School Board Study Session and Meeting September 23, 2014

The board discussed a book called, A Slice of Trust.  I have not read the book, but the gist of it seemed to be about trusting others and how it can contribute to a positive work environment.  It felt like the underlying current of the book was just trust everyone.  JoDee mentioned that each member brings something different to the board.  John mentioned that as an administrator, he had to trust teachers.  Brian stated that as an auditor, he had to have a level of professional skepticism.  Wendy brought up that when you purchase a home or car, you have a contract and that while trust is good, it is also best to write things down and clarify.  She stated that the board is meant to serve as a check and balance, a verification.  She also asked, “Do we trust people based on shared ideology?”

Then we got to the fun stuff!  Rob Smith shared the Capital Facility Update.  He showed that the target areas we are dealing with now are the 10 year capital plan as well as the seismic review plan.  For the 10 year plan, someone from the district will physically go to each school to see what the needs are.  Although this will be time-consuming, principals want the district to see the changes they are requesting so that the needs are better understood.

The target areas for the short-term were three-fold.  1.  Transportation integration planning-they will review drop-off flow patterns, design criteria, and improved integration.  How do parents use the facility?  While I am glad this is finally being reviewed, I feel it is something that has been overlooked for years.  Most of the schools were built to be walking schools, but most children do not walk to school and it has not taken into account programs that bring out-of-boundary students like ALL, language immersion, ED, and LD.  Almost all the schools that have been recently built have had major issues with pedestrian safety and traffic flow.  Riverview and Thunder Ridge were built next to open canals.  Thunder Ridge parents had to advocate for a sidewalk being built and Riverview parents had to advocate for a canal bridge so that students could cross.  Dry Creek has also had pedestrian crossing issues.  While I am happy that the issue is being addressed, I think this will become a time-consuming and costly issue because it was not dealt with previously.  2.  ADA plan review-adequate access for inside and outside facilities.  Because many of the schools are older, there are concerns that they are not ADA-compliant.  Rocky Mountain Elementary has 4 children in wheelchairs who can’t access the playground.  3.  Security review-internal committee to review security.  One school’s SCC (go Riverview!) installed locking doors and there is a school in PG piloting a program where there are inside and outside cameras that police can access.

Next up was David Smith to discuss SAGE and determining the cut scores.  The standards setting occurred on August 11-15, 2014.  175 educators set the pass rates.  21 of those educators came from ASD (about 12%).  10% of students in Utah are in ASD.  The cut scores were set for ELA grades 3-11, math 3-8 as well as Math I, II, and III and science.  David stated that we are using the 1-4 scale.  4 is highly proficient, 3 is proficient, 2 is approaching proficient, and 1 is below proficient.  He also stated that the previous CRT scores were not college and career ready and that for previous scoring, 3 actually meant minimally competent.  The Bookmark method was used to determine the cut scores.  The questions were put in an ordered booklet with the easiest question being the one that the most students answered correctly and the hardest question being the one that the most students missed.  Teachers were asked to place a “bookmark” on the question where they felt that a student would be “barely proficient.”  They used the 8^th grade math as an example and questions 19-23 were where most teachers marked barely proficient.  Based on the average of #21 being the barely proficient cut score, how many students would have passed?  The district is stating that these proficiency standards are nationally competitive because they are in line with the recent NAEP scores.

Here is the list of percent of students who were proficient in English Language Arts for the state of Utah- ASD usually ranks about 8 points above the state.

3^rd grade                              44%

4^th grade                              41%

5^th grade                              43%

6^th grade                              41%

7^th grade                              41%

8^th grade                              40%

9^th grade                              42%

10^th grade                            42%

11^th grade                            38%

ASD defines proficient (a grade of 3 or above on the test) as being able to get a C or better grade in a college class of the same subject.  So, 38% of 11^th graders should be able to score a C or better in a college English 1010 class.

OK, so I have a problem with this.  I feel that this is so misleading.  Basically, I have been told for years that my kids were doing great because they were getting 3s and 4s on their CRTs.  I think that most parents interpret the 1-4 scale as 4 being an A, 3 being a B, and so on.  Now, magically a 3 means “minimally competent.”  And now apparently less than half the kids in the state are “barely proficient.”  I cannot even begin to imagine how this is going to tank all the UCAS scores-yes a super flawed system-but now I imagine that every school in the state will be considered failing.  This feels like a shell game with the teachers and students being the ones to lose out.  And David also mentioned that we cannot compare previous CRT scores with the current SAGE scores because the SAGE has higher standards and increased rigor.  He stated it would be like asking kids to run a mile and recording their scores and then the next year having them swim a mile.  The 2 cannot be compared.  

What are your thoughts about the way the SAGE cut scores were determined?

School Board Meeting September 9, 2014

Before I get to my notes, I wanted to let you know about a couple of questions I asked Rob Smith about some of the items on the financial disclosure documents.  There was a charge for over $148K to Zonar.  I asked Rob what that was and he said they had put GPS units in all of the buses, driver's ed cars, and district vehicles.  I think this was a smart move that will probably save us money long term.  There was also a charge for around $3k for TNT fireworks-it was a fundraiser (I think maybe for Lehi soccer).  There was also a payment to BYU for $15K for partnership activities.

My first impression when I walked into the board meeting was a lot of suits and a lot of handshaking. The proposed CDA for University Mall was on the agenda to be discussed and Orem had quite a lot
of representation there at the meeting, including the mayor.  The public comments are always my favorite part.  Autumn Cook spoke first about the chronic absenteeism study (she was in the study session) and felt the study was built on faulty science since they were lumping excused absences and truancy all together.  Next up was Ed Barfus.  He said that the fiscal analyst that was hired to evaluate the Orem CDA was related to a board member and he felt that was a conflict of interest (JoDee Sundberg's son, Jason, is the fiscal analyst who was hired to evaluate the CDA and his mother happens to be running for school board again, representing Orem).  He asked that the district not pay employees to research out things like business ventures like the CDA and that employees should be working on things that were education related.  He asked the 2 board members from Orem (JoDee Sundberg and Debbie Taylor) to recuse themselves from the vote on the CDA since it could be a conflict of interest.  The last public comment was by Russell Stay who was representing parents from Rocky Mountain Elementary.  Bus service had been discontinued and parents were told there were only 9 eligible students and they needed 10 to qualify.  Parents realized there were actually 41 and were asking for bus service to be reinstated.
Brian Halliday asked for some clarification on the school board having spent 31% of their budget and it was only September.  Rob Smith said that $41k had gone to pay dues to the Utah School Board Association, $23K had gone to payroll, $14K to legal fees, $1080 for telephone, $1115 for supplies, and another $1k for auditing.  There was also an increase to school administration in the amount of $256K which translated into all schools getting an additional 8 hours in aide time.
On to the CDA discussion-there was a lovely presentation with lots of numbers and figures.  CDA is basically a big tax break for a specified amount of time.  If the developer gets a 50/50 split, it would mean that ASD would take only 50% of the taxes and the developer would keep the remaining 50% to put towards roads and other infrastructure.  The timeframe we are looking at is 20 years.  Basically, there was a breakdown as to how much the school district would MAKE on a 20-year CDA based on various options.  The amounts ranged from $7.8M in profit to $25M in profit.  But here is what no one really talked about-how much money we would be giving up.  The developer who is applying for the CDA is the largest landowner in Orem.  I am thinking he is probably not hurting for funds.  The CDA does meet the following criteria:  high-paying jobs, grow wealth, support from GOED/County/City, increased assessed value while minimizing impact on services required, and partnership opportunities.  The criteria it does not meet are that it is a retail project and does involve housing.
I am opposed to the CDA.  Our board members are elected to oversee the education of our children, not gamble with our tax dollars to help spur economic development.  I understand that if this project goes through, it will be more valuable and increase the taxes we use to fund ASD.  But it is a gamble.  We are looking at projections and analytics and no one really knows.  It is an educated guess at best.  One of the benefits of sitting on the back row is that I watch other people and how they react to comments.  There is no doubt in my mind that the district wants this to go through.  The district employees were nodding their heads in agreement when anything positive was said in support of the CDA.  Scott and Debbie both expressed opinions that demonstrated they would vote for the CDA.  Wendy is a definite no and I believe that Paula and Brian will vote no as well.  JoDee and John were surprisingly silent, but based on their voting record, they will both vote to pass it as well.  The CDA will pass with a 4-3 vote.  I believe this will be an action item on the October 14th board meeting.  If you do not want the CDA to pass, please e-mail ALL school board members and plan to attend the school board meeting on October 14th at 6 p.m. in the district building.

School Board Study Session September 9, 2014

The study session involved reviewing the beginning of the school year and what the numbers looked like.  Black Ridge and Dry Creek Elementary Schools opened this fall and there were 12 new principal assignments.  STARS had 275 children in 10 schools participate in this program over the summer.  We have 83 schools-55 elementary, 12 junior high/middle school, 8 high schools, and 8 special purpose schools with an enrollment of 74,310 students.  We had about 80 teachers retire and about 100 teachers resign.
September is attendance awareness month and the district supports that increasing student attendance will improve academic outcomes.  The district referred to a 2012 University of Utah study (http://www.utahdataalliance.org/downloads/ChronicAbsenteeismResearchBrief.pdf).  The district stated that they have 2 goals- 1.  to have reading ability on grade level by 3rd grade, 2.  90% or higher graduation rate and students will be career/college ready.  The district defines chronic absenteeism as missing 10 or more days of school.  They also stated that students are academically at risk if they miss 10% of the school year for any reason-regardless of if these are unexcused or excused absences and that this risk occurs as early as kindergarten.
Because the study lumped all absences together, I find the study a little difficult to swallow.  The study showed a link between chronic absenteeism and students dropping out of school.  There is a difference between a child who is truant and a child who has to miss school due to a medical condition.  According to this study, my 12-year-old is at high risk for dropping out because he was chronically absent in 3rd grade due to a tonsillectomy.  And my daughter's best friend is at high risk for dropping out because she traveled to Spain and missed 10 days of school.  I think failing to differentiate between truancy and excused absences misses a huge point.
During the presentation, an at-risk assessment was displayed.  This at-risk assessment showed factors such as 3rd grade reading level, 6th grade DRA scores, and failing the CRT in math or language arts.  There was also a section for behavioral issues.  A board member asked who entered info under behavioral issues and the question was never really answered.  It was a little frustrating to me to see that my child's 3rd grade reading ability could be a red flag to the district for him dropping out.  And it also made me think of children who have a difficult start in life.  My husband and I have been foster parents and children in foster care already have a black mark in their files.  Add to that a low reading score due to circumstances not under their control, and they spend the rest of their school careers fighting those labels.  I understand the need to use data to provide solutions, but lumping data together without looking at individual circumstances does a disservice to our students.
Do you feel the district should distinguish between truancy and excused absences as they create policy?