Tuesday, March 1, 2016

There are lots of bills that have come up during this legislative session that I have been involved in, whether sending e-mails, testifying, texting legislators, or helping to spread more information on.  There is another one, coming up in Education Committee tomorrow that I am asking you to read and then write to the Education Committee.  You can find the full text of SB91 here. (http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/SB0091.html)
Here is what I don’t like about the bill.  It gives too much power to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) and the State Board of Education and takes away local control.  As stated in line 51 and 52 of the bill, “the state board of education has general control and supervision of the state’s public education system.”  The way I see it, the state school board is supposed to work as a type of checks and balances with the USOE.  This bill allows the state board to give their statutory (read:  legal) responsibilities over to staff, meaning your elected officials can give up their duties you elected them to perform to someone else.  Sorry, nope.
Another issue is that it gives the state board the ability to fine schools.  Why?  Where does the money come from?  When we fine schools, we are taking more taxpayer dollars.  How does that help schools by forcing taxpayers to foot the bills for these penalties?
But here is the piece that really chaps my hide.  This bill gives the USOE the power to hire a private attorney (lines 106-107).  Why is that a big deal?  The USOE already has access to an attorney through the Attorney General’s office.  When Senator Osmond passed his opt out bill (SB122) in 2014, Judy Park and the AG’s office “interpreted” the legislation so that parents were unable to opt out of testing, even though that went against the very intent of that bill, resulting in the February 2, 2015 memo from USOE.  (You can see the memo here- http://schools.utah.gov/CURR/gifttalent/District-Coordinators/2015FebruaryOutPolicy.aspx). 
When parents submitted a GRAMA request, specifically asking for e-mail communication between Judy Park and the AG’s office that included the words “opt out,” the GRAMA was denied due to attorney/client privilege.  I thought that argument was garbage because if everyone is supposed to be working together to educate children, and Judy Park’s pay comes from taxpayer funds, why is she extended attorney/client privilege?  Especially about decisions that impact my child’s education?  Wouldn’t the real client be the students?  If the USOE is able to hire a private attorney, they could deny any GRAMA request about a subject the attorney has access to due to attorney/client privilege.  Basically, the USOE would create a shield where transparency would cease to exist.  Want to know the state opt out rate?  Denied.  Want to better understand the rubric used for teacher evaluations?  Denied.  Are stealth assessments being utilized?  Sorry-that is attorney/client privilege.  USOE would have carte blanche to make decisions with no public transparency.  And giving that much power with no oversight to any individual or agency is seriously dangerous.
If you believe that USOE and the State School Board have a duty to be transparent in their work and not delegate their duties to other individuals, please write the Education Committee and ask them to vote no on SB91.


blast@le.utah.gov
vlsnow@le.utah.gov
lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov
kimcoleman@le.utah.gov
brucecutler@le.utah.gov
seliason@le.utah.gov
justinfawson@le.utah.gov
fgibson@le.utah.gov
ehutchings@le.utah.gov
dlifferth@le.utah.gov
dmccay@le.utah.gov
csmoss@le.utah.gov
mnoel@kanab.net
mariepoulson@le.utah.gov

No comments:

Post a Comment