Maybe the worst bill in the education omnibus, HB 200—$3400 software plus laptops for preschoolers

An omnibus bill is a rotten, non-transparent method to pass legislation even if all of the bills contained are good. Not that I believe there commonly are 100% clean omnibus bills. Many of us have been frustrated when omnibus bills are used on the federal level and pork is stuck into a farm bill or an energy bill. Unfortunately, and in keeping with federal tradition, the only reason legislative leadership used the omnibus bill at the end of the legislative session last March was to lump some failed education bills in with eight stronger bills and pass them through with no scrutiny. Senator Stephenson claimed the omnibus was just to reduce confusion among the coordinating clauses in the bills. The point was made during the floor debate that the legislative staff has successfully coordinated hundreds of bills every session for decades. You can check the BS yourself by looking at the amended code sections in the original bill texts and then checking out the arduous cut-and-paste job done into SB 2.

HB 278 and HB 200 were probably the two worst bills passed in this dishonest fashion; both had failed floor votes in previous days precisely because they were illogical uses of education funds. I'll address HB 278 another time.

Let’s look at HB 200, the UPSTART program or “laptops for preschoolers” bill, and three puzzling aspects of its passage. (Lines 258-397 of the Omnibus bill, SB 2) It allocates $1,000,000 for the current school year to purchase instructional reading software for families, hardware and internet service for needy families, and for an audit on the program. The original had the same funding for the first year, but included $2.5 million more per year through 2014. The update included in SB 2 includes an option for the legislature to continue the program with no funding stipulated. (Update: Oops. I looked at the wrong bill and missed the actual costs. The bill allocates $1 million the first year and $2.5 million each year after that.)

1. First rotten aspect. The bill calls for a Request for Proposals (RFP) to find a contractor to provide a contractor with a laundry list of requirements, but the media reports from the very beginning explained the program as involving the Waterford Reading Software. My House representative also repeated to me both during and after the session that the Waterford software would be used in the program’s year trial. Where did that belief come from? Is it legal to already have a winner chosen before a RFP is even conducted? I recall hearing something in a recent session about a bill containing an exact copy of a company’s listed services. Is that what happened here? Why Waterford? Here’s the relevant language from the bill:

281 (3) The State Board of Education shall contract with an educational technology
________________________________________
282 provider, selected through a request for proposals process, for the delivery of a home-based
283 educational technology program for preschool children that meets the requirements of
284 Subsection (4).
285 (4) A home-based educational technology program for preschool children shall meet the
286 following standards:
287 (a) the contractor shall provide computer-assisted instruction for preschool children on
288 a home computer connected by the Internet to a centralized file storage facility;
289 (b) the contractor shall:
290 (i) provide technical support to families for the installation and operation of the
291 instructional software; and
292 (ii) provide for the installation of computer and Internet access in homes of low income
293 families that cannot afford the equipment and service;
294 (c) the contractor shall have the capability of doing the following through the Internet:
295 (i) communicating with parents;
296 (ii) updating the instructional software;
297 (iii) validating user access;
298 (iv) collecting usage data;
299 (v) storing research data; and
300 (vi) producing reports for parents, schools, and the Legislature;
301 (d) the program shall include the following components:
302 (i) computer-assisted, individualized instruction in reading, mathematics, and science;
303 (ii) a multisensory reading tutoring program; and
304 (iii) a validated computer adaptive reading test that does not require the presence of
305 trained adults to administer and is an accurate indicator of reading readiness of children who
306 cannot read;
307 (e) the contractor shall have the capability to quickly and efficiently modify, improve,
308 and support the product;
309 (f) the contractor shall work in cooperation with school district personnel who will
________________________________________
310 provide administrative and technical support of the program as provided in Section
311 53A-1a-1003 ;
312 (g) the contractor shall solicit families to participate in the program as provided in
313 Section 53A-1a-1004 ; and
314 (h) in implementing the home-based educational technology program, the contractor
315 shall seek the advise and expertise of early childhood education professionals within the Utah
316 System of Higher Education on issues such as:
317 (i) soliciting families to participate in the program;
318 (ii) providing training to families; and
319 (iii) motivating families to regularly use the instructional software.
320 (5) The contract shall provide funding for a home-based educational technology
321 program for preschool children for one year with an option to extend the contract for additional
322 years or to expand the program to a greater number of preschool children, subject to the
323 appropriation of money by the Legislature for UPSTART.

There is nothing mentioning Waterford at all. Why would the legislators know the winner of the RFP months before it even took place? (I wish I knew the status of that RFP and whether schools are using the program currently.)

Wow. The language requires the contractor to not only have a product that accurately measures the reading readiness of children who cannot read (Lines 304-306), but stipulates that the company must install the software, solicit families to participate in the program, and motivate them to regularly use the software.

Recalling an earlier post on educational “research,” I searched around on the web for how the Waterford software works. The Waterford Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to integrating technology into learning. They sell their early reading program through Pearson/Prentice Hall, a corporation dedicated to selling expensive software and textbooks to schools.

Here’s the Pearson order page I first found with impressive claims, rosy promotional literature, and “research” proving the efficacy of the program. Notice that none of the research here has any direct link to the program. They are a bunch of separate studies recommending different actions, and the program just claims to meet all 6 pages worth of objectives. There is no actual evaluation of the Waterford Early Reading Software.

As I searched further, I did find a page with some actual research of the program on the Waterford Site. It was tucked in a page citing the same long laundry list of other reading research they claim validates their program. I skimmed to evaluate the two actual effectiveness studies. The Waterford software receives high praise for its effects on low readers, and the studies appear at least decent, despite a few methodological concerns. (The higher quality study done for an educational journal has a much smaller sample and only lasts 6 months; the study by some advocacy foundation has a much larger number of students and lasts 3 years, but has issues with the testing procedures.) However, both studies specifically address the use of the software in a classroom setting and say that the teacher significantly affected the positive reading gains. There is no data available on using the program at home with pre-school age children and no teacher. The trial here in Utah could contribute to a study of that if someone is documenting the effort.

However, a troubling aspect of the site was the Terms of Use which expressly spell out that our investment is not guaranteed. I’m pasting into two separate paragraphs and the subheadings they fall under:

Disclaimer of Warranties

YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT:
b) PEARSON MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THIS SITE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) THIS SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THIS SITE WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH THIS SITE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, AND (v) ANY ERRORS OR DEFECTS IN THIS SITE WILL BE CORRECTED.

Limitation of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL PEARSON BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE OR DATA, OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE LOSS OF DATA AND/OR THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THIS SITE; (ii) THE COST OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS AND SERVICES RESULTING FROM ANY GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO THROUGH OR FROM THIS SITE; (iii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iv) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THIS SITE; OR (v) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THIS SITE.

I can understand not wanting to be liable for hackers or inevitable small glitches, but there is no guarantee EVER that the site will be “accurate or reliable.” Pearson is not liable in any way for any matter relating to the site, even if the school is unable to use the site. Maybe this is “normal” legalese and means nothing, but I know I’d be concerned about signing a personal contract for a product with these provisos.

2. Second fishy aspect. Paul Rolly reported in May that Cap Ferry, former Utah Senate president and current lobbyist extraordinaire, was pushing the Waterford software’s use to the legislators. Another person with some knowledge of the bill called it “A solution looking for a problem.”

3. Third slightly rancid, but key, undisclosed fact about the Waterford Program. Waterford and Pearson charge $3400, plus an installation fee, for EACH computer the Waterford Early Reading Program is installed on.

Last summer, I called the 1-888 number that was the only contact information I could find on the Pearson website. I asked about purchasing the Waterford software and was given the number to a local representative. The site has improved since then and you can find his number directly on the Pearson site now. The rep. was very helpful and explained that the Waterford program was the top-of-the-line intervention for low-achieving readers and told me of some local elementary schools using the program.

We discussed cost, and each computer equipped with Waterford Early Reading would cost $3400 plus an installation fee. Multiple users can then use that computer, but that efficiency is lost when the computer is specifically provided for the home. There is a lesser program, Success Maker, which costs only $1150 per computer and another program, ELLIS, specifically geared to those students learning English as a second language for $1000 per computer. The Waterford software, while supposedly superior, costs three times as much as similar interventions.

At the end of our conversation, I asked the rep. if the state had purchased the software yet, and he got nervous. He said that it wasn’t for sure yet and quickly changed the subject.

If the $1,000,000 allocated to the program this year were completely spent on $3400 fees, we could provide 294 homes with Waterford Software. However, there is the undisclosed installation fee per computer on top of that, up to $75,000 of the million can be spent on auditing and evaluation, and at least some homes will be provided with newly purchased computers and internet service as well. I wonder if 200 homes provided with software would be an accurate estimation of how many will be served by this program this year? (Update: Many fewer homes would get the program the first year, while up to 600+ could be served in following years...probably...if my estimates are close. )

The software had better be good to justify a $3400+ pricetag for each program. I would like to know who originally proposed the idea for the bill to Rep. Last, what information Cap Ferry gave to the legislators, if other programs or reading interventions were discussed, what that research process looked like, what donations if any were given by Waterford employees to campaign funds, and what was said during the original debate of the bill. During the Senate debate of SB 2 on the second to last day of the session, Sen. Stephenson said it was as good as funding Head Start. I want to believe that the bill came about from a sincere search for reading remediation, and not to provide a corporate handout…but I’m awfully suspicious. Regardless, Cap Ferry’s client is no doubt finding his lobbying fees worth the expense.

A list of the bills contained in SB2, the omnibus education bill, that shows the majority would have passed easily on their own

This is my last omnibus post for awhile…probably. I compiled this list of the separate bills that were wrapped up into SB2, the education omnibus bill, that shows the dates of important actions taken by the House or Senate on these bills prior to their being reconstituted as part of SB2. 7 of the 13 component bills had passed a House or Floor vote unanimously and where stalled either after reaching the Senate, or in the House or Senate Rules Committees waiting for the day when bills requiring large amounts of money can be passed. Two more had passed a House or Senate vote by a smaller margin, one had only been been passed in committee, and three had failed votes either on the House floor or Senate Education Committee. I don’t know how the winds were blowing on Senator Stephenson’s SB 35 when it disappeared; I know there were a lot of concerns with the bill. However, the other 8 bills awaiting a final vote would have passed easily if allowed the chance.

Senator Bramble claimed the fiscal note rule was why they waited on many of the bills. Bills with a Fiscal Note of $10,000 or more cannot be passed until the 40th day of the session, which fell on Wednesday, Feb. 27th this year. (Most of the SB2 bills fit this category. I marked bills costing at least $10,000 with a triple asterisk.) If a bill costing more than $10,000 passes all of its votes but the last, previous to the 40th day of the session, it is sent to wait in the House or Senate Rules Committee until that day (Feb. 27th) when it becomes eligible to be called back with a motion and voted on. SB 35 disappeared Feb. 5th until mysteriously getting a fiscal note March 3rd just before being put into the omnibus, HB 67 and HB 270 never emerged from the Rules Committee after receiving unanimous votes up to their tabling on Feb. 14th, and the other bills passed votes no later than Feb. 25th. They could have been voted on more simply and with greater chance of individual public scrutiny on Feb. 27th rather than keeping the bills hostage in order to pass the controversial HB 200 and HB 278. I also think these key legislators knew something was up, because I don't believe Rep. Dougall, Rep. Hughes, head of the Conservative Caucus, and Rep. Last, the House Majority Leader, would have just let their popular bills just sit their un-acted upon for days without reassurances that their bills would be passed.

Each bill will be followed by the dates of action on the bill. Generally, a bill has to pass 1 committee vote and 1 floor vote in the House, and 1 committee vote as well as 2 separate votes on the Senate floor as it is read the 2nd and 3rd times. If the House or Senate amends the bill, it also goes through a Coordinating Committee and has to be voted on again. However, some of the intermediate steps are sometimes skipped through suspensions of the rules. I don’t know specifics on why certain bills were rushed through the process or not, unless it was the last day. (Many vote totals will have different numbers because representatives and senators often miss votes in committee and on the floor.)

1. H.B. 67 ***
Extended Year for Special Educators -- Menlove, R.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0067.htm

1-25 Passed House Education Committee Vote 11-0
1-30 Passed House Floor Vote 62-0
2-7 Passed Senate Education Committee Vote 4-0
2-14 Passed Senate 2nd Reading Vote 22-0
2-14 Sent to Rules Committee because of $10,000 cost


2. H.B. 270 ***
Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative Centers -- Bigelow, R.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0270.htm

1-25 Passed House Education Committee Vote 10-0
1-31 Passed House Floor Vote 73-0
2-6 Passed Senate Workforce Services and Community and Economic Development Committee Vote 3-0
2-14 Passed Senate 2nd Reading Vote 22-1
2-14 Sent to Rules Committee because of $10,000 cost


3. S.B. 61 ***
Financial and Economic Literacy Education -- Jones, P.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0061.htm

1-28 Passed Senate Education Committee Vote 7-0
2-5 Passed Senate 2nd Reading Vote 24-0
2-6 Passed Senate 3rd Reading Vote 28-0
2-18 House Education Committee Vote 11-0
2-18 Sent to Rules Committee because of $10,000 cost


4. S.B. 118 ***
Education Transportation Amendments -- Peterson, D.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0118.htm

Passed Senate Education Committee Vote 5-0
2-4 Passed Senate 2nd Reading Vote 23-0
2-5 Passed Senate 3rd Reading Vote 26-0
2-18 Passed House Education Committee Vote 12-0
2-19 Sent to Rules Committee because of $10,000 cost


5. H.B. 212 Second Substitute ***
Educator Salary Adjustments -- Dougall, J.
(Teacher Raises)
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0212S02.htm

2-15 Passed House Education Committee Vote 15-0
2-22 Passed House Floor Vote 66-0
2-22 Sent to Senate where …. mysteriously, no action of any kind is taken on unanimously passed teacher raises until they reappeared attached to failed bills.


6. H.B. 419
Public School Textbook Evaluation Amendments -- Froerer, G.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0419.htm

2-25 Passed House Education Committee Vote 9-0
…sound of wind blowing…tumbleweed rolls by…


7. H.B. 329 ***
High-ability Student Initiative Program -- Last, B.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0329.htm

2-18 Passed House Education Committee Vote 11-1
2-25 Passed House Floor Vote 64-0
2-26 Sent to Senate
…nothing…crickets…


8. H.B. 278 Substitute
Charter School Funding Amendments -- Bigelow, R.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0278S01.htm

2-18 Passed House Education Committee Vote 8-1
2-25 Failed House Floor Vote 33-41
2-26 Passed Motion to Reconsider
2-26 Circled


9. H.B. 363 Substitute ***
Beverley Taylor Sorenson Elementary Arts Learning Program -- Hughes, G.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/status/hbillsta/hb0363s01.htm

2-13 Passed House Education Committee Vote 10-0
2-21 Passed House Floor Vote 71-0
2-22 Sent to Senate
2-25 Sent to Senate Education Committee
2-27 Returned to Rules Committee


10. H.B. 436 ***
English Language Learner Family Literacy Centers Program -- Hughes, G.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0436.htm

2-22 Passed House Education Committee Vote 10-0
2-27 Passed House Floor Vote 55-9
2-27 Sent to Senate and read 1st time (Introduced)


11. H.B. 266 ***
Accelerated Learning Program Revisions -- Moss, C.
($300,000 for International Baccalaureate Program)
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0266.htm

1-30 Passed House Education Committee Vote 11-1
2-8 Passed House Floor Vote 72-0
2-21 Failed Senate Education Committee Vote 3-3 (Featuring the infamous anti-American agenda remarks from Senator Dayton)


12. H.B. 200 Substitute
Early Childhood Learning and Evaluation -- Last, B.
(Laptops and software for pre-schoolers)
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0200S01.htm

2-18 Passed House Education Committee Vote 10-2
2-29 Failed House Floor Vote 31-37


13. S.B. 35 Substitute ***
Differentiated Pay for Teachers -- Stephenson, H.
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0035S01.htm

1-22 Passed Senate Education Committee Vote 5-1
1-30 Passed Senate 2nd Reading Vote 23-5
2-5 Passed Senate 3rd Reading Vote 19-7
2-5 Sent to House
2-27 Sent to LFA for Fiscal Analysis
3-3 LFA sends note (results?) to sponsor

Merit Pay Task Force—Torn Between Hope and…Realism…Cynicism…Despair?

My hopeful side likes that pro-voucher Rep. Last is looking to consult with teachers and school boards before “radically changing the way Utah teachers are paid.” From KCPW:

UEA Supports Merit-Pay Task Force
Feb 08, 2008 by Elizabeth Ziegler

(KCPW News) A merit-pay task force has won the approval of the state's largest teacher's union. A long-time foe of such initiatives, the Utah Education Association is pleased that two teachers will be on the task force.

"I think professional judgment about what is important to student achievement and good instruction is a big piece of the pie," says UEA Executive Director Susan Kuziak.

She says she's also hopeful the task force will investigate an incentive system that is not tied to students' test scores. In addition to teachers, the task force includes Legislators, State Board of Education members, and local school board members. Representative Bradley Last, of St. George, says he's proposing the task force in order to reach a consensus about merit-pay before radically changing the way Utah teachers are paid.

"If we try to implement without the support of the State Board, the State Office, the School Districts, it's not going to work," Last says.

So far he's gotten an overwhelmingly positive response. The UEA, the State Board of Education, and the Association of School Boards and Superintendents support the task force. So does the Senate Education Committee, which passed Last's proposal unanimously to the Senate Floor on Thursday. Click here for a link to the text of the bill and podcasts of the floor debates.

In the text of the bill, I like lines 62, 62a, and 63 with the amendment about a “goal-driven compensation system” and performance incentives to improve performance and student achievement. Though I believe some legislators want to hold this over teachers’ heads for their voucher opposition, the text of the bill is focused on correct principles. Lines 71-72 also recognize that the teachers of subjects besides math, English, and science aren’t less important. Hopefully, that also implicitly acknowledges that a test pass rate is not a completely accurate evaluation of teacher quality.

BUT…we know that language does not always equal intent. “Vouchers are meant to help public schools. Honest!” My realistic/cynical side doubts these legislators value teacher input and agrees with this post about the task force from the Utah Amicus:

The 19-member task force consists of 12 legislators, a governor’s designee, 2 state school board members, 2 local school board members, and 2 teachers. In the Compensation section, it states that the legislators on the task force will be paid full salary for their time - as if they were in special session - to the tune of $100 each per meeting. And what do these same legislators deem as appropriate compensation for the teachers and the school board members? How about $0?

And…

Since all that is needed to pass official action is a quorum, four of the legislators can go home after a long day receiving lobbyists’ gifts and the remaining legislators – personally appointed by Greg Curtis and John Valentine – can still vote on whatever they want, completely ignoring any input from the teachers, school board members, and governor’s designee. Think - 8 legislators + 7 figureheads = guaranteed majority.

Two questions immediately come to mind.

WHY pay the legislators and not the other members of the task force? Is their sacrifice any greater than those other participants? The relevant compensation text in the bill is in lines 51-58. The teachers get gas money apparently, but the legislators get that same reimbursement plus extra salary. I didn’t look up the code listed, but assume that’s where Craig got his $100 dollars per meeting figure. Just as interesting are lines 87-90 that gives the total money allotted for the task force. The Senate gets 15,225 for 5 Senators and the House gets 27,405 for 9 Representatives. Or in other words, each legislator will earn $3,045 over the next year for his/her time on the task force, plus reimbursements, while the teachers and school board members get to break even—not true if you count their time, which is just as important and limited as the legislators’—for the satisfaction of being the minority in a hostile task force.

And…Craig’s second point has gotten even worse. They’ve increased the task force to 21 members, fourteen from the legislature. That’s a 2-1 ratio of legislators to other participants.

WHY put fourteen legislators and only seven non-legislators in the group? The legislators talk about local autonomy, especially concerning themselves and Washington, but don’t practice that principle themselves. Do they feel they represent the people twice as well as the locally elected school boards or the teachers? Also, those legislators will be appointed by Speaker of the House Greg Curtis and Senate President John Valentine, both huge voucher proponents and frequent participants in the lobbying meetings held around the state featuring one-sided arguments for vouchers from legislators being paid for their time by Patrick Byrne. Pres. Valentine responded to my question at one of those meetings by telling me that using the misleading $7500 figure for per-pupil education spending was “intellectually honest.” I don’t trust his judgment to pick “neutral” legislators interested in the best alternatives.

And Craig’s worry about the 8-7 votes is completely justified by lines 49-50. Any majority can vote and “constitute the action of the task force.” So 11 of those legislators could meet by themselves and vote on binding task force recommendations. I don’t think they would do anything that blatant, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see some divided votes featuring only legislators on the winning side. And maybe little things like meeting on school days, making it more difficult for the non-legislators to come? I hope I am being too cynical on that worry.

I guess we’ll see. I would like a publicized schedule of when they are going to meet and where. I would love it if they held these as open meetings with the webcam option, or at the very least, if they posted a transcript or minutes on the internet. I will be emailing my take on the proposals to whomever gets appointed to the task force.