It's About To Get Real

It’s about to get real, people.  I have been pouring over spreadsheets for days, trying to make heads and tails over the consolidation plans and the new proposals.  And here is where it gets real-not only should the school district stick with their original plan, they should probably be looking at additional schools-I am looking at you, Sharon Elementary.

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that Orem carries the district and has been paying for new construction in our high growth areas (Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain).  And I keep hearing that Orem is getting the shaft, so I decided to see if it was true.

Let’s start with some basic info.  Where does funding for schools come from?  We have about 40+ different streams of revenue income from school bus funding to free and reduced school lunches to property taxes to youth in custody to Title 1.

But the majority of our funding comes from 2 sources:  76% of our funding comes from the state of Utah.  100% of our state income taxes go to education and that comes back to our district in the form of a WPU, which means Weighted Pupil Unit.  The current WPU is $3,184.  The WPU is basically the amount of money tied to each student (there is also additional funding for kids who qualify for programs like special ed, kids at risk, the homeless, minority, etc.). 

So, the biggest chunk of our funding comes from enrollment-76%.  The next big chunk comes from property taxes-17%.  Orem does currently contribute the largest percentage to the property tax pot-their contribution to property taxes is 26% of the ASD total.  But there has been a trend occurring for the last several years.  In 2013, Orem was contributing 30% of the property taxes allotted to the district.  And Lehi was contributing 18%.  There has been a shift as the growth in Lehi has exploded, particularly in the business sector.  In 2016 (the last year that we have information), Lehi had grown to 20% of the district property taxes while Orem’s contribution had dropped to 26%.  Everything points to this trend as one that will continue.  Lehi’s property tax contribution will continue to grow.

Orem brings in $6,140 per kid.  But we are funding some of their schools with local money (state income taxes and property taxes) up to 148% per student.  What does that mean?  It means that Orem is getting $4,306,831 over what they contribute (I only figured in elementary schools in this equation-when you add secondary schools, the pot grows even bigger).  It means that a school in Lehi that is only being funded at 83% is paying for Orem schools.  It means that Orem is being subsidized by the rest of the district.  Orem is not carrying us, we are carrying them.

Another example-even though Orem, Lehi, and Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain all have roughly the same student populations (15,500-17,000) Orem has 21 schools to Lehi’s 15 and the west side’s 16.  But what about square footage?  Lone Peak has the lowest square footage per student in a high school at 115 while Mountain View boasts 234.

In every metric being used (allocated money per student, number of buildings, square footage), Orem comes out the winner.  The losers are our high growth areas.

What does that mean if we are looking at the numbers?  It means that Lone Peak needs an additional permanent wing added to their school.  It means that the board should not be rebuilding Geneva for a declining student population that is already subsidized to the tune of $792,100.  And that is every year.  It means that if the board rebuilds Geneva, it costs Lone Peak an addition or an overcrowded Lehi elementary school gets put on the back burner.

I get it.  Election year is looming next year.  But here is where it gets real.  I don’t care.  I don’t care about politics and threats and district splits.  The numbers say that Orem is already getting the lion’s share-at the cost of our children in Highland and Alpine and Cedar Hills and Lehi and Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain.  The board can hear the pleas of parents in Orem and be respectful of their desires for small schools while also realizing that the numbers simply do not support maintaining the status quo.  They need to speak for the close to 80,00 children they are supposed to speak for.

The numbers are clear cut.  Please contact all board members and let them know of your concerns about the Orem consolidation plan.

paulahill@alpinedistrict.org

wendyhart@alpinedistrict.org

johnburton@alpinedistrict.org

markclement@alpinedistrict.org

jsundberg@alpinedistrict.org

scarlson@alpinedistrict.org

sarahacken@alpinedistrict.org

Orem Consolidation Plan

I have been trying to collect my thoughts about the school board meeting on last Tuesday, particularly the public comments made about the Orem consolidation plan. First off, let’s get some facts straight:

Hillcrest has not been sold.  The district had a market analysis done on the property, but it has not been put on the market.

The district would tear down Geneva and keep it as green space.  If the district needed that property in the future, it would have property inside the city instead of having to build on the outskirts.  The property would be kept for a future project.

Now that we have the cleared up, let me share my reaction to the public comment about the Orem consolidation plan.

Here are the things I agree with:

1.        Community involvement and accurate information was lacking.  This is an issue that I think the district needs to work on.  I understand that they don’t want to release information until they have a solid plan and solid answers.  The district doesn’t want to be responding with I Don’t Knows when asked questions.  But I think there is an underlying underestimation of parents.  Too often there is a fear that parents will freak out, so the information is withheld until the very end and then parents do freak out when the timeframe is so tight, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  We experienced this with the proposed 6^th and 7^th grade school (Springside).  We were presented a plan 2 weeks before a major holiday.  The school was already on a quick build schedule and the proposal felt like it came out of nowhere with no parental input.  I think the board needs to involve parents earlier in the process and make space and time for parental suggestions to be included in their plans. The board has been looking at the declining Orem enrollment for years, but this was the first plan that had been presented.  The timeline from the proposal to a vote was a month.

2.       The surveys from the district can feel like a push poll.  Questions are worded in such a way that it is hard to express a dissenting opinion.  While I know that open-ended questions are harder to code, the district should send out surveys with open-ended questions.  And we need to remove assumptions.  There was a poll sent out where a question was asked if parents were happy with the amount of technology available in their school.  The assumption was that if you were unhappy, it was because there was not enough technology.  But many parents responded to that question in a negative manner because they felt there was TOO much technology.  Those responses were incorrectly coded due to an assumption.  We need to work on this.

Here are the things I disagree with:

1.       To paint the district personnel or the board as bullies is outrageous.  Of course, these people dedicate considerable time and effort to make the best decisions for their students.  I know each and every board member and most of the district personnel.  While we may disagree on the best way to get there, every single one of them wants the best for our students.  And to sink to name-calling and actual booing of comments that disagreed with one opinion was juvenile.  I was embarrassed that our district was treated in such a fashion.  To those board members and district personnel, I apologize for what occurred.  I did not support it and I am sorry that you were subjected to it.

2.       Threatening to leave the district because the board doesn’t do what you want is basically the adult version of I am taking my ball and going home.  This ultimatum seems to be driven largely by emotion from parents.  But the consolidation plan is based on factual information like seismic issues, aging buildings, and declining student enrollment, not to mention the financial burden it creates to keep such small schools open.  It also creates a burden for teachers when it comes to differentiation when they don’t have a PLC team to work with.  It costs about $780,000 a year to keep an elementary school open each year-things like a principal, secretary, media specialist, custodial staff, nutrition services, not to mention things like maintenance and utilities.  Those costs are somewhat fixed, regardless if you have 300 students or 1,000.  To keep schools that small in Orem, those schools would be subsidized from other areas, particularly high growth areas where overcrowded schools are already a problem.  To take from those students in overcrowded schools to fund small schools seems to be lacking in equity.

So, now I want to hear from you.  What are your thoughts about the Orem consolidation plan?

School is Like a Jar of Peanut Butter

I usually shop at my local grocery store.  They have a great selection, great customer service, and the store is close to my home and convenient.  They have more than one shelf of peanut butter.  I can get different brands, crunchy, or even almond butter.  What great choices!

And then one day, my daughter developed an allergy to peanut butter.  And every other kind of nut.  So, the great selection at my local grocery store didn’t work anymore.  We couldn’t do peanut butter or almond butter.  We asked our great customer service to add a non-nut butter, but we were told that there weren’t enough customers to justify the expense of adding another product.  Our local grocery store just wasn’t a good fit for us.

So we started to explore other options.  We found a specialty store in another city that had great options for us and it was a perfect fit for my daughter.  But we started getting feedback from friends and neighbors about our decision to shop somewhere else.  We were told that spending our tax dollars somewhere else was hurting our local grocery store, funneling funds from them.  We were told that we were hurting our city because our tax dollars were benefitting another city.  We were even told that our decision to do what was best for our daughter was hurting the sense of community.  We were told we should just keep shopping at our local grocery store because it was good enough for everyone else.

And then it got even weirder.  We were told that we were racist and classist, practicing racial and class discrimination since only rich, white people could afford to shop at a specialty store in another city.  We denied these accusations since we saw people of all races and classes shopping there and we knew that all kids had food allergies, not just rich, white kids.

And then people said that I must hate peanut butter and want to try to get it taken off the shelves.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I love peanut butter.  I ate peanut butter toast for breakfast every morning as a kid and I miss it.  But just because it doesn’t work for my kid doesn’t mean I hate peanut butter or think your kid shouldn’t have it. 

But some people feel that pulling money from my local grocery store is wrong, that I should be happy with the brightly colored shopping carts and the great customer service, even though it doesn’t carry the products my child needs.  And they think we should limit choice so they try to limit the number of building permits issued for new specialty grocery stores and even try to close the ones that are already open.

OK, so obviously this post isn’t really about peanut butter and grocery stores and it is ridiculous.  But it is something we have encountered.  Our school district is like our local grocery store.  We do have great teachers (customer service) and we have great options in our schools such as autistic preschools, Gifted and Talented, and Immersion.  But we hit a serious bump when our oldest was in 8^th grade and we were told by a school counselor that the school could no longer meet her academic needs.  So we started exploring options.  We found a great charter (specialty store) that fit our daughter’s needs and we were thrilled!  But that was also when the backlash started.  I was accused of stealing funds from my local school to support charters (both are public schools funded with tax dollars).  I was accused of hating my local district schools and teachers.  False.  I was accused of being elitist, even when my child attended a Title 1 charter school.  I don’t hate my local district schools.  There are so many things to cheer about in my area-everything from Battle of the Books to school plays to jump team to Knowledge bowl to Lego Club and Pony Band.  But my local schools weren’t working for my child, so we decided to do something that did work.  We chose a charter school with phenomenal teachers and different opportunities.  But different isn’t wrong.  We need to stop parent shaming, and schools are the latest division between parents.  Different kids and different families need different things and I support school choice.  I support parents making the best decisions for their child.  Because while this may seem like a silly analogy, the truth is that my choice doesn’t make yours wrong or less than.  It is just different.

2017 School Funding

School funding is going to be a hot topic this legislative session.  An organization called Our Schools Now is promoting a 7/8 of a one percent income tax increase to increase funding.  So, let’s look at the numbers for a second.  The current income tax rate is 5%, so if the increase goes through, that would take it to a rate of 5.875%.  If you make $50,000, that would mean an increase of $437.50.  If you make $100,000, you would see an increase of $875.  The projection is that this would raise $750 million for schools.  We all know that Utah is dead last in school funding as far as funding per student (we rank #1 in the percentage of our budget set aside for education, we just have a lot of kids which explains the discrepancy in those 2 rankings).  So more school funding is the answer, right?  Maybe.  But let’s look at some other numbers.

100% of income tax is supposed to go to our schools.  It used to be that all of that money went to K-12.  But then we started expanding that and now post-high school institutions get a chunk as well.  How much?  To the tune of about $800 million a year.  If we actually put our income taxes into K-12, we wouldn’t need the new 7/8 of one percent increase. 

But surely that is the only place where education funding is being siphoned off.  Nope.  Our educator pensions are also pulling money away from our kids.  Because the amount of what we owe (and promised) our retired teachers in the form of wages, health premiums, and retirement benefits is actually drastically in the hole from what we actually have, we are pulling money from our schools to fund these unfunded liabilities.  How much?  In Alpine, it costs almost $23 million a year to pay for these unfunded liabilities.  What if those pensions had been appropriately funded?

Reduce education expenses by 3.7%,

  · Increase the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) by almost 7.5%

  · Increase teacher pay by 14%

  · Raise public education employee wages by approximately 8.5%,

 · Double the number of teacher aides and paraprofessionals inside classrooms  or

  · Operate an additional 40 elementary schools or several hundred new classrooms.

You can read the report here in black and white.  http://financialreports.utah.gov/saoreports/2016/AR16-03EducationPensionCostsEducation,Officeof.pdf

One of the bright and shiny ideas of Our Schools Now is to have the tax increase go directly to schools.  You can go to the website and see how much the tax increase would impact the schools in your area. (ourschoolsnow.com)

One of the things that frustrates me about initiatives like this is the rhetoric that accompanies it.  I have already seen the propaganda-add your name to our website so that everyone knows that you support public education!  I support public education.  In addition to my local property taxes and our income tax, I clip box tops and buy school t-shirts and pay for entries to school 5Ks and give classroom donations and purchase silent auction items and recycle newspapers at school recycle bins and purchase items at the book fair.  I choose to support my schools with my money for those things.  It is not mandated, it isn’t money taken out of my paycheck, it is what I choose to add to school coffers.  But when I see a tax increase, I think of my friend who is a single mom who has 5 kids and is a teacher.  How does a tax increase impact her?

And not all of the money from the 7/8 tax increase goes to K-12.  84% of it does, but 15% goes to higher ed and the remaining 1% goes to applied technology colleges.  But the schools would just get a check, right?  No, because accountability.  Schools are required to set goals, meet them, and then they get the money.  Because there must always be hoops.  If we need to appropriately fund schools, then let’s fund them appropriately.   But I am done with the hoop-jumping.

One of the arguments that has been made is that if you want to increase school funding, you can make a tax-deductible donation to your local school through the Alpine Foundation.   If you think schools need more funding, no one is stopping you from writing a check.

And then there is the little thing called impact fees.  The legislature (which is filled with individuals who profit from real estate and are lobbied heavily by the real estate lobby) decided to make it illegal for impact fees to be collected for schools.  So when developers come in and build new neighborhoods, they can be charged for the “impact” those new homes with have on services and infrastructure like sewer, water, roads, and parks, but impact fees for the building of new schools is forbidden.  If we were able to collect impact fees, the delay and cost of building new schools to deal with our high growth areas would have been offset.  How long are we waiting for schools to be built in our high growth areas because developers are not paying their fair share for the increased population?  If we were able to collect impact fees, we would not have such overcrowded schools and our class sizes would not be so large.  This is just an example of another way in which funding for our schools is being diverted.

I am still undecided about the tax increase, but I am hesitant that a tax increase would solve our school funding problems.  I would like to see the legislature take back our $800 million from post-secondary institutions and appropriately fund teacher pensions.  I would also like to see the legislature allow impact fees for our local schools.  If we aren’t using money set aside for our schools now, why do we think more money will be used in a different way?

State School Board

This election season has seemed particularly divisive and nasty.  Not just on the national level, but even on the local level.  And so I have put off making decisions about some candidates.  I have to vote early this year since I am serving as a poll worker on Election Day, so I have to face my procrastination head on.  One race in particular that I have been unsure about is my representative for State School Board.  I know both women who are running and both are very passionate about education.  But neither one is completely representative of my views.  So, I had to do some digging and figure out which candidate was the better fit.

I spoke with Erin Preston this morning.  She spoke to me for close to 45 minutes.  Erin has gotten a lot of heat for being endorsed by the UEA which funded several candidates through NEA funds.  But that shouldn’t be a big deal, right?  Don’t we want our school board candidates supported by our teachers?  Here is where things get dicey.  NEA is a union and they definitely have a political agenda.  NEA has several positions that I vehemently disagree with.  I will outline the 2 that I specifically addressed with Erin this morning.

First, the NEA claims to support charter schools that “drive innovative educational practices,” but then spends the rest of their webpage talking about charters involved in fraud and waste.  (You can see the webpage here- http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm).  Every article linked on their supposedly supportive charter school webpage links to articles about abuses about charter schools.  That would be like me saying I support teachers and then linking to every article about teachers who have had sexual relationships with their students.  Are there some charters who abuse the system?  Absolutely.  But they are not the norm, they are the exception.

In addition to their webpage, NEA took a position on charter schools.  You can find their positions at this site- https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Policy_Statements_2016-2017.pdf.  NEA states that “a charter should be granted only if the proposed charter school intends to offer students an educational experience that is qualitatively different from what is available to them in mainstream public schools, and not simply to provide a “choice” for parents who may be dissatisfied with the education that their children are receiving in mainstream public schools.”  If a parent is unhappy with the education their child is receiving, that is why we need charters.  To limit charters and limit “choice” is a horrible mistake in my opinion.

But the next one is where NEA completely lost me.  “There also should be an absolute prohibition against the granting of charters for the purpose of home-schooling, including online charter schools that seek to provide home-schooling over the Internet.  Charter schools whose students are in fact home schoolers, and who may rarely if ever convene in an actual school building, disregard the important socialization aspect of public education, do not serve the public purpose of promoting a sense of community, and lend themselves too easily to the misuse of public funds and the abuse of public trust.”

I am not really sure where to start dissecting this.  The socialization argument is so outdated that it is laughable.  Apparently no one at NEA has read any research on homeschooling in the last 30 years.  The accusation that homeschoolers do not promote a sense of community is ridiculous at best and malicious at worst.  I have seen homeschoolers in my community planting trees at parks, volunteering at our local library, doing food drives for the food bank, and participating in community orchestras.  Let’s just leave it that the NEA has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to homeschoolers.  And by the way, we have some phenomenal online charters in Utah.  I am constantly recommending Mountain Heights when people ask about online schooling.  NEA has an agenda when it comes to charters.  We have magnificent charters in Utah like UCAS, AMES, Providence Hall, and Mountain Heights, just to name a few.

So, obviously I am not a fan of the NEA stance on charters.  I am a strong believer in school choice and that may look different for every family.

Second, and this one is a doozy, folks-NEA has a completely negative view of homeschooling.  Here we go…” The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience.”

Feel free to read that last statement again.  Parents cannot provide their children with a comprehensive education experience.  So, yeah, the NEA is not a fan of homeschooling.  But it gets better.  The NEA wants every child who is homeschooled to be given a yearly assessment and instructors (parents) should be “licensed” and all curriculum should be state approved.  Because we have to protect kids from their parents.

But this last one was the icing on the cake.  “The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.”  That’s right.  Thank you for your tax dollars to support local schools, but we’ll be damned if homeschoolers are allowed to use the band program or participate in sports.  So, now the NEA is supportive of denying children access to resources.  OK.

That is where a lot of the concern about the money coming from NEA is about.  I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.  I asked Erin about these issues and whether or not she agreed with these NEA positions and if she would support them as a State School Board Member.

Erin and I had a great, open conversation and while we disagree on several issues, I feel she respects and will defend my rights as a parent to opt out of SAGE, protect the options of charters while weeding out any who are misusing funds, and protect a parent’s right to homeschool how they see fit while allowing students to access public schools for extracurriculars.

Erin has played an integral role in creating some amazing charters, so I feel her experience with alternative options for education is not just political talk.  When she sees an opportunity to create something that will improve education, she goes after it.  Erin has extensive experience in starting, building, and running charter schools.  Erin founded Providence Hall, the only IB program in the state.  In addition to her work with charters (some that have worked with specialty populations like rural students, students with autism, and English Language Learners), she has friends who are homeschoolers and is willing to listen and learn from other perspectives.  Her view on homeschooling has been enriched as she has seen friends homeschool successfully.  Another interesting thing that I learned about Erin is that in the past, she has often stood in opposition to UEA positions.  But UEA endorsed her, in spite of those differences.  Her track record of standing on principle is something I truly value.

I have seen our State School Board at work and at times, it feels extremely contentious.  One of the things that stands out about Erin is that she is willing to listen to differing opinions and I feel that she will build bridges.  Please make an informed vote.  Don’t take my word for it.  Research the candidates and ask questions.  It is usually our local leaders who make the decisions that impact us the most.  Make sure that in all the noise of the election season that you know who you want to represent you and our children when it comes to making decisions about our local schools.

GRIT

Part of what I have learned in being involved in education is that there are always new buzzwords popping up and GRIT has become one of them.  Some people are referring to grit as an individual's ability to stick with something, perseverance.  But another group has actually turned the word "grit" into an acronym-GRIT stands for Guts, Resilience, Integrity, and Tenacity.  And then, a rubric was actually created to assess a student's GRIT.

Why does it matter that teachers in Alpine School District are using a GRIT rubric for grading?

Because instead of grading a child in math as to whether or not they are mastering the material, they are being graded on personality traits.  Instead of grading a child in English as to whether or not they can define onomatopoeia, they are being graded on their integrity or their guts, completely subjective ideas that are almost impossible to measure. 

One of the rubric pieces that chaps my hide is under Resilience:  "I put my absolute maximum effort into every single thing I do."  I want you to think about that for a minute.  That's a pretty tall order-maximum effort.  Honestly, there are days when I am phoning it in.  Days when I am tired or dealing with heavy stress or worried about medical test results, and I am just doing what I have to do to get through a day.  And I am an adult with resources.  Now imagine having a child who is homeless fill out that survey and have their grade be contingent on their responses.  Maybe they are not giving their maximum effort because they are hungry or worrying about where they are going to sleep.  Now what about the child whose parents are getting divorced?  Maybe she is finding her thoughts drifting in class because she is wondering what Christmas will look like and will she have to deal with 2 families and step-parents.  Or what about the child who is living with a parent dealing with substance abuse issues.  Maybe instead of maximum effort, he is worried about getting home before his younger siblings in case mom has overdosed.

When did we worry about measuring everything?  The idea that one child is worth more, valued more, scored higher because of personality traits teeters into seriously dangerous territory.

Some of the rubrics are tainted against introverts.  Should a child get a lower grade because they are more introspective and less likely to demonstrate leadership skills?  Should a child be punished for not demonstrating a "strong sense of self?"

One of my concerns with the GRIT movement is that it takes kids who are in difficult situations, kids who are at risk, and puts them at greater risk.  By penalizing them for their circumstances through their grades, we are setting up these children to receive lower grades, fail, and drop out of school.  Because we don't see "maximum effort."  School should be a safe place to fall for traumatized kids, not another place where they are seen as less than.

At first glance, we could even say that encouraging the aspects of GRIT like resiliency and integrity are great-of course we want our children to develop those attributes.  But those traits are extremely subjective.  It is one thing for a child to score poorly because they are struggling with mastering exponents or diagramming sentences.  But it is a completely different thing for a child to get a lower grade because who they are at their core is lacking.  I am not getting a poor grade because I cannot master subject-verb agreement, but because I lack integrity.  What a powerfully damaging message to send to our children.  Who should decide if your child has integrity?  A rubric?  

In this age of high stakes testing, accountability at all costs, and school grades, we are forgetting that our goal is educating children.  We are giving them resources to be successful in life, to pursue their passions, to become lifelong learners.  Accountability systems like the GRIT rubric are ways in which we are separating out children and telling them who they are is not good enough.  And we are breaking them.

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