35 Eliminating Funding for Phantom Students (presented by Sheldon Killpack??)-- Their dishonest way of saying local district bonding authority will be eliminated and sales tax increased to provide more $ for charter schools.  Local control is only sacred when opposing Obama.<br />11:05 SB 27 Taxpayers Right to Refund -- No idea, but most likely more income tax taken from schools, right?";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/5038551055513157761/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=5038551055513157761";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5038551055513157761";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5038551055513157761";s:4:"link";s:69:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2012/01/stephenson-and-utah-taxpayer.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-5425769163498090005";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-02-22T01:18:00.005-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-02-22T03:30:42.682-07:00";s:5:"title";s:85:""Boxcar bills" waiting until the last two weeks to start big education budget battles";s:12:"atom_content";s:11513:"I've been torn lately -- so much going on at the legislature and so little time to write about it.  The small government loving Utah legislature has proposed <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SubResults.asp?Listbox4=00790">109 bills</a> related to education for the 2011 legislative session.  That is not counting the 19 abandoned bills at the bottom of the page or other education related bills not labeled as such like Rep. Draxler's bill <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0025.htm">HB 25</a> using "excess" oil and gas taxes to create "petroleum literacy" materials for elementary schools.  <br /><br />There are also numerous "boxcar" bills (meaning they have a name and a number, but the sponsor has not chosen to allow anyone to read the text of the bill yet with only 2 1/2 weeks remaining of the session ) sitting like timebombs, waiting to be sprung onto the floor "under suspension of the rules," which means they can be rapidly debated on the floor with no committee hearing to allow public comment and which also prevents the public and legislators alike from having time to read and understand the bill before it gets voted on.  Some of these bills I've been watching finally received text on Monday, Feb. 21, Presidents Day.<br /><br />There are multiple final education budget battles looming as likely candidates for <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/03/education-budget.html">last minute shenanigans</a>, including again stealing locally voted funds for charter schools, de facto vouchers as "backpack" funding, funding for reading programs for K-2, actually funding growth instead of <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51191766-82/money-state-budget-fund.html.csp">just moving funds around</a> and claiming to fund new students, or completely removing the ability for local districts to raise taxes while increasing the sales tax on food, which is of course controlled and distributed by the state legislature.  Watch Howard Stephenson who has a history of anti-education <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-do-we-allow-howard-stephenson-to.html">last-minute tactics</a> and also has a bill tucked away intended to make school board elections partisan.  Rep. Merlynn Newbold is his frequent partner in crime, initiating Stephenson's ideas as bills in the House -- like <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0313.htm">HB 313</a>, an empty boxcar bill replacing the Charter School Finance Amendments bill Stephenson <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SenResults.asp?Listbox2=STEPHHA">abandoned</a> -- so it isn't as obvious how much Senator Stephenson is single-handedly manipulating education policy in Utah.<br /><br />Here are some doozies to watch out for.  These are all boxcar bills as of Feb. 21 if they are listed, unless I explain when the bill was made public next to the item on the list.  You can sign up at the bottom of each link to receive email updates if and when these bills become active.  Notice how many have vague titles about "amendments" and "modifications" which lets the legislator stick in anything they want at the last minute.<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0065.htm">H.B. 65</a> Public School Funding -- Harper, W.  <b>Received text last week.  Financial mumbo-jumbo that would usurp some local taxing control.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0123.htm">H.B. 123</a> K-12 Education Amendments -- Sumsion, K.  <b>Received text yesterday.  This bill would totally change the whole basis of how the state distributes education funding, likely giving more to charter schools.  It would also shorten terms for school board members.  No big deal to hold it until the end.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0145.htm">H.B. 145</a> Education Amendments -- Eliason, S.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0151.htm">H.B. 151</a> Compulsory Education Amendments -- Briscoe, J.  <b>Received text last week.  Would make kindergarten non-optional.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0290.htm">H.B. 290</a> Public School Transportation Amendments -- Wimmer, C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0301.htm">H.B. 301</a> School District Property Tax Revisions -- Newbold, M.  <b>Received text last week. Another example of the legislature taking away local tax control and giving the power to themselves.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0302.htm">H.B. 302</a> Reading Program Amendments -- Newbold, M.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0307.htm">H.B. 307</a> Public Broadcasting Funding -- Herrod, C.  <b>Though Chris Vanocur has already revealed the <a href="http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Will-Utah-legislators-censor-KUED/GQGfoOz22065E5qp8hfOuw.cspx">liberal</a> <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51253551-76/kued-budget-herrod-pbs.html.csp">plot</a> on this one.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0313.htm">H.B. 313</a> Charter School Funding Amendments -- Newbold, M.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0339.htm">H.B. 339</a> Charter School Enrollment Amendments -- Hutchings, E.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0346.htm">H.B. 346</a> Provisional Teaching Modifications -- Herrod, C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0377.htm">H.B. 377</a> Higher Education Textbook Fairness Act -- Cox, F.  <b>Aimed at specific companies or increasing conservative leaning texts?</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0388.htm">H.B. 388</a> Financial Oversight of Charter Schools -- Herrod, C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0426.htm">H.B. 426</a> Education Funding Amendments -- Pitcher, D.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0427.htm">H.B. 427</a>  Education Modifications -- Newbold, M.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0443.htm">H.B. 443</a>  School Business Administrator Amendments -- Richardson, H.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0447.htm">H.B. 447</a> Modifications to Education -- Dee, B.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0455.htm">H.B. 455</a>  Land Exchange Distribution Account Amendments -- Noel, M.  <b>Presumably related to this <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51264913-76/bill-noel-county-meeting.html.csp">dust-up</a> over <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0098.htm">HB 98</a> where Noel wants to further remove local control from counties.  (Click on the Floor Debate audio file to hear his rant)  Related to <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0400.htm">HB 400</a> yet another boxcar which Rolly references?</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0464.htm">H.B. 464</a>  State-Supported Voted Leeway Program Amendments -- Briscoe, J.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0004.htm">S.B. 4</a>  Current School Year Supplemental Minimum School Program Budget Adjustments -- Buttars, D. C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0078.htm">S.B. 78</a>  Public School Early Graduation Counseling -- Buttars, D. C.  <b>Received text yesterday.  Actually seems like an easy, good idea rather than eliminating 12th grade.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0163.htm">S.B. 163</a>  School Restructuring -- Stephenson, H.  <b>Stephenson bragged on his radio show that this bill is intended to close down a set number of schools each year.  No need to consult the teachers on this one, let alone the parents.  Great candidate for a rushed debate.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0210.htm">S.B. 210</a>  Utah Postsecondary Proprietary School Act Amendments -- Bramble, C.  <b>Received text yesterday.  One of two or three bills Bramble is running about the regulation and taxation of private schools and training programs.  I have no idea what these bills will do, but I smell a tax break for "economic development."</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0217.htm">S.B. 217</a>  Education Policy Amendments -- Bramble, C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0224.htm">S.B. 224</a>  Partisan School Board Elections -- Stephenson, H.  <b>Of course a "school board elections" bill run by the chair of the Senate Education Committee was not labeled education.  Easy to miss this one.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0227.htm">S.B. 227</a>  Student Based Funding for Public Education -- Liljenquist, D.  <b>"Backpack" funding.  The PCE and charter lobbyists will hit hard for these pseudo-vouchers when this bill is unveiled in the near future.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0241.htm">S.B. 241</a>  Tuition Waiver Amendments -- Hinkins, D.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0245.htm">S.B. 245</a>  Higher Education Tuition Revisions -- Valentine, J.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0256.htm">S.B. 256</a>  Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Process -- Adams, J. S.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0263.htm">S.B. 263</a>  State Board of Education Powers Amendments -- Buttars, D. C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0265.htm">S.B. 265</a> State Charter School Board Modifications -- Madsen, M.  <b>Unnecessary due to <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0140.htm">SB 140</a>?</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0278.htm">S.B. 278</a>  School District Modifications -- Bramble, C.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0292.htm">S.B. 292</a>  Private Institutions of Higher Education -- Valentine, J.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0304.htm">S.B. 304</a>  Bullying Amendments -- Okerlund, R.<br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0305.htm">S.B. 305</a>  Economic Development Through Education / Career Alignment -- Stephenson, H.  <b>Stephenson's 2.5 to 8 million dollar career web app and chat room that will convince undergrads not to be dance majors.  And of course, IBM developed this one-of-a-kind software prototype at his request (meaning no private company has seen promise in making a for-profit chat room developed around career information easily searchable for free already), but Senator Stephenson "<a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14418551">doesn't know</a>" if they would win a bid for this service.  We have <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html">seen</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-technology-integration-issue.html">this</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-educational-software-company-gets.html">before</a>.</b><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0316.htm">S.B. 316</a>  Disclosure of State and Institutional Trust Lands Information -- Niederhauser, W.</blockquote><br /><br />I am 99% sure I have missed some boxcars or recently posted bills, but here are at least 36 education-related bills which have either not been posted for public viewing or only received their text in the last week.  These last two weeks could get even uglier for education in what is already the worst session in recent memory...";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/5425769163498090005/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=5425769163498090005";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5425769163498090005";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/5425769163498090005";s:4:"link";s:76:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/boxcar-bills-waiting-until-last-two.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-8527996387586866718";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-02-10T00:24:00.005-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-02-10T00:57:00.293-07:00";s:5:"title";s:94:"Virtual Vouchers bill, SB 65 by Howard Stephenson, passes committee -- My notes of the meeting";s:12:"atom_content";s:22725:"I posted about the <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/virtual-vouchers-howard-stephenson-and.html">"Virtual Voucher bill"</a> a couple of weeks ago.  I was able to listen to the committee hearing for the bill yesterday, which went much longer than I expected.  <br /><br />Committee hearings are the background nitty-gritty of the legislature where 95% of the meaningful debate and education about bills occurs.  Fewer legislators are present; those legislators have more leeway to ask questions and read supporting evidence about the bills; they have been in that ongoing committee and usually have more background and expertise on the subject matter than the legislature as a whole; and the public is allowed to comment which usually brings in further expertise and perspective not possible in the stilted parliamentary procedure of the legislative floor meetings tightly controlled by the Senate President and Speaker of the House.  The floor debate usually just repeats talking points as a matter of course, very rarely actually changing anyone's mind.  In the majority of debates, everyone already knows if the bill will pass or fail before it is brought before the body.<br /><br />So the committee hearings are the place to get good background and info about a proposed bill.  You can listen to the audio of the Feb. 8, 2011 meeting of the Senate Education Committee <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=SSTEDU">here</a>.<br /><br />However, it is over 90 minutes long.  My notes will probably take you 10-15 minutes to read and cover all of the main points.  They are definitely not perfect and I especially apologize to anyone's name I butchered.  I listened to the hearing live and just tried to keep up as I took notes.  If anyone feels my summarization misrepresents what someone said, let me know and I'll go back and listen.  <br /><br />I inserted a few comments of my own as I typed and a couple afterward as I looked over the notes.  They are in brackets.  Realize that there are two senators with similar names on the Senate Education Committee.  Howard Ste<u>ph</u>enson is the sponsor of the bill.  Jerry Ste<u>v</u>enson is another member of the committee.  My shorthand for their names will make sense if you know that.<br /><br />My notes:<br />[Annoying because starts late with no warning, missed first part of Sen. Stephenson's comments.]  <br /><br />Stephenson -  Some book says high school families will demand better than current.<br />Claims 3 time teacher of the year John Taylor Gotto said NY schools were intentionally designed for mediocrity because business bosses were threatened by social mobility and need for labor.  System hurts kids.  We can learn from that.  We can respect learning styles much better than before.<br /><br />Current factory model puts 30 kids in a cubicle and one adult trying to pour knowledge uniformly into different minds.  Howard Gardner, multiple intelligences, no bell curve of intelligence.  More efficient to teach to middle, bore some, lose some.  Instead 3-D bell that is impossible for one teacher to reach.  We can now respect diff styles through online learning.  Brain research shows that self-directed learning is more rapid and deep than otherwise.  Research in seminars.  Synapses of brain connect when we make a choice and become a permanent connection when we receive feedback if we are correct or incorrect.  If no feedback, synapses withdraw as if connection were never made.  We need to provide immediate interactive feedback.  Piaget said anyone could be highly proficient in math and science with immediate feedback.  [A teacher online with no class size limit cannot provide this.  A software program can only provide concrete answers and can't help much with process.  Writing software is a joke.]  Today it can be provided by computer.  Tech is available today, bit not in classroom.  Lack of vision for using these modern tools.<br /><br />This bill allows students to get online instruction.  Online provider is paid 60% at beginning of course, and 40% when student tests proficient.  [Multiple choice tests??  Given by provider?  Or will CRT be test?]  We're trying to scale this in a reasonable way and not just open floodgates because we don't know how many will apply.  So 2 credits available ion first year and more each year until reach 6 credits.  Portion paid up front and remainder as competency proven.  <br /><br />Niederhauser asks for more explanation of provisions of bill.<br /><br />Steph -- Definitions on pg. 4.  Pg. 5 purposes of the program.  Pg. 6 Option to enroll and phased scaling of program so ultimately option for student to get all credit through online means.  this doesn't take away from fact there are established online schools.  They will have to compete with other providers.  Those I’ve talked with welcome the competition be/c can provide for other students that only want 1 or 2 course rather than whole year.  Requirement for online providers to be authorized by law, State Office of Ed.  Must be certified by State Board.  Standards for online course providers.  Then payment process.  60% up front, rest as competencies are proven.  pg. 9 Plan for payment also identified.  Requirement for course credit to be recognized.  Then administrative things.  Then we want to require a report on online course providers so we have transparency who is performing.  Make available to public to decide who they want.  Rule making by State board of Ed.  Legislature will review results as ongoing.<br /><br />Niederhauser acting as chair-- About 15 public people to talk about bill.<br /><br />Superintendent Shumway -- I'm a strong believer that direction of this bill is the right direction.  I appreciate intentions of sponsor.  Is their a fiscal note?  Or do you have any idea what it might be?<br /><br />Steph: Not yet.  I don't think it will be significant b/c not new funding.  Takes current funding of students in schools.  <br /><br />Shumway: I met w/ Sen. Stephenson prior to meeting and discussed bill a lot.  Primary area I hope Stephenson will be open to change is phasing language.  To provide time to deal with problems I didn't anticipate.  There are many options for phasing.  I really hope you will be open to that discussion before going to floor.  <br /><br />Steph: I'm open.  Currently, it was meant to not open floodgates.  Dr. Shumway suggested to me with another way of phasing it.  Maybe start w/ few districts and few providers.  <br /><br />Shumway:  As my staff and I, I see significant rule-making and monitoring and support necessary.  I want to do it in way that doesn't constrain intention of the bill to provide more online opportunity but provide for quality.<br /><br />J Stevenson - I don't like idea of limiting, but I see necessity of making it not a burden on dept. of ed.  <br /><br />Shumway: I spoke with staff.  Long line of things to be resolved:  FERPA, transfers, special ed.  Not to throw down roadblocks, but to work together on implementation.  <br /><br />Steph:  This bill puts burdens on board to plow new ground with rules.  2 ways to get publicly funded school now: Online high school at state office and charter schools.  I'm hoping we can expand as drastically as possible these opportunities.  I believe making them make rules respects their constitutional prerogative to make rules over education.<br /><br />Ashley Hanson: Student at open high school - I really love this school.  Teachers, activities, getting to know people.  Teachers email me back in 10 min.  I can see my grades easily.  Nied: All courses online?  Ashley: Yes:  Nied: When?  Ash:  Most of day until about 3:00.<br /><br />Mother and teacher:  My son went to 9th grade charter school in N. Utah, New Aims school. Sounded great.  Big problem in first week with bussing.  The charter school had to bus students from certain distance b/c was public school.  [This seems fishy to me.  Charter schools don’t have to bus students now.  Have they ever?]  Was a hard issue.  If this is a charter school, taking public funds, is school responsible to provide internet access, computers, laptops, etc.?  What if student wants online class and can't use school computer lab?  Will online high schools be responsible for internet access and computers with certain specifications?  <br /><br />J Stevenson: New Aims is by Davis District and very successful.<br /><br />Mom: They fell under state laws that they didn't understand. <br /><br />Leslie Phillips, mother and electronic high school 4-yr teacher, 20-yr teacher overall:  Teachers at elec high school have been discussing strengths and weaknesses of bill.  I brought handout and summary of our concerns.   I think one of the keys to online ed working is relationship w/ schools.  We have great relationship w/ schools b/c we don't charge them. they provide computers, admin and counseling support.  We share curric.  Aims and Granite using our curric.  If you take us out of service role and put us in competition w/ districts and schools, will hurt support and mean fewer opps to students.  Example.  I teach English 12, half are juniors who want to grad early encouraged by counselors.  Law says can't discourage, but provides incentives to not encourage.  Rigor of curric will also suffer.  I teach eng and class is tough.  My 1st duty is to students.  But bring in for profit orgs and their duty is to share holders.  16-yr-olds will choose between easy and quality.  For profit will play to those consumers and water down curriculum.<br /><br />J Stevenson - Sen Stephenson has expressed worries about completion rates.  Reason for 60 up front, but 40 after.  What is elec high school completion rate?<br /><br />Leslie - I don't know.  Principal is here, she can tell you.   <br /><br />Kathleen Webb, prin of elec high school:  Depends what you mean.  In some online environments, they don't count students until in for a month.,  count all grades, including F as completion.  We have in past measured since day in class, and whether they receive a credit.  From 20% to 50%.  If count as other online high schools, our grad rate would be higher.<br /><br />J Stev:  H Steph, what is your definition of credit?<br /><br />H Steph:  Get a credit.<br /><br />J Stev: Based on that, what is rate %?  <br /><br />Webb: I don't know grad rate. We don't track that.  About 7,000 students received funding last year.<br /><br />Stev: That's uncomfortable.<br /><br />Nied:  Do you want to speak?  No.  How are you funded then?<br /><br />Webb:  We're a line item in budget.   We received 3,000 FTE's.  All courses of all students adds up to about 600 full-time students.  <br /><br />Jackie Warren w/ 14-yr-old daughter:  My 14-yr-old daughter is in 9th grade.  6th grade honors after home school.  Skipped 7th grade and went to 8th.  She is in 9th.  Her counselor suggested she go to online ed b/c she is too advanced.  She is very frustrated w/ education system.  She has ideas how to better school system in USA.  <br /><br />Nied: She should be legislator.  (Laughs)<br /><br />Warren: She's on her way.  She wants to be a JAG officer in Marine Corp and go into politics form there.  She has issues in school b/c 12th grade reading and comprehension level.  9th and 11th grade students don't know the word sarcastic.  These students don't belong in school system.  They don't know meaning of redundant or sarcastic.  When counselor comes to me, that your student is too advanced, so go to online system, after I came to USA from Australia, which was bad--So we need online b/c US system is screwed up and we should go for it.  But current bill doesn't allow that.<br /><br />Female - ______ Meyer student:  We are not currently retaining enough knowledge.  Onoine school will help retain better, help slower do well and advanced accelerate, we should do it.<br /><br />Laura Belnap, Principal of Online school Washington District: online ed for 9 years, my kids have used elec high school and other things, purchased software.  Online ed is a complement to traditional.  Traditional school is all or nothing, no options.  Need flexibility, esp in cash-strapped system.  Wonderful Bountiful photography teacher cut b/c of funding.  Could do online.  Provides options, ed w/o boundaries, but stable parameters.  Online ed is no longer cutting edge, is now mainstream and probably the future.  Thanks Sen Stephenson.<br /><br />Elaina Tonks, direc of Open High School, one of 2 online charter schools:  Misperception--charter schools are public schools.  I take many calls from parents wishing one or two classes, especially health and biology classes.  Schedules make this hard.  Many advanced students don't fit into factory ssetem.  Many others want a slower pace.  We can leverage tech promise and meet the needs of every single student.  At our school, we focus on student as individual.  We have choices in every phase of our life.  Can choose Harmans over Smiths, cars, gas, etc.  Students and parents deserve to have a say in how their child is educated.  Students deserve access to best courses and teachers.  We put our stakeholder's report in handout w/ grad rates, scores, etc.<br /><br />Kelly Broadbent, parent of Open High School student, former teacher, board member of school:  My son Nathan had stumbling blocks in last school.  Needed diff approach.  This school provided a teacher who can individualize instruction.  Teachers are inventive and passionate.  Exciting.  No busty work, every assignment has purpose.  [She is reading a sales pitch...She likes it, but brother.]  Get skills not offered at school, slower or faster paced courses.  This bill would allow more flexibility and best time of day and day of week.  More opps to learn and grow.<br /><br />Former superintendent, Patty Harrington:  I represent self, not school boards assoc. today. - I also love tech.  We don't have enough in public system.  We need to improve.  I love parts of this bill.  An interim study of WPU funding.  What about students who go to school and do online after and use more than 1 WPU?  Like planned site to connect providers, including private providers.  I have concerns.  I want report, lines 270-284, about accountability of providers.  Do we need districts to contract w/ private companies?  Tracking requirements are laudable, but almost impossible.  We need to look at it.  Much is already happening.  Elec high school, 2 charter schools  Davis and Washington District we heard from.  Private providers.  Colleges provide.  I have discussed with Steph frustration with credits from online schools not being accepted.  This is a voucher bill giving public money to support private companies.<br /><br />Some lady they know (UEA)? [Ends up being Sharon Gallagher-Fishbaugh]:  Sen. Steph, appreciate passion for online ed and multiple intelligence.  I heard in approp. committee this morning.  Deaf and blind begging for money, K-3 reading begging, transportation begging.  I'm concerned about money without funding basic program.  Lines 260-267 = vouchers.  Pay to private schools.  Completion rates--what about students not completing?  Would 60% already gone be returned to LEA's?  WPU would be sent, my tax dollars out of state to online providers?  No limits on class size.  No way to monitor quality of services.  In light of budget cuts, not expand a program when trying to keep basic, minimum services at this point.<br /><br />Carry Valentine, parent:  I heard this afternoon and raced down here.  I have 3 students.  2 in school, Jr High and Elem.  Fit public school mold.  My other son is in Utah Virtual Academy and fits that mold very well.  Would a student be enrolled concurrently in public and private school?  We had to withdraw our son.  That sounds like logistical nightmare to administer student in both.  How would my tax dollars provide both?  Would my tax dollars already increase?  How divvy up?  How is this different than what is already provided?  Can purchase more or less privately.  Parents provide $ currently, not public.  In light of current budget situation, seems redundant to provide things already provided when cutting.  Let's look at direction of public ed like universities.  Provide online option along with classroom model.<br /><br />Victor Shanti: Board qualified psychologist from U of U, parent of student both online charters, traditional schools, and private schools.  My son was not being challenged, given false sense of compassion for African American student, low expectations.  Machine didn't have that bias.  2 types.  Machine ?'s and instantaneous feedback and person teaching via computer.  He raised reading level in 6 months.  Better expectations.  Standards of proprietary schools not necessarily lower than public schools.  Our school had high standards, tracking, success rate.  I know there is a conflict between retention of employees which cost a lot.  Leverage one employee through machines can save a lot of cost.  We put him in charter school after machine learning, now he is not in lower quintile, but in middle range at traditional charter school.  I favor bill and expansion of online ed.  <br /><br />Mother of 3 children in Utah Public system:  I have read bill many times in last week.   I am favor of online ed and all possible choices.  There are legitimate concerns.  This looks like system behind times and unnecessary.  We already have quality online ed, not perfect, but offered and available.  Current system works in conjunction with pub schools w/o competing for WPU's or other money.  The limits would limit students making up credit initially.  Current system allows.  [Interrupted here] Something about limiting private and homeschool students.<br /> <br />This would open door to WPU going to private services by choice of student.  I support choice, but not pub money going to private schools.  Accounting would be confusing to districts, cause conflict.  Stephenson says bill would allow choice.  I think bill would hamper choice and complicate things.  He also said $ to private entities.  This is simply a voucher proposal.  <br /><br />Nied:  Last 3 people allowed to speak.<br /><br />Stan Rassmussen, Sutherland Inst.  We support SB 65 to help families.  Need customized and personalized ed.  This describes online ed.  Avoids other requirements of time or place.  Allows parents primary control over education of children.  Doesn't require parents to meet schools' terms.  Not driven by adults.  Student can take some online and some on site.  Develop social skills while avoid social problems.  Study found students in online schools as well socialized, and not significant differences in bad social behaviors.  Focuses on student learning.  Study shows discussion between teachers and parents is focused more on learning than trad schools.  <br /><br />Judi Clark, PCE director:  We heard v-word thrown around with animosity.  This is not voucher program.  Several districts are using private providers already.  That is a concern for establishment.  Puts emphasis on individual needs and helps digital natives.  We love that funding is extremely efficient.  These precious dollars will go to provider of student choice.  Rather than protect systems that are entrenched.  <br /><br />Person in red Shirt: David Salazar, student at OHSU, charter school:  Me being able to work online.  I only passed public school b/c teacher was sick of me b/c I was causing probs and  ditching school.  Now I can't do that.  They notify parents right away when I don't finish work.  Now I know computer tech, Skype.  These teachers actually helped me.  My other teachers wouldn't help me when I didn't put in the work.  Better than public school.  My teachers contact me every day and I get help right away.  <br /><br />Back to committee:<br />Sen. Thatcher - I think everyone understands that online is great for those who choose and can learn that way.  My concern is how track completion online?  I know some children do not have self-motivation to complete online.  How know students actually getting ed we're paying for?  <br /><br />Sen. Stephenson - The tracking of completion rates under my bill would change current paradigm.  Elec high school was uncertain how to define completion rates.  Get paid for completion.  Tracking will be pretty clear.  I have confidence State Board will make good rules.  Miss Gee [That’s what I heard…] from UEA wanted 60% back if student doesn't complete.  I support that, but also for high schools.  If students doesn't complete, then high school gives back money too.  [choice people clap]  That's answer to question.<br /><br />Thatcher - If completion rate is so low?  How educate?<br /><br />Stephenson - Best to now pay 60% to allow staffing other things, etc.  Future we can make it all dependent and refund all on completion.<br /><br />Thatcher: People willing to educate on conditional basis?<br /><br />Stephenson:  Now online schools only get $2500 for WPU, when average student, including capital outlay, uses $8500.  [DISHONEST use of numbers.  Same as voucher debate.  No school being built in Saratoga Springs has its locally bonded construction funds divvied up among the students of Utah.  I don’t get the funding now.  The online voucher kids will get more than the WPU??!]  Providers want to compete.  Only online school concerned is elec high school [Of two that testified]. They get a line item in budget.  I supported online high school.  Now it's time for them to get funded on merit.  Students will start to review ratings of providers.  They will check ratings about support, other things.  Provides transparency for online education.<br /><br />Thatcher - I'd love to see adjustment made in implementation timeline.  Allow children to excel, move quickly, but balance burden on schools.  I want you to continue to work with Superintendent Shumway.<br /><br />J Stevenson - I like discussion today.  This is direction of future.  Knowing Steph will work with Sup. Shumway, I move this be passed to Senate floor.<br /><br />Steph: Thanks for input.  I will work with Sup. Shumway.  I think some exceptions will be provided for students who thrive in this environment. Let them take more than 2 credits.  <br /><br />[I don’t think all classes can be transmitted and experienced online.  English?  History?  Debate?  Not same experience.  The goal of college readiness will not be improved by online education, although it definitely has an important role.  Relying on it to spend less $ on public education and make a philosophical voucher beachhead of transferring funds to private schools is the true goal here.]";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/8527996387586866718/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=8527996387586866718";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8527996387586866718";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8527996387586866718";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/virtual-vouchers-bill-sb-65-by-howard.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:69:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-502227238981703683";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-02-03T06:58:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-02-03T07:08:33.465-07:00";s:5:"title";s:97:"Quick version without background: Utah is copying New York's school grading system, not Florida's";s:12:"atom_content";s:7148:"The Senate Education Committee is voting on <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0059.htm">SB 59</a> School Grading System today at 2:15.  <br /><br />I have more to add about the methodology and effectiveness of the bill and the newest information about Florida's school grade improvement but here is the book excerpt I will include again in a post today or tomorrow.  <br /><br />Diane Ravitch is an educational historian who advised both George Herbert Bush and George W. bush on education and was a strong supporter of “market based” reforms and No Child Left Behind.  She explains in her book why she has changed her position on many of these reforms after reviewing results.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Death-Great-American-School-System/dp/0465014917/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296741753&sr=8-1">The Death and Life of the Great American School System</a>.  The underlined section was underlined by me.<br /><br />pg. 164<br />Another (albeit mixed) example of positive accountability can be found in Florida, where the state gives a single letter grade, ranging from A to F, to all public schools.  This is a practice I abhor, as I think it is harmful to stigmatize a complex institution with a letter grade, just as ridiculous to send a child home with a report card that contained only a single letter grade to summarize her performance in all her various courses and programs.  That said, after the grades are handed out, the state quickly steps in to help the D and F schools with technical support, consultants, coaches, and materials.  As a result of the state's supportive response, most of the low-rated schools have improved.  For nearly seven years, the state sanctioned F-rated schools by giving vouchers to their students, who could use them to attend a private or better-performing public school.  In 2006, a Florida court declared the voucher program unconstitutional.<br /><br />pg. 85-87<br />The accountability movement entered a new phase in the fall of 2007, when the DOE revealed what it called progress reports for each school.  Each school received a single letter grade, from A to F.  This approach mirrored the grading system introduced in Florida by then-governor Jeb Bush a few years earlier.  Most of each school's grade was based on year-to-year changes in standardized test scores (its "progress"), as compared to a group of schools that were demographically similar; if a school's scores went up, it was likely to win an A or B.  If they remained flat or slipped, the school was almost certain to get a C, D, or F.  <br /><br />Some excellent schools, known for their sense of community and consistently high scores, received an F because their scores dipped by a few points.  Some very low-performing schools, even some schools the State Education Department ranked as persistently dangerous, received an A because they showed some improvement.  <br /><br />To add to the confusion, the city's grades were inconsistent with the ratings issued by the State Education Department in accordance with No Child Left Behind.  If schools failed to meet their adequate yearly progress goals under the federal NCLB law, they were called SINI schools, or "schools in need of improvement."  If schools consistently performed poorly, the state called them SURR schools or "schools under registration review."  In the first year hat school grades were issued, the city awarded an A or B to about half of the 350 schools the state said were SINI or SURR.  More than half of the fifty schools that received an F from the city were in good standing with the state and the federal law.   The next year, 89 percent of the F schools were in good standing according to NCLB standards, as were 48 percent of D schools.  <br /><br />In 2009, the city's accountability system produced bizarre results.  An amazing 84 percent of 1,058 elementary and middle schools received an A (compared with 23 percent in 2007), and an additional 13 percent got a B.  Only twenty-seven schools received a grade of C, D, or F.  Even four schools the state said were "persistently dangerous" received an A.  The Department of Education hailed these results as evidence of academic progress, but the usually supportive local press was incredulous.  The New York Post called the results "ridiculous" and said, "As it stands now, the grades convey nearly no useful information whatsoever."  The New York Daily News described the reports as a "stupid card trick" and a "big flub" that rendered the annual school reports "nearly meaningless to thousands of parents who look to the summaries for guidance as to which schools serve kids best."<br /><br />The debacle of the grading system had two sources: First, it relied on year-to-year changes in scores, which are subject to random error and are thus unreliable.  Second, the scores were hugely inflated by the state's secret decision to lower the points needed to advance on state tests.  Consequently, the city's flawed grading system produced results that few found credible, while the Department of Education was obliged to pay teachers nearly $30 million in bonuses--based on dumbed-down state tests--as part of its "merit pay" plan.  <br /><br />How could parents make sense of the conflicting reports from the city, state, and federal accountability systems?  Should they send their children to a school that got an A from the city, even though the state said the same school was low-performing and persistently dangerous?  Should they pull their child out of a highly regarded neighborhood school where 90 percent of the kids passed the state exams but the city gave it an F?  <u>The city had no plan to improve low-performing schools, other than to warn them that they were in danger of being closed down.  Shame and humiliation were considered adequate remedies to spur improvement.  Pedro Noguera of New York University observed that the Department of Education failed to provide the large schools with the support and guidance they needed to improve.  "They don't have a school-change strategy," Noguera said.  "They have a school-shutdown strategy."</u>  Chancellor Klein acknowledged that opening and closing schools was an essential element in the market-based system of school choice that he preferred.  He said "It's basically a supply-and-demand pattern...This is about improving the system, not necessarily about improving every single school."  <u>But there was no reason to believe that closing a school and opening a new one would necessarily produce superior results; in fact, half of the city's ten worst-performing schools on the state math tests in 2009 were new schools that had been opened to replace failing schools.</u>  <b>[My note: SB 59 has no provisions to assist "F" schools in any way.  Howard Stephenson has a bill in the chute to close a certain numbers of schools each year.  He apparently means to replace them with charter schools that can limit the number of students and online classes.  The extra students who aren't accepted to the charter schools or who need more help than an online class can provide...drive further.]</b>";s:12:"link_replies";s:154:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/502227238981703683/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=502227238981703683";s:9:"link_edit";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/502227238981703683";s:9:"link_self";s:81:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/502227238981703683";s:4:"link";s:78:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/quick-version-without-background-utah.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"4";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-1425022688520319222";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-02-03T06:38:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-02-03T06:56:12.522-07:00";s:5:"title";s:53:"HB 83 and SB 140 update: It's hard not to be paranoid";s:12:"atom_content";s:2221:"Update on my <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/legalese-serious-question-what-do-hb-83.html">previous post</a> about HB 83 and SB 140.  One is apparently harmless and the other appears necessary even if it is annoying.<br /><br />I was actually able to listen to most of the committee discussion on <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0083.htm">HB 83</a> Charter School Revolving Account, though it was short and I was interrupted a little bit.  From the various organizations unanimously in support, it seems like a positive technical change.  However, I was frustrated that no one actually explained what the difference was in the account designation beyond general statements like "It will now be in the proper place to do what the account was intended to do."   Maybe it's detailed and boring, but I would appreciate even a one minute summary to give the public some idea of why these changes are being made.<br /><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0140.htm">SB 140</a> State Charter School Board Amendments appears to be a necessary change.  I haven't been able to go back and listen to the committee discussion, but I read these two short summaries: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51175292-76/charter-board-schools-bill.html.csp">Trib</a> and <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705365749/Bill-to-alter-state-charter-board-advances.html">D-News</a>.  For once, the Deseret News actually gave a lot more detail about the bill.  For the State Charter School Board to effectively support and advise new charter schools, I agree it seems best to ensure there is more specific experience rather than just general experience on the board.  Unfortunately, there is a relatively small pool of politically connected and lobbyist connected candidates who hold that experience, but I guess it's a necessary evil in this case. <br /><br />It also appears I need to educate myself on the differences between the State Charter School Board and the Utah Association of Public Charter Schools.  They must work closely and have a lot of overlap, but I like that the State Charter Board appears willing to assist schools which the Association has moved away from.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/1425022688520319222/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=1425022688520319222";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1425022688520319222";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1425022688520319222";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/hb-83-and-sb-140-update-its-hard-not-to.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"1";}}i:21;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-1170632974536979746";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-02-02T00:01:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-02-02T01:24:47.758-07:00";s:5:"title";s:97:"Legalese: Serious question--What do HB 83 and SB 140 do?  Put lobbyists into charter school code?";s:12:"atom_content";s:6536:"I think I follow the session, especially education related issues, as close as anyone not on Capitol Hill, but there are just so many laws and so many meetings that it is impossible to keep up.  Plus, "education issues" encompasses a huge range of topics and I don't think anyone can understand the background and impact of every bill in every area.<br /><br />This leads to my questions about two charter school bills from the Red Meat Regulators, Rep. Greg Hughes and Sen. Howard Stephenson.  I just don't know enough about the technical twists of charter school funding and governance to understand the potential impacts of the bills.  They will both be discussed in committee tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2011, and finding time to go back and listen to the audio after missing the live hearings will be tough for me this week.  The written minutes of both the Senate and House Education Committees don't help either, listing the bare bones of who spoke for or against proposals.  (As opposed to the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=APPPED">Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee</a>--composed of both senators and House representatives who hash out the budget--which posts long, detailed minutes of debate.)<br /><br />So, anyone interested, please listen and post here about the bills.  I would love detailed summaries of debate, but I'll take even a quick snapshot.  What is the rationale behind the bills?  What are the claimed benefits?  Who spoke in support and opposition of the bills?<br /><br />1.  <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0140.htm">SB 140</a> State Charter School Board Amendments -- Howard Stephenson<br /><u><a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=SSTEDU">Senate Education Committee</a> meeting, <b>9:00 AM, Feb 2, 2011</b></u><br /><FONT SIZE="3">(The committees often start 5-20 minutes late.  If you refresh the Meeting Schedule page I linked to, a Live Audio icon will appear next to the date when the meeting begins.  You will need Real Player.)</FONT><br /><br />There is already a seven member State Charter School Board that the governor appoints after receiving nominations from charter schools and the State Board of Education.  I would not be able to explain very well what they do.  This bill summary states that the bill: <br /><blockquote>"provides that of the seven members appointed by the governor to the State Charter School Board, three members shall: be nominated by an organization that represents Utah's charter schools; and have expertise or experience in developing or administering a charter school;  <br /><br />allows the governor to seek nominations from more than one organization that represents Utah's charter schools; <br /><br />allows the governor to remove a member of the State Charter School Board at any time for official misconduct, habitual or willful neglect of duty, or for other good and sufficient cause;</blockquote><br />What is the purpose of the bill?  Looking at the bill text, I'm guessing it was fuzzy exactly who decided the nominations in behalf of "charter schools."  The bill mandates now that the nominations will made by "organizations" that represent and manage charter schools.  That seems like power is being given to the few charter school lobbyists and management companies who are almost 100% connected with conservative legislators and the Parents for Choice in Education voucher crowd.  This <a href="http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-11543-for-profit-charter-school-conflicts-in-utah.html">City Weekly article</a> treats the Utah Association of Charter Schools <a href="http://www.utahcharters.org/board.php">Board</a> as the "State Charter Board." Is that accurate?  If not, the association is another of the advocacy groups given power to pick the members of the state board.  The article delved into the massive conflicts of interest on the association board, with legislators (Craig Frank) and board members profiting from contracts.  4 of the 7 members are are either directors or trustees of PCE, and most also run for-profit charter school contract management companies.  The new board <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700054907/Some-Utah-charter-schools-hire-for-profit-management.html">forced out</a> the executive director of the association right after the previous article was written because he was providing too much "training and support" of charter schools, which of course conflicted with the business interests of the management company owners.<br /><br />I have also written a couple of times about how Howard Stephenson purposely changed charter school law last year to <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/03/sb-188-howard-stephenson-sneaks.html">allow conflicts of interest</a>, and how at least one lobbyist/charter school board chair with ties to Howard Stephenson is now <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50656274-76/board-charter-state-schools.html.csp">paying his sister's company</a> $986 per student.  <br /><br />So I'm very suspicious that this purpose of the bill is literally to give board selection authority to lobbyists and relatives like Lincoln Fillmore, Jed Stevenson, and Carolyn Sharette.  (Those are basically the only active charter management organizations in the state.) I would love to hear if I am wrong or right on this one.<br /><br />2.  <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0083.htm">HB 83</a> Charter School Revolving Account -- Greg Hughes<br /><u><a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=HSTEDU">House Education Committee</a> meeting, <b>2:00 PM, Feb. 2, 2011.</b></u><br /><br />I just have no idea on this one.  The summary reads:<br /><blockquote>eliminates the Charter School Building Revolving Subaccount within the School Building Revolving Account and creates the Charter School Revolving Account within the Uniform School Fund;  <br /><br />specifies the permitted uses of funds in the Charter School Revolving Account and procedures for making loans from the account; <br /><br />and makes technical amendments.<br /></blockquote><br />Who knows the difference made by designating the Charter School Revolving Account as its own account instead of a subaccount of the School Building Revolving Account?  Not me.  <br /><br />The bill's fiscal note reveals no costs.  So what is the point?  Is it just technical?  Or does it change what the account can be used for?  Other effects?<br /><br />Please comment if you can.  Thank you.<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/1170632974536979746/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=1170632974536979746";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1170632974536979746";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/1170632974536979746";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/02/legalese-serious-question-what-do-hb-83.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-8586034680621937788";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-01-29T23:57:00.005-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-01-30T01:46:29.797-07:00";s:5:"title";s:146:"SJR 1, SJR 9, HJR 15...Three different ways to give GOP leadership more control over education, but is the end game really partisan school boards?";s:12:"atom_content";s:9238:"Using the permanent, significant process of amending the state constitution to achieve temporary, political ends would normally be something conservative Republicans would oppose, but if involves giving them more control, especially over public education which they have <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2011/01/public-schools-what-is-your-experience.html">made</a> <a href="http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14167240">abundantly</a> <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/legislative-rhetoric-is-running-high-in.html">clear</a> this session that they hate, their standards become more flexible.  <br /><br />Utah Republicans have proposed three different conflicting constitutional amendments this year.  If they pass both the Utah Senate and the Utah House by a 2/3 majority vote, they will go on the ballot in 2012 for the public to vote on the changes.  I don't believe Governor Herbert can veto proposals for constitutional amendments, but I am not 100% sure about that.<br /><br /><blockquote><b><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SJR001.htm">SJR 1</a> Joint Resolution on State Board of Education Authority, Senator Chris Buttars</b><br /><u>This proposed constitutional amendment would give the state legislature control over curriculum in answer to supposed socialist teachings and law breaking by schools.</u>  Click on the link and then listen to the audio recording of the Jan. 26 committee hearing to hear the claims. This has already passed a vote in the Senate Education Committee.<br /><br /><b><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SJR009.htm">SJR 9</a>  Joint Resolution - Governance of Public and Higher Education, Senator Stuart Reid</b><br /><u>This proposed constitutional amendment would give the governor "CEO" power over both K-12 and Higher Ed. for the entire state, including the ability to dissolve the State Board of Education or eliminate the position of state superintendent.</u>  Governor Herbert knew nothing about this proposed amendment until after the session started.  The sponsor, Stuart Reid, does not know what effect this change would have on the large system of educational governance in both systems.  He and Senator Stephenson speculated in committee that they could pass the amendment and then figure out a bunch of laws they will need to change afterward.  Once again, this proposal has already passed a Senate Education Committee vote and the audio of the justification can be found at the above web page for the bill.</blockquote><br /><br />Governor Herbert <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51139526-76/education-herbert-board-control.html.csp">opposes</a> both of these proposals, saying the current system of governance by the State School Board "is actually working pretty well" and that the legislature would just become "a super school board of 104 personalities."  (Two more stories on the proposed amendments and committee debate: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51130453-78/state-education-board-control.html.csp">The Trib</a> and <a href="http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story/A-possible-shift-of-control-in-public-education/UUXQOlGdmkytyD5Vt9aINg.cspx">Channel 4</a>.)<br /><br /><blockquote><b><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hjr015.htm">HJR 15</a> Joint Resolution Amending State Board of Education Provisions, Representative Chris Herrod</b><br /><u>This proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate public elections of the State School Board.  School board members and the state superintendent would instead be appointed by the governor "with the advice and consent of the Senate."</u> This amendment was sent to the House Rules Committee Friday afternoon and has not yet been discussed.  It will likely be sent to the House Education Committee next week.  Keep an eye on the "Bill status/Votes" link on the bill's web page or subscribe to receive updates at the bottom of the page.  You can listen to the committee debate live or after the fact.</blockquote><br /><br />If the legislature had an excellent plan, an optimal alternative to the current structure and authority of the State School Board that they thought was important enough to change the constitution rather than just tweak a law, there would have been one proposed amendment with a compelling reason for its existence.  Instead, three conflicting amendments have been thrown against the wall to see what sticks. <br /><br />What is the common thread between the proposed amendments?  These three amendments propose three different ways to put politicians directly in charge of education.  I think the desire to gain control over the check and balance of an independently elected State School Board is plain.  The board strenuously opposed private school vouchers in 2007 and has often opposed other pet GOP leadership proposals since.  Sen. Hillyard asked the cogent question to Sen. Reid whether he would be proposing the amendment if the governor were a Democrat.  Reid replied "Absolutely," but do you believe that?  <br /><br />I have commented before that the public trusts educators much, much more than politicians.  This may not be true of the Eagle Forum echo chamber that sees public education as a socialist plot to "<a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/willful-ignorance-and-fear-part-2.html">bring down America</a>," but they don't represent close to the majority of public opinion, even in Utah.  <br /><br />So I'm not completely surprised legislators would attempt any of these power shifts, but I don't see any of them as likely to pass a public vote.  Why the glut of huge changes now?  I don't know how coordinated these amendment proposals may have been, but there is at least a plan to take advantage of the fear they are generating.  On Red Meat Radio today, State Superintendent Shumway was interviewed again and asked about the proposals, including the possibility of the State Board or Superintendent being eliminated.  At the end of the discussion, Senator Stephenson pushed Shumway to state whether he would prefer the State School Board being eliminated or elected in a partisan election with Republican and Democrat candidates voted on in political conventions.  Shumway was badgered into saying he thought both were bad ideas, but he would prefer a partisan election to complete elimination of the State School Board.  <br /><br /><i>Was this the dry run for the line of reasoning that will be used in committee?  Partisan school board elections will be the "good cop" after the "bad cop" threats of complete overhauls of the education system via constitutional amendment?</i>  <br /><br />Running state and/or local school board elections through party conventions will basically accomplish the same goals of the three amendments.  Vouchers failed statewide, even among Republicans, but state and county Republican delegates as a group share many more of the antagonistic views toward public education held by Sens. Stephenson, Buttars, Dayton, etc.  The highly conservative candidates vetted in the Republican conventions would automatically win 90%+ of their general races simply by virtue of the R before their name.  Within two election cycles, the State Board of Education would be taken over by candidates who do not represent the common views of Utah citizens.  The legislature could run extreme ideas such as vouchers, converting traditional public schools to charter schools, and drastic budget cuts, and be able to tell people "the State School Board supports our proposal."<br /><br />I've already shared <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-different-viewpoints-on-republican.html">my opinion</a> about partisan school board elections and some excellent links to arguments for and against.  (Further clear discussion at <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2011/01/should-school-board-elections-be.html">Utah Moms Care</a>.) If the threat of a partisan school board election bill amendment doesn't happen as detailed in the post, Senator Stephenson has a <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SenResults.asp?Listbox2=STEPHHA">bill of his own</a> in waiting titled "Partisan School Board Elections."<br /><br />Utahns overwhelmingly oppose partisan state and local school board elections by <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13870020">66% and 72% counts</a>.  The legislative leadership has demonstrated they don't care about that, vouchers being only the most obvious example of knowingly pushing their ideology over the will of their constituents, and they know they won't suffer any repercussions at the ballot box after emerging largely unscathed from their voucher defeat.<br /><br />I am worried.  Really worried.  The legislature has spent the first week of the session on an all out offensive against public education and they have more in mind than just insults.  Follow these important education bills and contact your legislators.  Encourage other constituents to contact them with a voice of reason about public ed. as well.  Public education is vulnerable and strained to the breaking point already.  Don't let it be turned into a political football based on rigid ideology rather than concern for kids.<br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/8586034680621937788/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=8586034680621937788";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8586034680621937788";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/8586034680621937788";s:4:"link";s:79:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/sjr-1-sjr-9-hjr-15three-different-ways.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:23;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-2661362760495532514";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-01-27T00:24:00.006-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-01-27T01:27:33.324-07:00";s:5:"title";s:140:"Legislative rhetoric is running high in 2011 and excessive classloads are putting the accreditation status of many Utah high schools at risk";s:12:"atom_content";s:5120:"I have followed the legislative session fairly closely ever since 2007 and vouchers.  The rhetoric behind vouchers and the following debate over the referendum when the legislature campaigned against the evil UEA and teachers who care more about adults than kids opened my eyes to the depth of ideological hatred against public education in a segment of Utah politics.  The 2011 session has started out as openly hostile toward public education and maybe even more.  <br /><br />I listened to a good part of two education committee meetings today (1-26-11) and heard elected officials and invited guests openly and indirectly accuse teachers of hating America, families, and students.  I think most people have no idea how organized and influential this anti-public education group of legislators and Eagle Forum members are among the legislature.  Legislators need to hear from the majority who are not represented by this extreme faction styling themselves as the moral mainstream.  Please listen to any committee meeting from the three main committees dealing with public education.  You can listen to meetings live or listen to the recording afterward.  You have to block out 60-90 minutes to listen to one, but I think it will be worth it in order for you to hear who is really shaping Utah education policy and using what claims.  <br /><br />The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=APPPED">Joint Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee</a> is composed of both Utah House Representatives and Utah Senators.  It is chaired by Senator Chris Buttars.  The next meeting is Jan. 27 at 8:00 am.<br /><br />The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=SSTEDU">Senate Education Committee</a> is chaired by Senator Howard Stephenson.  The next meeting is Jan. 27 at 4:00 pm.  Here is the direct link to the audio file for the <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=SSTEDU">Jan. 26 meeting</a> which made me so frustrated.  Karen at the Utah Moms Care blog has already posted <a href="http://utahmomscare.blogspot.com/2011/01/school-boards-latest-people-to-blame.html">her summary</a> of the meeting.  She also comments on her surprise at the "level of disdain being openly shown toward the administrators of public education in Utah."<br /><br />The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2011&Com=HSTEDU">House Education Committee</a> is chaired by Representative Bill Wright.  The next meeting is not currently scheduled, but you can find the audio for the last two meetings via the link.<br /><br />Finally, I want to call attention to another potential cost to the severe budget cuts in public education.  In December, three Wasatch Front high schools from three different districts were put under "advised" status in their <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50788305-76/schools-accreditation-advised-status.html.csp?page=1">accreditation evaluations</a> because of too many teachers with student loads of over 180 students.  They were Kearns, Bingham, and Timpanogos High Schools.  <br /><br />All schools have to be accredited by the state of Utah and high schools have to be additionally accredited by the <a href="http://www.northwestaccreditation.org/">Northwest Accreditation Commission</a> in order to have their credits accepted by universities.  <br /><br />The state's accreditation standards do not have a student load threshold, so we are free to stuff as many students as possible into jr. high and middle school classes because no one is checking.  Student loads over 200 are the norm for full-time jr. high teachers right now.  I have my first classes of 38 this year in my core class, and next year the numbers are projected to be around 40 students in core classes.  The "non-core" classes are seeing class sizes closer to 50 right now.  <br /><br />However, the high schools facing the Northwest Accreditation standards face a limit to how many teachers can have these enormous student loads.  Kearns, Bingham, and Timpanogos got caught, but schools only go through the accreditation process every 3 or 6 years, depending how they did on the previous evaluation.  There are many other schools that would earn an "advised" status if they were being evaluated this year.  The three schools on advised status need to show they have remedied the problems observed in order to leave advised status and not endanger their accreditation.  There is little chance for those schools to hire more teachers with <a href="http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14137552">7% budget cuts</a> currently slated for public education, besides the fact that the system grew by over 13,000 additional students this year with no new funds to pay for them and is <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50990895-76/students-utah-enrollment-lake.html.csp">expected</a> to grow by almost 15,000 students next year.  Plus, an additional 1/6 of schools will face accreditation next year.<br /><br />There could be serious, longterm consequences for public education if these extreme numbers are not addressed. <br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/2661362760495532514/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=2661362760495532514";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2661362760495532514";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/2661362760495532514";s:4:"link";s:80:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/legislative-rhetoric-is-running-high-in.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"0";}}i:24;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:70:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300.post-3626055273464329236";s:9:"published";s:29:"2011-01-25T23:34:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2011-01-26T01:51:32.066-07:00";s:5:"title";s:85:"Rolly was too nice.  Senator Buttars showed his ignorance, Stephenson covered for him";s:12:"atom_content";s:9902:"Paul Rolly just wrote <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51120335-76/buttars-member-board-utah.html.csp">a column</a> about Senator Chris Buttars' misinformation in an interview with Senator Howard Stephenson and Representative Greg Hughes on their Red Meat Radio Program.  He beat me to it!  I tuned in just in time the second hour and transcribed the interview as best I could and have just been too busy to write up my frustration.  I thought I was the only one still listening to the show.  <br /><br />Rolly caught Buttar's first two easy mistakes.  "Incarcerating" youth when discussing the supposed hidden socialism in Alpine District and being unable to identify Granite District.  He actually called it Wasatch District until Stephenson corrected him.  I suppose these errors, especially the first, can be chalked up to understandable slips of the tongue.  I know my students enjoy catching me when I mix up words.  <br /><br />Rolly also did an excellent job of supplying the correct information about the Granite School Board's supposed UEA infiltration--one member, along with some dubious other connections like one person having taught 33 years ago, along with a real estate developer.  I was actually surprised the Granite Board had even one teacher.  I can't remember any teachers being members of the Alpine School Board as long as I've been paying attention.  And just about every idea Buttars espoused was nonsense, from the <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/willful-ignorance-and-fear-part-2.html">secret socialism</a> to the local school boards being special interests...while being interviewed by the <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-do-we-allow-howard-stephenson-to.html">professional lobbyist</a> who serves in the legislature.<br /><br />However, Rolly didn't mention the most egregious mistake Buttars made, the one that is more than a dumb misphrasing, but reveals his ignorance about basic, easy-to-verify information.  First, he again couldn't correctly name the "common core" when they broached the subject. Stephenson corrected him after some stumbling around.  Then Buttars claimed that the <a href="http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards">"Common Core Standards"</a> recently adopted by Utah don't exist.  Go ahead and click on that link for the list of 9 long and frankly boring pdf files containing the core standards along with appendices.  Or type "common core" into any search engine.  The three I tried displayed the core as the first result.<br /><br />I wrote about this last week, when a commenter on another blog claimed the <a href="http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/willful-ignorance-and-fear-about-public.html">same thing</a>, that the standards are not written yet, but somehow we know they will be written by bad people and forced to teach them verbatim.  This despite the blog writer having prominently posted the link to the standards in her post.  I can only assume the bad information used by both that commenter and Buttars came from the Eagle Forum.  Buttars will ironically base major claims and policy decisions on incorrect information that he trusts because of ideology after ripping on school officials for not giving him correct information.<br /><br />Stephenson even asked Buttars a leading question along the lines of "The new standards increase the rigor of math and English?  That's not socialist is it?"  Buttars sounded confused and replied, "Well, no."  But after a pause, he went into a diatribe that these independently developed standards only appear to be uninvolved with Obama, and that they are not even written yet.  On a timeline from 2010-2015, socialists will actually write the curriculum who "don't believe as we do" leading to a "change of doctrine."  He finished by repeating that it was "disturbing" that the State School Board agreed to a core that has not been written yet and will be written by socialists.<br /><br />At this juncture in my notes, I wrote "Long pause...."  It was obvious that Stephenson knew the standards existed as he gathered himself in the silence and then completely ignored what Buttars had just said, instead changing the subject to the Education Budget Subcommittee Meeting.  Stephenson may be unethical, but he's not stupid.  Buttars is embarrassing.  He presumes to lecture others while ignorantly passing on false information he gets from untrustworthy sources.  He would flunk a high school sophomore writing assignment for presenting such faulty information, let alone an introductory college course.<br /><br />Stephenson's enabling was further in display during the following interview with State Superintendent, Larry Shumway.  Stephenson brought up Buttars' socialism claim about the common core to get Shumway's perspective, but he had to lie about what Buttars really said.  It was actually a pretty funny conversation.  Once again, my transcription is not perfect, but it's close.<br /><blockquote>Stephenson: Senator Buttars claims socialism is pervading the state public education system.  Of course it's a socialist system.  <br /><br />Shumway's immediate interjection: "Public system."  <br /><br />Stephenson: Ahum. Well.  What he meant is that the federal standards being pushed, the common core, is being developed by socialists.  We asked him and he said the current math and literature standards are not socialist, only better.  But he is concerned that future versions, for example social studies, will be.</blockquote><br />Why did he have to make up words and ideas that Buttars never said?  In my notes, I added "Covers for Buttars."  Buttars did not say the core was better, and he never said anything about being concerned with the future social studies curriculum.  He actually asserted that the existing standards had not been written yet.  Even Stephenson was embarrassed to repeat his claims.<br /><br />Superintendent Shumway also answered Stephenson's questions about some supposedly missing data that Buttars talked about with some fancy tap shoeing around a delicate insinuation that Buttars and his staff had not read existing reports containing those answers.  "I was surprised that legislative staff and members of the committee were not aware of the reports..." repeated about three times.<br /><br />It is very, very frustrating as an educator to be accused by someone so unwilling to educate himself.  <br /><br /><br />Three final notes related to other content during the second hour of the Red Meat Radio show last Saturday.<br /><br />1.  Hughes and Stephenson made the point that "civility" is getting too PC and being used as a club to suppress views you don't agree with.  I totally agree.  (Though it comes from both sides.  Conservative commentators and groups jump all over every little word of Democrats too.)  They discussed a letter from the State School Boards Association to the legislature critical of Stephenson's comments about school boards which apparently compared his language somehow to the Rep. Giffords shooting.  That connection is dumb and counter-productive.  Now don't get me wrong, Stephenson's comments, which were repeated twice in the course of the hour, about local school boards <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/article_e9773b96-06ee-11e0-b09e-001cc4c03286.html?mode=story">being stupid</a> and being led around by the nose by the superintendent, are ideologically idiotic.  He means they don't believe in vouchers and think that school teachers should be replaced by computers, therefore they must not be as "bright" as him.<br /><br />However, it is better to hear the criticism and know his position than suppress his ideas in the name of civility.  The lack of trust he engenders by revealing his own thoughts should be the real consequence of such language.  My post here could certainly be considered "uncivil" because of my harsh criticism of Buttars and Stephenson, but I feel my assertions are based on evidence and that it is important that the public really know these legislators as they make decisions and evaluate what they hear from them.  <br /><br />2.  Superintendent Shumway is much better suited for his job than I would be.  I am sometimes frustrated with Shumway for being too accommodating and uncritical of the blatant falsehoods some legislators perpetuate about education, but I can see he is needed.  He, Hughes, and Stephenson had a lovefest of how much they trust each other's motivations, while all I could think was that I emphatically <i>do not</i> trust Stephenson's motivations.  However, criticizing them openly wouldn't accomplish anything, and his diplomacy may hopefully at least moderate some of the extreme bills that will pass regardless of what Shumway or the State Board say.  I was proud of Shumway for making the point that the hostile attitudes and mistrust of "some of the committee," (e.g. Buttars) were unfounded and actually hampered their work.<br /><br />3.  In the last minute, Stephenson proudly listed some of his pending bills to stick it to education.  He mentioned the school grading bill, his teacher tenure bill, and a new bill about school accountability that I hadn't yet heard about.  I'm assuming it's the unnumbered bill named "Public School Accountability" in his <a href="http://le.utah.gov/asp/billsintro/SenResults.asp?Listbox2=STEPHHA">bill list</a>.  Stephenson said the bill would involve "dissolving" the 5 lowest public schools each year.  The state would do an RFP for private management and the parents would vote on it.  There were a couple other details I missed with my kids talking to me.  This is another backdoor voucher scheme, and Stephenson and his association have financial ties with companies that would profit from this bill.  He is determined to arrive at his goal of dismantling the public school system piece by piece, making a tidy profit as he goes.  <br /><br />.";s:12:"link_replies";s:156:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/3626055273464329236/comments/defaulthttp://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8864992991756418300&postID=3626055273464329236";s:9:"link_edit";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/3626055273464329236";s:9:"link_self";s:82:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default/3626055273464329236";s:4:"link";s:75:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2011/01/rolly-was-too-nice-senator-buttars.html";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"2";}}}s:7:"channel";a:14:{s:2:"id";s:45:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8864992991756418300";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2018-12-10T03:26:04.984-07:00";s:5:"title";s:21:"Utah Education Issues";s:8:"subtitle";s:480:"This blog is mostly devoted to discussing educational policy issues and politics in Utah.  This is meant to be a place to gather my research and thoughts into detailed explanations that hopefully add clarity to the discussion of public education.  Many of the issues are multi-faceted and need to be examined thoroughly.  Thus, some posts will be <strike>boring</strike> long.  Come here looking for what I now understand.  I will re-organize and readdress issues as I learn more.";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:47:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default";s:9:"link_self";s:62:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default";s:4:"link";s:28:"http://utahedu.blogspot.com/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:92:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8864992991756418300/posts/default?start-index=26&max-results=25";s:11:"author_name";s:11:"UtahTeacher";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/10161171487351224481";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"162";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:4:"etag";s:70:"W/"43eabbdc70b4b4bc491522b8f969b988ebe70595f4ef185a6b4d2422d8c846b0"
";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:26:04 GMT
";}