Alpine School Board Elections

A few members of the Alpine School Board are up for reelection, including my representative, Donna Barnes. I will not be voting for Mrs. Barnes, and am deeply disappointed in the entire board. I feel they have grown to epitomize the "we know better than you, now sit down" attitude elected officials often adopt.

One experience I have had with them highlights this point. Recently a new elementary school was built in Eagle Mountain a little over a mile from my home. Prior to its construction my children attended a school which is literally across the street from our neighborhood. The kids walked to school together every day in big groups. Many parents volunteered in large part because it was so close. So when the new lines were drawn up and my neighborhood was being sent to the school over a mile away many of us protested. Parents attended meetings for months, came up with a viable alternative and presented our plan to the Board and its committee.

Eventually it came down to a final presentation at a Board meeting. Our group came in large numbers and had an impressive presentation complete with statistics and even traffic studies. It was one of the most impressive displays of grassroots involvement I've ever seen. Perhaps most impressive was that the presentation was based on sound argumentation and was devoid of needless anger or emotion. Which is an important point because of what happened next. Our position was far too commonsensical to be adopted, and we were voted down almost unanimously. One member even abstained from voting because it was just too hard of a decision.

That night I went home and penned an email which I sent to every member of the Board. Again, it was not a "Crazy Parent Being Senselessly Angry" email. Quite the contrary. But I did express my frustration at feeling like the decision was made months previous and all the work my neighbors had done to lobby their representatives on the School Board was pointless, that all of the information that had been gathered had been too easily dismissed. I received an email response from the Board president, who I assume was speaking for the Board as a whole, since it was the only response I got. And it was akin to being a kid who's parent tells them "because I said so, now go away." It in no way addressed anything from the presentation or from my email. I wanted some insight as to the decision making process, as nothing that was said at the Board meeting did so. Instead, I was told that if I was less emotional I would agree with the Board, that the decision makers are all professionals who have done this many times and if I weren't so blinded by emotion I would see it their way.

In effect, after a presentation full of data and checkable facts, I requested more detail as to what specifically overrode those arguments. And I was told I was much too emotional for that. Huh? Now I feel like the Board gave us a collective pat on the head and sent us on our way. What's ironic is that in their fear (I assume that's the explanation for their behavior) of dealing with angry parents, they have created angry parents.

This is not how elected officials should behave. Therefore, they should no longer be elected officials.

Eagle Mountain Aquatic Center Bond

Next week Eagle Mountain City will have a $7 million bond on the ballot to build an aquatic center. The center will have a lap pool, a lazy river, concessions, party room and more. It will cost a $200k home an additional $70 a year in property tax. Commercial property of the same value will pay an additional $125.

The center has been a few years in the making, and has actually been pared down from a larger multipurpose recreation facility. Proponents argue that because we have so many children, our city needs a rec center like this one. They say it will attract business to the community as these unnamed business leaders won't take us seriously unless we have additional amenities to offer. What they don't explain is how higher business taxes will be enticing as well.

I am not in favor of this bond for a few reasons. One is the previously mentioned increase of business taxes. Another is the increase is personal taxes. Particularly at a time when housing values are falling yet our property tax bills are not. I will be voting no if for no other reason than that watching my neighbors struggle with job losses, decreasing pay and hours, and some even losing their homes trumps my desire for a cool lazy river to take the kids to in the summertime.

But another reason has lately reinforced my opinion that this bond is a bad idea. Eagle Mounatin is in the Alpine School district. Alpine passed a $300 million bond in 2006 which built and remodeled schools all over the district, including $65 million for a new high school and $32 million for a middle school, both of which Eagle Mountain students now attend. The $300 million has been spent, and the district is planning on putting another bond on the ballot next year. Included in the district's future spending plans are more schools in Eagle Mountain, specifically our own High School and Middle School. So I ask, when our city has $90 million worth of new schools to build (and this doesn't count additional elementary schools), is it wise to be throwing money at an outdoor pool? For me, this was the final nail in the coffin for the aquatic center. How on earth can anyone rationalize spending millions of dollars on a lazy river and lap pools when we have literally a hundred million dollars to spend in the next 18 months? I for one cannot.

SB 150 - Holding Back Your 1st Grader

Senator Karen Morgan introduced SB 150 - Reading Requirements for Student Advancement. It "requires that students in first, second, and third grades read at or above grade level prior to advancing to the next grade, with certain exceptions."

The focus of SB150 is to force students, parents, and teachers to ensure students can read at their class level. The goal is not to hold them back a grade, it's to threaten it so that everyone involved takes reading more seriously. Which may sound great in theory, but I think there are a number of possible unintended consequences to this policy.

The fiscal note says that if students are kept back that would add another child to the system for another year, thereby increasing costs. Sen. Morgan said that 20% of students leaving third grade don't read at grade level. If even half of those are held back, that increases our student population by 10%. In a state where we already have a student overpopulation problem, with its attending cost issues and class size problems, this policy doesn't seem like a good idea.

I would much rather see our efforts going toward lowering class sizes in grades 1-3 because that has shown to have the greatest effect on student achievement. With smaller class sizes, students in those grades would not only increase their reading ability but would show improvement across the board.

Another Call For Reducing Class Sizes

The Deseret News ran another editorial advocating reducing Utah's class sizes. They reiterated the statistics showing Utah as last in per pupil spending, as well as polls showing most Utahans believe class sizes are too large and education spending is too small. Quoting Benjamin Franklin, the News writes,

"The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance."

What the Deseret News seems to have forgotten though is that the state spent over $700 million over a decade for the sole purpose of reducing class sizes, and netted a whole two teachers for the effort.

Two years ago the state conducted an audit of their class size reduction (CSR) program. It was this audit that revealed the two net teacher gain despite hundreds of millions of dollars. I wrote about this audit here, here, and here.

The reason for such a poor return on investment is that the number of children entering school increased by far more than was expected. The problem with the Deseret News's argument about cost is that the child increase is expected to continue - so much so that the state will be fortunate just to keep the unacceptable class sizes we have now, let alone reduce them. In fact, the Utah Taxpayers Association put numbers to the traditional class size goal of 15 students, and found it would cost almost $5 billion to reach it.

Reducing class sizes is a worthy goal, but it's important to understand the reality behind the numbers. Editorial boards like the News would do well to remember the lessons learned from audits like the one conducted just two years ago, and use those lessons to shape their policy proclamations.

School Frustration

My daughter is painfully shy. She does not like to have attention fall on her, and at times will not speak or even look at people she doesn't know or doesn't know well. Even people she does know and likes still may not get much outward attention from her.

Because of this my wife and I have struggled with what to do this fall when kindergarten starts. We are worried that a classroom full of kids and a teacher could exacerbate her problems and set her back. But we also wonder if home schooling would prevent her from coming out of her shell too.

We decided that by talking to and working with her teacher we would make a go at school. However, it would take a teacher with experience and understanding. There are four kindergarten teachers at our school, two of which we believe would be the best for our daughter. We've spoken with one of these teachers about it and she told us to mention our situation when we registered for school and we could work it out.

Monday morning my wife went to the school to register our daughter in kindergarten. She talked to a woman at the registration desk and explained our situation. The woman rolled her eyes and said she'd see what she could do. My wife again stressed the importance of getting the right teacher for our daughter, and that she had spoken to someone before who assured her it wouldn't be a problem. This woman again brushed off my wife. Trying to stress the importance of what she was asking, my wife said that if we can't get the right teacher for our daughter, then our only alternative would be to home school her. The woman then looked at my wife and said something akin to "we don't respond well to threats here."

Ma'am, there is no threat here. We are trying to make the best decision in regards to our daughter's progress and education. School could be either the best or worst thing to happen to her at this point in her short life. My son has been at this school for two years now and I have remained silent as he sat bored by 1st year teachers with little ability to organize a classroom let alone keep him interested. These teachers try hard and mean well, but they have been unable to stimulate his learning.

Meanwhile there are other teachers at this school with more experience. They are beloved by everyone lucky enough to have their children assigned to their class. I can work with my son at home to stimulate his desire to learn. But my daughter absolutely needs a teacher who will be patient with her while at the same time challenge her. These teachers exist. They even work at my school. I want one, and I won't take no for an answer.

SB48: Should Professionals be Teachers?

There is a bill at the Utah Legislature that would make it easier for professionals to be teachers as well. Information on the bill's status can be found here.

It's passed initial votes in the Senate so far, and has a House sponsor, but there have been some concerns expressed, most notably by Senators Ross Romero and Scott McCoy,

"This bill really is an insult to education," said Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake City. "Teachers have a skill set that is unique, developed and is nurtured and trained. I think this bill expands the profession of teaching into a hobby of teaching."

"I have seen the incredible amounts of very important training and learning that goes into learning how to teach," McCoy said, saying the bill was "too cavalier."

I see this bill as a way to add value to schools by attracting talented, motivated professionals willing to teach. They still have to pass competency tests and hold a bachelor degree, but they would no longer have to take, and pay for, 1 or 2 years of classes to be teacher certified.

Is there a precedent for this? Absolutely. Many of my classes at the University of Utah were taught by adjunct professors - professionals from the community who, in addition to their regular jobs, taught courses at the U. These were upper level accounting and finance courses required for a University degree, and all taught by "non-teachers".

This bill simply does for junior and senior high schools what is already going on at our state's universities. At a time when we are faced with teacher shortages, adding this avenue to attract good teachers seems to make a lot of sense.

Edward L. Glaeser: Want better schools? Hire better teachers

"The clearest result from decades of education research is the importance of teacher quality. My colleague Tom Kane finds that students who are lucky enough to get a teacher in the top quarter of the teacher-quality distribution jump 10 percentile points in the student achievement distribution relative to children who end up with less able teachers. Improving teacher quality has about twice the impact on student outcomes as radically reducing class size."

Sir Ken Robinson on Education

"Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip mine the earth for a particular commodity."

Utah Education Issues

I noticed the Utah Education Issues blog last fall during the school voucher referendum. It's written by a teacher and is quite insightful. I've been checking in for a few months now and it's got some really good stuff; I appreciate the "from the trenches" point of view on education issues in the state.

Class Size Reduction Ideas

With the release of the Class Size Reduction (CSR) audit report which I wrote about here and here, the Utah Taxpayers Association (UTA) in its January newsletter wrote a short criticism of CSR efforts in Utah. They highlight that Utah's demographics - lots of kids, with more on the way - coupled with studies showing class sizes need to be at least as small as 15 (Utah is currently at 26), make class size reduction efforts pointless. They estimate that it will cost almost $900 million in additional, ongoing money to hire enough teachers to reach the 15 benchmark, and another $4 billion to buy land and build additional schools. The costs are staggering. Because of this, they posit that the CSR program should be scrapped with the money then being spent on other education programs like higher teacher salaries.

The keystone of this argument is that, according to the UTA, studies show that only by reaching class sizes of 15 is there any noticeable increase in student achievement. So I set out to verify the claim.

The National Education Association's (NEA) website on class size makes it very clear that reaching 15 is the goal. It touts studies and statistics showing the effectiveness of having class sizes at 15, and supports petitioning of legislators to fund this goal. The website of utah's chapter of the NEA, the Utah Education Association, does not specifically address class sizes other than to say it supports funding and lobbying for smaller classrooms.

Google offers some more information. It led me to a US Department of Education publication which contains a compilation and analysis of class size studies. This in turn led me to what seems to be the seminal study of class size reduction efforts: Tennessee's Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio). This study compared student achievement for k-3 graders in class sizes of 13-17 with classrooms of 22-25 and 22-25 with a teaching aide. The smaller classrooms showed significant improvement at all levels (Also of note was that the larger classrooms with a teacher aide did not show much improvement.). It also showed that low income and minority students got a big boost from the smaller class sizes, which tapered out after a couple of years.

Project STAR seems to prove, or at least provide a strong basis for, what seems intuitive - that smaller class sizes are better. But the Taxpayers Association does not directly dispute that. Their criticism is that it would simply cost too much to reduce class sizes, and that the money is more efficiently spent elsewhere.

How the Tennessee study does apply to UTA's argument, though, is that by focusing CSR monies to the first few grades, a lasting effect can be achieved, even after the student returns to the larger classes. This effect diminishes each year, but lasts until at least the 8th grade. Also important is that traditionally poor performing students get a big boost from the early class size reduction. And while 15 seemed to be the goal, anything under 20 netted significant results, especially for students coming from class sizes of 25+, as Utah's are.

Based on this knowledge, my recommendation for Utah's CSR funding program would be to continue it, but to streamline it so that it reaps the most bang for the buck. All initial funding should go towards K-3rd grade classroom reduction, specifically in at-risk and low scoring districts. This way, the students who stand to gain the most are ensured of receiving the CSR money. Districts should apply for the money, with a clear plan demonstrating their need. Funds also should be required to be used for hiring teachers, and not for teacher aides.

The drawback to this strategy is that, depending on the funding requirements for these specific districts, there very well may be districts that receive no CSR funding at all. However, the current program netted two teachers over seven years, and many districts had to use non-CSR money just to keep on the teachers hired in previous years. Clearly, the program as presently constituted is not working, and simply funding it sufficiently for everyone is just not financially feasible. Let's add to our current levels of CSR funding at a reasonable pace, and let's use it efficiently so that children, teachers, and parents actually notice the difference.

And, please, let's keep track of it this time.

Class Size Reduction Funding In Utah

I recently finished reading the legislative audit report that I wrote about here. To summarize, the audit was requested because for over a decade or so the Legislature has allocated "extra" money to Utah's schools with the express purpose of reducing class size. Utah has consistently ranked near the bottom of the US in classroom size, and this was seen as a way to attack that directly. Tens of millions of dollars have been allocated to schools through this Class Size Reduction (CSR) program, and the Legislature wanted to verify how it had been spent.

The report concludes that, despite some accounting difficulties, 100% of the money was used correctly. 99% of it went towards hiring new teachers. 1% went to pay for things like portable classrooms.

Yet the auditors found that even with those tens of millions of dollars all being spent to reduce class size, mostly by hiring teachers, since 2000 there was a net gain of only two teachers. And Utah still ranks near the bottom in classroom size.

How could this be? There's a couple of reasons. First, while an initial influx of money can be used to hire another teacher, that means that next year's CSR allotment has to be enough to continue paying those new teachers plus even more so that another round of teachers can be hired. In order to continuously reduce class sizes by hiring teachers, the CSR funding would have to increase exponentially each year, and simply put, it hasn't. In some years it wasn't enough to even maintain the new teachers hired in previous years.

Secondly, school enrollment has risen sharply each year; in fact, has beaten the projections in every year covered by the audit report. And while the Legislature is required by Utah code to increase CSR funding in proportion to enrollment growth, it never has.

In short, the auditors found that school districts all spent their CSR money appropriately, and even though the Legislature has increased CSR funding dramatically, it simply hasn't been enough to keep up with rising teacher costs and enrollment growth.

Legislative Audit Proves Accountants Rule the World...Or Ought To, Anyway

Last year the Utah legislature wanted to find out how school districts were using the extra Class Size Reduction (CSR) money they had been allocated. The auditor's report was released in December and revealed an accounting horror show.

"inconsistencies", "data discrepancies", "data is not fully audited for accuracy", "staff generally accept that older data is less reliable", "need additional time to research".

These are not audit findings anyone wants to see.

And it looks like it's the Legislature's fault. Accourding to the audit report, in 2003 they changed the rules regarding CSR tracking, no longer making it mandatory to account for the extra money seperately. Not surprisingly, most districts then dumped their CSR tracking systems. In the words of the auditors, "These districts' records identify expenditures but do not tie them back to a specific revenue source, increasing the difficulty of determining how CSR funds were used."

Over 60% of the money allocated to reduce class sizes is unaccounted for. Not cool. Granted, the auditors were able to perform some other tests that suggest that the money was used appropriately, but, again, with good accounting we'd know for sure. It's all about the accounting, people.

So next time you see an accountant on the street, pat him/her on the back and say thanks for ensuring your child gets a proper education.

Voucher Debates

There have been some really good voucher debates around the state. Through the wonder of the internet, I don't have to actually be there to hear them, or be in a position to listen on the radio. I've listened to all of these debates, and it's been great. So without further ado, here they are:

Paul Mero and Rob Miller at Utah State University on KVNU

Rep. Greg Hughes and Richard Eyre against Pat Rusk and Rep. Sheryl Allen on KCPW

Carmen Snow against Rep. Steve Urquhart at Dixie College

These are the debates I have listened to so far, if there are others out there, please let me know and lend a link.

-UPDATE-

The Senate Site has a really good link page of op-eds, tv commercials, voter guide info, and newspaper articles. Check it out.

Vouchers

Last spring, Utah's legislature passed a private school voucher program. While vouchers have been used on a limited basis in other parts of the country, Utah's law is quite a bit different, and a lot more extensive than anything tried elsewhere. In Utah's system a student leaving the public school system would receive a voucher for the cost of a private school. The amount the student receives is based on family size and income. The average voucher amount is estimated to be $2,000. One of the things that sets Utah's law apart from others is that the public school will still receive the funding they were getting before the student left, but now they have 1 fewer student, resulting in an increase in per-pupil spending.

Of course, the voucher law was not without its opponents, and actually passed by a very slim margin in the House before the Senate and Governor approved it. However, even after its passage, voucher opponents did not rest. Instead, they gathered the thousands of signatures needed to get a proposition on the November ballot to take the issue to the general public.

The voucher debate has been raging in Utah for months now, especially in the blogosphere. Most Utah bloggers are against vouchers, which reflects the mostly Democratic nature of bloggers in general. In Utah, the Democratic party is pretty much unanimous in its opposition to vouchers, while the Republican party is mostly for them, although it is much more of a split vote than one might think.

I have been reading and watching from afar throughout the voucher debate, without much commenting on my part. There are literally dozens of posts on vouchers by just about every Utah blogger I read. Now, the television commercials and glossy mailings are in full force. I even picked up a pile of anti-voucher literature during parent-teacher conference this week. With the election coming soon, I decided it was time to write a voucher post of my own. I've gone over a few of the contention points that I have seen discussed, and that are on much of the pro and anti voucher literature, and have added my thoughts on each:

Certified teachers:

Many opponents complain that private schools don't have to have "real" teachers. That seemed outrageous, until I remembered that my University of Utah degree was heavy on what they called "adjunct professors". Basically, these professors are just professionals from the community who are hired to teach a few classes at the college. I had a great number of upper division, senior level and higher classes taught by adjunct professors. Incidentally, most of them were great. They actually had real life experiences to share, and insight into what was going on now in the accounting profession.

So now it doesn't seem like such a negative.

"Crazy" religious schools:

Seems a bit far fetched. How many are in the state right now? What's the demand in the state for it?

Honestly, this line of argument reminds me of those that complain to me about the War on Terror just being about using fear to control people. Well, that's exactly what's happening here.

Need?

I had an old friend who had an autistic child and they were on a waiting list for a really expensive school and scholarship program. I know that there are many people just like them. Vouchers would help families and children just like my friend's. In fact, vouchers could become the avenue to create more schools designed specifically for individual needs.

Will it Save or Cost Money?

This is one point that has gone back and forth a little. So far, I think final word goes to a pair of posts over at Jesse's blog, here and here.

Basically, the initial fear concerning vouchers was that it would take money away from public schools, so Utah's law provided that the public school will still get the money from the state that they would have gotten had the student remained enrolled. So the voucher proponents now argue that public schools will in effect receive more money per student than they were before. Pretty much a win-win scenario.

Of course, voucher opponents countered back with some math of their own, (see the comments) but overall, and considering Jesse's new calculations, it appears vouchers will result in a net savings for Utah and Utah's public schools.

Representative Steve Urquhart is a sponsor of the voucher bill, as well as being a fellow blogger. He has a lot of good information on his blog, plus this link to a debate he participated in recently. Many of these same questions are brought up in that forum.

After reading the arguments for and against vouchers, and weighing the pros and cons, I will be voting for Referendum 1 next month.