I asked the question a few months before the 2011 legislative session, and I ask it now again halfway through the 2012 session. Before I discuss Stephenson's claims about the Feb. 15 Public Education Appropriations Committee that spent 2 hours on a 10-minute agenda item titled "Other Business," I want to review his actions over only the last few years. He has been in office since 1992 -- imagine what else he has pulled in those 15 years before I was paying attention. (If we're getting rid of Hatch and Bennett, why not this deadwood in 2014??)
Much of what I wrote in 2010 still applies:
"Howard Stephenson thinks public education is socialism (Very end of post). He runs public education bills to benefit specific companies, hypocritically overriding local control and increasing the costs of public education when it's one of his pet projects. He constantly misrepresents his bills and abuses the legislative process in order to pass controversial provisions with little or no scrutiny: 2008 (plus an ongoing $190,000 annual expenditure of education funds just to spite an employee of the State Office of Education who ran against Greg Hughes at the county Republican convention. Seriously.), 2009, 2010. He is unabashedly conflicted as a paid corporate lobbyist--he is the only legislator whose entire livelihood depends on the issues he supports and how he votes on those issues. Combining his last two issues--he literally ran a bill in 2010 authorizing conflicts of interest for charter school board members as a sneaky provision in a larger charter school bill.
Senator Stephenson is on all public education interim and Senate committees in the state of Utah and is literally the sponsor of half of the education bills for 2011..."
It's hard to believe the stuff Stephenson gets away with. He brings that US Congress ethic to Utah. Stephenson constant refrain when others question his tactics is to claim they are just sore losers when policy they don't like passes. The links above detail a variety of legislative abuses designed to pass his agenda with little scrutiny, even as he hammers Public Ed. about "transparency."
2008 -- Lumping failed personal bills together with teacher raises and other bills about to pass in an unconstitutional "omnibus" bill modeled after the pork bills we all hate from the national congress, one of which added $190,000 in unnecessary administration costs to route around a specific employee who ran for office.
2008 and 2009 -- Presenting bills in committee as one thing, then making last minute switches harmful to public education and trying to pass them without debate. In addition, the link about specific companies details Stephenson going off about how the State Office of Education is hurting kids because they disagree with him, especially about which specific companies to give large contracts to. (Extra articles)
2009 and 2010 -- Sneaking "minor" provisions into larger funding bills and hoping no one notices. Stephenson was ultimately unsuccesshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifful in forcing districts to further help fund charter schools in the Public Education budget bill in 2009 and 2010, the same dishonest policy he only partially forced through his 2008 omnibus and the same one he is trying to sneak around legislative process with his meeting this year. He did however succeed in specifically authorizing charter school board members to have financial conflicts of interest as part of a larger charter school funding bill, as detailed above. Seriously.
2012 Let's now discuss the Public Education Appropriations Committee last Wednesday. Stephenson, who thinks Public Ed. is socialism and that the USOE and USBE "hurt kids," is of course the Chair of this crucial committee and controls the agenda. This meeting was scheduled from 5:00 to 7:00 as part of their required-by-the-Open-Meeting-Act public agenda. 99.9% of the public has no idea what this committee does, what it was doing that night, or what is the history of practice in this committee. I listened to about 45-50 min of this meeting in 3 different intervals, but I am a nerd. They were basically going through a list of requests, whether from legislators' bills or from the USOE, and prioritizing which of the long list of items should receive the limited amount of funding available. The first list of items is available publicly as a link on that agenda. There was apparently a new list available for those in attendance that differed slightly from the linked one. Tyler Slack posted pictures of the 3 pages on Twitter, @tslack, scroll back to Feb 15.
The last item on the agenda from 6:50 to 7:00 was Other Business. I came home from some other commitments after 8:00 and was shocked to find that the committee meeting was still going in the window I had open on my computer. New lists of "philosophical items" were apparently provided to the committee, but not the public attending. The committee then debated these items for almost 2 more hours. One of them was the very controversial proposal to divert local funds, specifically voted and approved for local districts, to charter schools statewide, which was rammed 25% through in the 2008 omnibus, but defeated in 2009 and 2010 when Stephenson tried to latch them onto the larger education budget bills. This plan was put in as "intent language" for how the money in the budget should be spent. I missed all this and returned to hear the committee discussing what they had done. I heard Aaron Osmond say he was "taken back" and uncomfortable that he hadn't known of these important discussion items before the meeting and thought it wrong that those affected entities (school board, etc.) could not offer input. A couple others said they hadn't known about the items either. Stephenson replied "Yea, we should have probably made the sheet available before the meeting." If the members of the committee didn't know, and I'm betting most didn't though they won't publicly speak against Stephenson, how could the public know? And how could that conceivably not be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?
I would love to know what other philosophical items were debated. The articles about the meeting all only mention the district funds proposal. I think the document should be posted online when the minutes of the meeting are posted online, which apparently will not be for another couple weeks. How about some member of the committee stepping up before then?
I listened to about 20 min of the State School Board meeting the next day during my lunch, and heard them discuss what had happened the night before. They were angry and of the opinion that the unannounced discussion of "major policy items" violated the Open Meetings Act. I specifically heard a man state for the record that he had never seen the Public Education Appropriations Committee debate major policy items at the end under "Other business." They asked State Superintendent, Larry Shumway, to write a letter to the legislature asking them to disregard the intent language as it was not advertised on the public agenda beforehand. Schenker's account from the Trib and the USBE's blog post quoting parts of the letter. I thought this was very well-stated.
Stephenson's replied in the Trib:
“I think Superintendent Shumway is playing to the crowd knowing that the Legislature, when somebody charges ethics, is always at a disadvantage in the court of public opinion and knowing that he is unfairly using this claim even though he knows very well this is the same process that has been used for decades and is currently being used by other committees this session.”
Then to KSL (buried in the middle of this longer article):
Subcommittee co-chairman Sen. Howard Stephenson called Shumway's letter a "cheap shot" at the legislative process. "He realizes that in the court of public opinion, issues tend to stick whether they have merit or not," the Draper Republican said.
Stephenson, R-Draper, said the subcommittee conducted business like it has every other year without complaint. Furthermore, he said it only makes recommendations to the Executive Appropriations Committee, which vets and screens budget priority lists.
"Nothing that was passed will be law," he said. "There must be one or two things they didn't like that elicited the complaining this year."
Senate President Waddoups echoed Stephenson in the Trib article above:
“We wrote that law,” Waddoups said, noting the committee’s actions were nothing more than recommendations. “It’s not like we don’t know it and have legal counsel to advise us on it.”
He called the school board’s request that the recommendations be set aside “totally out of line.”
“I think what they’re doing is making an argument that they are against what the committee did and because they disagree with it and the results of what came out of there, they’re looking to change it without getting the committee itself to do it,” Waddoups said.
So it's just sore losers whining about a "normal" process that the person in the state School Board meeting said he hadn't seen in years of attending and Senator Osmond had not been advised about. I know who I believe. Read the USBE link, and if you're feeling really brave, try and listen to the 3:37 audio recording of the meeting itself. With his track record and documented efforts to subvert the process on this exact issue of diverting local funds, why should we listen to Howard Stephenson?
.
Showing posts with label education budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education budget. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
SB 151 Stephenson's "anti-voucher" voucher bill. Quick education funding points to consider while listening to committee.
UPDATE: Stephenson canceled the committee meeting this morning because he wanted to work on changes to the bill. He still threw out his claim this bill is not a voucher. See my budget explanation below to see what you think. Also stay tuned for when the bill comes back up for a committee hearing in the next week or so. Will it be scheduled on a Monday morning at 8:00 to make it harder for the public to attend?
SB 151, Student Opportunity Scholarships, by Howard Stephenson, will be debated in the Senate Education Committee today, Tuesday, Feb. 4,at 4:00 pm. Click on the legislature's website, scroll down to the Upcoming Events section, and you should be able to click on the Live Now option at 4:00 to listen live to the committee hearing. (The committees often start a few minutes late--keep refreshing the page if it's not up right at 4:00. If you can't find it, post a cry for help on Twitter with the hashtag #uted, and the State School Board's account, @UTPublicEd will usually reply with a direct link. I expect both the live committee room and the online following will be packed, so I have some worries about something going wrong with the feed, but the front page links have been working for me after a bad first week of the new website.)
This is a new voucher bill "limited" to only some students. A lot of well-off families can get a $5500 school voucher if their kid scored below proficient on even one of four state tests, if their school has gotten an F grade for two years under Utah's new law (I had some info wrong about this provision in some tweets Saturday), or if a young student is behind in reading at all.
Some quick (for me) and important points to think about:
1. All voucher proposals are framed disingenuously by misrepresenting school funding. OK, this point ended up not quick. But it's the most important. I'll be posting further on this. I think many people could benefit from this hopefully easy-to-understand explanation of school funding. Consider forwarding this to others and asking questions about this to your legislators or in committee meetings.
Here is a very long and chewy document detailing the education funding for the state of Utah for last school year and the current school year. I'll refer to some specific pages shortly. The state spends most of our state income tax on K-12 public education. (A very significant portion of income tax funds is also spent on our higher ed. system) The legislature designates a "WPU" or Weighted Pupil Unit amount each year. The districts receive that amount of funding from state income taxes per student, with extra WPU's for special ed. students, administration, extra transportation money for small, rural schools, and some other programs. This is NOT some specific amount of money it takes to educate one child or a "marginal cost" per student coming and going from the school. It is a blunt, fair way to evenly distribute money to the state's districts on a per student basis. These distributed WPU's to each district are called "Above the line" funding and are summarized on page 8 of the document.
On pages 9 and 10 of the document, it summarizes further state income tax funds sent out as "below the line" funding for a variety of purposes such as transportation, ELL students, gifted students, students in custody, library books and equipment, school nurses, dual immersion language programs, classroom supplies, and the Beverly Taylor Sorenson Arts Program. Notice these are not sent out on a per student basis. They are lump sums. That nurse, art instructor, or amount of money for classroom supplies has to stretch to cover however many students show up. (Different programs are divided differently, some to pilot schools, some proportionally. And the legislature changes the total amount of "below the line" funding every year as they debate specific programs.)
Therefore, neither type of funding, "above the line" or "below the line," represents a marginal savings for an individual school. If a student switches to a private school, the state will still send the same amount of "below the line" funding that year to the districts. The state will keep one WPU (designated as $2816 this year) in the general education fund for that student. So the total savings for a student moving out or switching to a private school = Near $0 for a local school or district. One WPU of $2816 for the state education fund from income tax. If that student is a special education student, some complicated formula will save the state some more of that money. The local school wouldn't cut concrete costs much, but would save in faculty and staff time with the various meetings and paperwork. The vast majority of students who were Below Proficient on one test or attend what will be labeled as "F" schools are not special ed. and will only save one WPU.
This is because almost every cost at a school or district is a fixed cost. If one student enrolls or moves out of a school, the only cost difference for that school is some paper. The teachers, computers, library books, copy machines, training sessions, utilities, buses, bond payments, etc. do not change. When a school loses 30-40 students, depending on the district and whether it's an elementary or secondary school, they lose a teacher. 30 * $2,816 = $84,480. 40 * $2816 = $112,640. That more than covers the cost to pay that teacher and there is no net gain to the district from these changes.
Your child's district and school get funded from various other sources as well. Local district funds via property taxes are voted on and approved by the residents of that district in LUMP SUM amounts for school programs, including maintenance and upkeep. No local district funds are collected or spent on a per student basis.The funds serve hundreds of students simultaneously in large fixed costs. Your student does not receive a pro-rated portion of the janitor's time. See Heading II Local Revenue on pg. 11 of the funding document. The state also collects some property tax and distributes it in lump sums in that orange box about leeways. (This fact is also important in understanding the claims that districts are funding "phantom students" and should give up this locally collected money to charter schools with no publicly elected governing bodies.) Federal funds largely pay for lunches at all schools and for lots of extra help in Title I schools.
Therefore, representing a $5,500 voucher as a savings to schools is fundamentally dishonest. The schools and districts basically save nothing, and the state fund saves one WPU of less than $3,000 dollars. Via the tax-credit-converted-to-scholarship-in-order-to-claim-it's-not-a-voucher, the private school actually receives substantially more public money than a public school for enrolling the same student.
1B. Many articles comparing states will lump all of that income tax money together, above the line and below the line, the property tax whether voted on and collected by the state or district, and then divide that total by the number of students in the state. That gives a number of just under $5400 the state spends per student. That raw number is semi-useful for blunt comparisons with other states when comparing funding effort, but it doesn't represent a marginal cost for educating each individual student as I've shown. And it gets worse. Senator Stephenson and his lobbying organization, the Utah Taxpayer's Association, take that larger total and add the small amount of state income tax spent as capital funds to build new facilities, the huge construction bonds voted on by constituents of local districts specifically for building new schools (such as the $200 million dollar bond approved by Alpine District voters recently), and even sometimes count the federal funds specifically earmarked to meals and specific Title I schools, and count that as total funding as well because "it's all taxes." Dividing that larger total by the number of students gives them a per student funding number of $7,000 or $8,000 per student. They then claim this shows that a $5,500 voucher actually saves the state money.
Think about what they're doing. The argument boils down to claiming that if a student in St. George leave public school and takes a $5,500 voucher to attend private school, money is incrementally saved on WPU's statewide, construction of elementary schools in Eagle Mountain, and school lunches in Logan. It willfully misrepresents that number as actual savings to schools. In this case, the state saves one $2,816 WPU from the general education fund that they don't send to Washington School District for that student, while giving out a tax credit of $5,500 from that same fund. Stephenson will use this false representation of total taxes spent on schools today in committee. Listen and understand. Post questions here if you have any, and I will do my best to answer them within a day or two.
I think most members of the public have not researched the annoying intricacies of public education funding and are largely at the mercy of the claims of others about the impacts of vouchers and other funding proposals. So save that 99-page document and study up. I don't understand much of it still and probably flubbed a detail in my explanation, but my main point about the allocation of education funds is verifiably true.
I know Senator Stephenson and other members of the legislature understand very well the reality of how these funds are collected and distributed. I feel they purposely frame their arguments with misleading statistics in order to advance their ideological goals rather than help the public make informed decisions or represent their constituents. These misrepresentations of school districts wasting thousands of dollars per student are a large part of the lack of trust most educators feel toward the legislature as they struggle with 30+ students in their classrooms.
2. The program would allow up to $5,000,000 to be taken each year out of the general education fund via credits for donations to private school scholarship organizations.
3. Senator Stephenson admitted at the Utah Taxpayer's Association's pre-legislative conference (my notes: they're tough to read sometimes. Scroll down to Stephenson's comments about 2/3 of the way down) that most private schools will not accept a student who scores below grade level or is not proficient in English. He claims that the Catholic schools are eager to take these students. I would love to hear someone from that system confirm that sentiment. He also doesn't say how much capacity remains in those schools statewide. I think I'm right in saying there is a waiting list to enroll in both Judge Memorial and Juan Diego high schools. I am not familiar with the amount of Catholic elementary and middle schools in the state. Would a generous estimate be that 200-300 additional voucher students could enroll?
Stephenson says these vouchers would create a market for private schools focused on low-achieving students, so new quality schools would quickly spring up to better serve those students. (At $5500 a pop with no mandated programs, he's right that some schools would take that money.)
4. There will be a very large number of students who qualify for the voucher-- NOT just 2 or 3 difficult students from a class. Off the top of my head, I would estimate at least 100-200 students of the 1200 at my school received at least one state test score below proficient last year. (Schools with more affluent demographics will have fewer students, some Title I schools would have over 50% with at least one score below proficient.) Each of those students who take a voucher represent up to a $2,684 loss to education funding ($5,500 - $2,816 = $2,684.)
5. The school grading bill is brand new and based on those same test scores. Many Title I schools will get F's based on those standards. No fancy program will "solve" the difficulties of educating all struggling students. Senator Stephenson is on the record as wanting to "dismantle" and privatize those schools that the school grading program sets up for F's. This voucher bill would make 100% of the students at those schools eligible for vouchers, thus thousands of potential $2,684 losses. Stephenson is pursuing his stated goal through indirect means.
There's more to say, but it will have to wait.
.
SB 151, Student Opportunity Scholarships, by Howard Stephenson, will be debated in the Senate Education Committee today, Tuesday, Feb. 4,at 4:00 pm. Click on the legislature's website, scroll down to the Upcoming Events section, and you should be able to click on the Live Now option at 4:00 to listen live to the committee hearing. (The committees often start a few minutes late--keep refreshing the page if it's not up right at 4:00. If you can't find it, post a cry for help on Twitter with the hashtag #uted, and the State School Board's account, @UTPublicEd will usually reply with a direct link. I expect both the live committee room and the online following will be packed, so I have some worries about something going wrong with the feed, but the front page links have been working for me after a bad first week of the new website.)
This is a new voucher bill "limited" to only some students. A lot of well-off families can get a $5500 school voucher if their kid scored below proficient on even one of four state tests, if their school has gotten an F grade for two years under Utah's new law (I had some info wrong about this provision in some tweets Saturday), or if a young student is behind in reading at all.
Some quick (for me) and important points to think about:
1. All voucher proposals are framed disingenuously by misrepresenting school funding. OK, this point ended up not quick. But it's the most important. I'll be posting further on this. I think many people could benefit from this hopefully easy-to-understand explanation of school funding. Consider forwarding this to others and asking questions about this to your legislators or in committee meetings.
Here is a very long and chewy document detailing the education funding for the state of Utah for last school year and the current school year. I'll refer to some specific pages shortly. The state spends most of our state income tax on K-12 public education. (A very significant portion of income tax funds is also spent on our higher ed. system) The legislature designates a "WPU" or Weighted Pupil Unit amount each year. The districts receive that amount of funding from state income taxes per student, with extra WPU's for special ed. students, administration, extra transportation money for small, rural schools, and some other programs. This is NOT some specific amount of money it takes to educate one child or a "marginal cost" per student coming and going from the school. It is a blunt, fair way to evenly distribute money to the state's districts on a per student basis. These distributed WPU's to each district are called "Above the line" funding and are summarized on page 8 of the document.
On pages 9 and 10 of the document, it summarizes further state income tax funds sent out as "below the line" funding for a variety of purposes such as transportation, ELL students, gifted students, students in custody, library books and equipment, school nurses, dual immersion language programs, classroom supplies, and the Beverly Taylor Sorenson Arts Program. Notice these are not sent out on a per student basis. They are lump sums. That nurse, art instructor, or amount of money for classroom supplies has to stretch to cover however many students show up. (Different programs are divided differently, some to pilot schools, some proportionally. And the legislature changes the total amount of "below the line" funding every year as they debate specific programs.)
Therefore, neither type of funding, "above the line" or "below the line," represents a marginal savings for an individual school. If a student switches to a private school, the state will still send the same amount of "below the line" funding that year to the districts. The state will keep one WPU (designated as $2816 this year) in the general education fund for that student. So the total savings for a student moving out or switching to a private school = Near $0 for a local school or district. One WPU of $2816 for the state education fund from income tax. If that student is a special education student, some complicated formula will save the state some more of that money. The local school wouldn't cut concrete costs much, but would save in faculty and staff time with the various meetings and paperwork. The vast majority of students who were Below Proficient on one test or attend what will be labeled as "F" schools are not special ed. and will only save one WPU.
This is because almost every cost at a school or district is a fixed cost. If one student enrolls or moves out of a school, the only cost difference for that school is some paper. The teachers, computers, library books, copy machines, training sessions, utilities, buses, bond payments, etc. do not change. When a school loses 30-40 students, depending on the district and whether it's an elementary or secondary school, they lose a teacher. 30 * $2,816 = $84,480. 40 * $2816 = $112,640. That more than covers the cost to pay that teacher and there is no net gain to the district from these changes.
Your child's district and school get funded from various other sources as well. Local district funds via property taxes are voted on and approved by the residents of that district in LUMP SUM amounts for school programs, including maintenance and upkeep. No local district funds are collected or spent on a per student basis.The funds serve hundreds of students simultaneously in large fixed costs. Your student does not receive a pro-rated portion of the janitor's time. See Heading II Local Revenue on pg. 11 of the funding document. The state also collects some property tax and distributes it in lump sums in that orange box about leeways. (This fact is also important in understanding the claims that districts are funding "phantom students" and should give up this locally collected money to charter schools with no publicly elected governing bodies.) Federal funds largely pay for lunches at all schools and for lots of extra help in Title I schools.
Therefore, representing a $5,500 voucher as a savings to schools is fundamentally dishonest. The schools and districts basically save nothing, and the state fund saves one WPU of less than $3,000 dollars. Via the tax-credit-converted-to-scholarship-in-order-to-claim-it's-not-a-voucher, the private school actually receives substantially more public money than a public school for enrolling the same student.
1B. Many articles comparing states will lump all of that income tax money together, above the line and below the line, the property tax whether voted on and collected by the state or district, and then divide that total by the number of students in the state. That gives a number of just under $5400 the state spends per student. That raw number is semi-useful for blunt comparisons with other states when comparing funding effort, but it doesn't represent a marginal cost for educating each individual student as I've shown. And it gets worse. Senator Stephenson and his lobbying organization, the Utah Taxpayer's Association, take that larger total and add the small amount of state income tax spent as capital funds to build new facilities, the huge construction bonds voted on by constituents of local districts specifically for building new schools (such as the $200 million dollar bond approved by Alpine District voters recently), and even sometimes count the federal funds specifically earmarked to meals and specific Title I schools, and count that as total funding as well because "it's all taxes." Dividing that larger total by the number of students gives them a per student funding number of $7,000 or $8,000 per student. They then claim this shows that a $5,500 voucher actually saves the state money.
Think about what they're doing. The argument boils down to claiming that if a student in St. George leave public school and takes a $5,500 voucher to attend private school, money is incrementally saved on WPU's statewide, construction of elementary schools in Eagle Mountain, and school lunches in Logan. It willfully misrepresents that number as actual savings to schools. In this case, the state saves one $2,816 WPU from the general education fund that they don't send to Washington School District for that student, while giving out a tax credit of $5,500 from that same fund. Stephenson will use this false representation of total taxes spent on schools today in committee. Listen and understand. Post questions here if you have any, and I will do my best to answer them within a day or two.
I think most members of the public have not researched the annoying intricacies of public education funding and are largely at the mercy of the claims of others about the impacts of vouchers and other funding proposals. So save that 99-page document and study up. I don't understand much of it still and probably flubbed a detail in my explanation, but my main point about the allocation of education funds is verifiably true.
I know Senator Stephenson and other members of the legislature understand very well the reality of how these funds are collected and distributed. I feel they purposely frame their arguments with misleading statistics in order to advance their ideological goals rather than help the public make informed decisions or represent their constituents. These misrepresentations of school districts wasting thousands of dollars per student are a large part of the lack of trust most educators feel toward the legislature as they struggle with 30+ students in their classrooms.
2. The program would allow up to $5,000,000 to be taken each year out of the general education fund via credits for donations to private school scholarship organizations.
3. Senator Stephenson admitted at the Utah Taxpayer's Association's pre-legislative conference (my notes: they're tough to read sometimes. Scroll down to Stephenson's comments about 2/3 of the way down) that most private schools will not accept a student who scores below grade level or is not proficient in English. He claims that the Catholic schools are eager to take these students. I would love to hear someone from that system confirm that sentiment. He also doesn't say how much capacity remains in those schools statewide. I think I'm right in saying there is a waiting list to enroll in both Judge Memorial and Juan Diego high schools. I am not familiar with the amount of Catholic elementary and middle schools in the state. Would a generous estimate be that 200-300 additional voucher students could enroll?
Stephenson says these vouchers would create a market for private schools focused on low-achieving students, so new quality schools would quickly spring up to better serve those students. (At $5500 a pop with no mandated programs, he's right that some schools would take that money.)
4. There will be a very large number of students who qualify for the voucher-- NOT just 2 or 3 difficult students from a class. Off the top of my head, I would estimate at least 100-200 students of the 1200 at my school received at least one state test score below proficient last year. (Schools with more affluent demographics will have fewer students, some Title I schools would have over 50% with at least one score below proficient.) Each of those students who take a voucher represent up to a $2,684 loss to education funding ($5,500 - $2,816 = $2,684.)
5. The school grading bill is brand new and based on those same test scores. Many Title I schools will get F's based on those standards. No fancy program will "solve" the difficulties of educating all struggling students. Senator Stephenson is on the record as wanting to "dismantle" and privatize those schools that the school grading program sets up for F's. This voucher bill would make 100% of the students at those schools eligible for vouchers, thus thousands of potential $2,684 losses. Stephenson is pursuing his stated goal through indirect means.
There's more to say, but it will have to wait.
.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
"Boxcar bills" waiting until the last two weeks to start big education budget battles
I've been torn lately -- so much going on at the legislature and so little time to write about it. The small government loving Utah legislature has proposed 109 bills related to education for the 2011 legislative session. That is not counting the 19 abandoned bills at the bottom of the page or other education related bills not labeled as such like Rep. Draxler's bill HB 25 using "excess" oil and gas taxes to create "petroleum literacy" materials for elementary schools.
There are also numerous "boxcar" bills (meaning they have a name and a number, but the sponsor has not chosen to allow anyone to read the text of the bill yet with only 2 1/2 weeks remaining of the session ) sitting like timebombs, waiting to be sprung onto the floor "under suspension of the rules," which means they can be rapidly debated on the floor with no committee hearing to allow public comment and which also prevents the public and legislators alike from having time to read and understand the bill before it gets voted on. Some of these bills I've been watching finally received text on Monday, Feb. 21, Presidents Day.
There are multiple final education budget battles looming as likely candidates for last minute shenanigans, including again stealing locally voted funds for charter schools, de facto vouchers as "backpack" funding, funding for reading programs for K-2, actually funding growth instead of just moving funds around and claiming to fund new students, or completely removing the ability for local districts to raise taxes while increasing the sales tax on food, which is of course controlled and distributed by the state legislature. Watch Howard Stephenson who has a history of anti-education last-minute tactics and also has a bill tucked away intended to make school board elections partisan. Rep. Merlynn Newbold is his frequent partner in crime, initiating Stephenson's ideas as bills in the House -- like HB 313, an empty boxcar bill replacing the Charter School Finance Amendments bill Stephenson abandoned -- so it isn't as obvious how much Senator Stephenson is single-handedly manipulating education policy in Utah.
Here are some doozies to watch out for. These are all boxcar bills as of Feb. 21 if they are listed, unless I explain when the bill was made public next to the item on the list. You can sign up at the bottom of each link to receive email updates if and when these bills become active. Notice how many have vague titles about "amendments" and "modifications" which lets the legislator stick in anything they want at the last minute.
I am 99% sure I have missed some boxcars or recently posted bills, but here are at least 36 education-related bills which have either not been posted for public viewing or only received their text in the last week. These last two weeks could get even uglier for education in what is already the worst session in recent memory...
There are also numerous "boxcar" bills (meaning they have a name and a number, but the sponsor has not chosen to allow anyone to read the text of the bill yet with only 2 1/2 weeks remaining of the session ) sitting like timebombs, waiting to be sprung onto the floor "under suspension of the rules," which means they can be rapidly debated on the floor with no committee hearing to allow public comment and which also prevents the public and legislators alike from having time to read and understand the bill before it gets voted on. Some of these bills I've been watching finally received text on Monday, Feb. 21, Presidents Day.
There are multiple final education budget battles looming as likely candidates for last minute shenanigans, including again stealing locally voted funds for charter schools, de facto vouchers as "backpack" funding, funding for reading programs for K-2, actually funding growth instead of just moving funds around and claiming to fund new students, or completely removing the ability for local districts to raise taxes while increasing the sales tax on food, which is of course controlled and distributed by the state legislature. Watch Howard Stephenson who has a history of anti-education last-minute tactics and also has a bill tucked away intended to make school board elections partisan. Rep. Merlynn Newbold is his frequent partner in crime, initiating Stephenson's ideas as bills in the House -- like HB 313, an empty boxcar bill replacing the Charter School Finance Amendments bill Stephenson abandoned -- so it isn't as obvious how much Senator Stephenson is single-handedly manipulating education policy in Utah.
Here are some doozies to watch out for. These are all boxcar bills as of Feb. 21 if they are listed, unless I explain when the bill was made public next to the item on the list. You can sign up at the bottom of each link to receive email updates if and when these bills become active. Notice how many have vague titles about "amendments" and "modifications" which lets the legislator stick in anything they want at the last minute.
H.B. 65 Public School Funding -- Harper, W. Received text last week. Financial mumbo-jumbo that would usurp some local taxing control.
H.B. 123 K-12 Education Amendments -- Sumsion, K. Received text yesterday. This bill would totally change the whole basis of how the state distributes education funding, likely giving more to charter schools. It would also shorten terms for school board members. No big deal to hold it until the end.
H.B. 145 Education Amendments -- Eliason, S.
H.B. 151 Compulsory Education Amendments -- Briscoe, J. Received text last week. Would make kindergarten non-optional.
H.B. 290 Public School Transportation Amendments -- Wimmer, C.
H.B. 301 School District Property Tax Revisions -- Newbold, M. Received text last week. Another example of the legislature taking away local tax control and giving the power to themselves.
H.B. 302 Reading Program Amendments -- Newbold, M.
H.B. 307 Public Broadcasting Funding -- Herrod, C. Though Chris Vanocur has already revealed the liberal plot on this one.
H.B. 313 Charter School Funding Amendments -- Newbold, M.
H.B. 339 Charter School Enrollment Amendments -- Hutchings, E.
H.B. 346 Provisional Teaching Modifications -- Herrod, C.
H.B. 377 Higher Education Textbook Fairness Act -- Cox, F. Aimed at specific companies or increasing conservative leaning texts?
H.B. 388 Financial Oversight of Charter Schools -- Herrod, C.
H.B. 426 Education Funding Amendments -- Pitcher, D.
H.B. 427 Education Modifications -- Newbold, M.
H.B. 443 School Business Administrator Amendments -- Richardson, H.
H.B. 447 Modifications to Education -- Dee, B.
H.B. 455 Land Exchange Distribution Account Amendments -- Noel, M. Presumably related to this dust-up over HB 98 where Noel wants to further remove local control from counties. (Click on the Floor Debate audio file to hear his rant) Related to HB 400 yet another boxcar which Rolly references?
H.B. 464 State-Supported Voted Leeway Program Amendments -- Briscoe, J.
S.B. 4 Current School Year Supplemental Minimum School Program Budget Adjustments -- Buttars, D. C.
S.B. 78 Public School Early Graduation Counseling -- Buttars, D. C. Received text yesterday. Actually seems like an easy, good idea rather than eliminating 12th grade.
S.B. 163 School Restructuring -- Stephenson, H. Stephenson bragged on his radio show that this bill is intended to close down a set number of schools each year. No need to consult the teachers on this one, let alone the parents. Great candidate for a rushed debate.
S.B. 210 Utah Postsecondary Proprietary School Act Amendments -- Bramble, C. Received text yesterday. One of two or three bills Bramble is running about the regulation and taxation of private schools and training programs. I have no idea what these bills will do, but I smell a tax break for "economic development."
S.B. 217 Education Policy Amendments -- Bramble, C.
S.B. 224 Partisan School Board Elections -- Stephenson, H. Of course a "school board elections" bill run by the chair of the Senate Education Committee was not labeled education. Easy to miss this one.
S.B. 227 Student Based Funding for Public Education -- Liljenquist, D. "Backpack" funding. The PCE and charter lobbyists will hit hard for these pseudo-vouchers when this bill is unveiled in the near future.
S.B. 241 Tuition Waiver Amendments -- Hinkins, D.
S.B. 245 Higher Education Tuition Revisions -- Valentine, J.
S.B. 256 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Process -- Adams, J. S.
S.B. 263 State Board of Education Powers Amendments -- Buttars, D. C.
S.B. 265 State Charter School Board Modifications -- Madsen, M. Unnecessary due to SB 140?
S.B. 278 School District Modifications -- Bramble, C.
S.B. 292 Private Institutions of Higher Education -- Valentine, J.
S.B. 304 Bullying Amendments -- Okerlund, R.
S.B. 305 Economic Development Through Education / Career Alignment -- Stephenson, H. Stephenson's 2.5 to 8 million dollar career web app and chat room that will convince undergrads not to be dance majors. And of course, IBM developed this one-of-a-kind software prototype at his request (meaning no private company has seen promise in making a for-profit chat room developed around career information easily searchable for free already), but Senator Stephenson "doesn't know" if they would win a bid for this service. We have seen this before.
S.B. 316 Disclosure of State and Institutional Trust Lands Information -- Niederhauser, W.
I am 99% sure I have missed some boxcars or recently posted bills, but here are at least 36 education-related bills which have either not been posted for public viewing or only received their text in the last week. These last two weeks could get even uglier for education in what is already the worst session in recent memory...
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Legalese: Serious question--What do HB 83 and SB 140 do? Put lobbyists into charter school code?
I think I follow the session, especially education related issues, as close as anyone not on Capitol Hill, but there are just so many laws and so many meetings that it is impossible to keep up. Plus, "education issues" encompasses a huge range of topics and I don't think anyone can understand the background and impact of every bill in every area.
This leads to my questions about two charter school bills from the Red Meat Regulators, Rep. Greg Hughes and Sen. Howard Stephenson. I just don't know enough about the technical twists of charter school funding and governance to understand the potential impacts of the bills. They will both be discussed in committee tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2011, and finding time to go back and listen to the audio after missing the live hearings will be tough for me this week. The written minutes of both the Senate and House Education Committees don't help either, listing the bare bones of who spoke for or against proposals. (As opposed to the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee--composed of both senators and House representatives who hash out the budget--which posts long, detailed minutes of debate.)
So, anyone interested, please listen and post here about the bills. I would love detailed summaries of debate, but I'll take even a quick snapshot. What is the rationale behind the bills? What are the claimed benefits? Who spoke in support and opposition of the bills?
1. SB 140 State Charter School Board Amendments -- Howard Stephenson
Senate Education Committee meeting, 9:00 AM, Feb 2, 2011
(The committees often start 5-20 minutes late. If you refresh the Meeting Schedule page I linked to, a Live Audio icon will appear next to the date when the meeting begins. You will need Real Player.)
There is already a seven member State Charter School Board that the governor appoints after receiving nominations from charter schools and the State Board of Education. I would not be able to explain very well what they do. This bill summary states that the bill:
What is the purpose of the bill? Looking at the bill text, I'm guessing it was fuzzy exactly who decided the nominations in behalf of "charter schools." The bill mandates now that the nominations will made by "organizations" that represent and manage charter schools. That seems like power is being given to the few charter school lobbyists and management companies who are almost 100% connected with conservative legislators and the Parents for Choice in Education voucher crowd. This City Weekly article treats the Utah Association of Charter Schools Board as the "State Charter Board." Is that accurate? If not, the association is another of the advocacy groups given power to pick the members of the state board. The article delved into the massive conflicts of interest on the association board, with legislators (Craig Frank) and board members profiting from contracts. 4 of the 7 members are are either directors or trustees of PCE, and most also run for-profit charter school contract management companies. The new board forced out the executive director of the association right after the previous article was written because he was providing too much "training and support" of charter schools, which of course conflicted with the business interests of the management company owners.
I have also written a couple of times about how Howard Stephenson purposely changed charter school law last year to allow conflicts of interest, and how at least one lobbyist/charter school board chair with ties to Howard Stephenson is now paying his sister's company $986 per student.
So I'm very suspicious that this purpose of the bill is literally to give board selection authority to lobbyists and relatives like Lincoln Fillmore, Jed Stevenson, and Carolyn Sharette. (Those are basically the only active charter management organizations in the state.) I would love to hear if I am wrong or right on this one.
2. HB 83 Charter School Revolving Account -- Greg Hughes
House Education Committee meeting, 2:00 PM, Feb. 2, 2011.
I just have no idea on this one. The summary reads:
Who knows the difference made by designating the Charter School Revolving Account as its own account instead of a subaccount of the School Building Revolving Account? Not me.
The bill's fiscal note reveals no costs. So what is the point? Is it just technical? Or does it change what the account can be used for? Other effects?
Please comment if you can. Thank you.
.
This leads to my questions about two charter school bills from the Red Meat Regulators, Rep. Greg Hughes and Sen. Howard Stephenson. I just don't know enough about the technical twists of charter school funding and governance to understand the potential impacts of the bills. They will both be discussed in committee tomorrow, Feb. 2, 2011, and finding time to go back and listen to the audio after missing the live hearings will be tough for me this week. The written minutes of both the Senate and House Education Committees don't help either, listing the bare bones of who spoke for or against proposals. (As opposed to the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee--composed of both senators and House representatives who hash out the budget--which posts long, detailed minutes of debate.)
So, anyone interested, please listen and post here about the bills. I would love detailed summaries of debate, but I'll take even a quick snapshot. What is the rationale behind the bills? What are the claimed benefits? Who spoke in support and opposition of the bills?
1. SB 140 State Charter School Board Amendments -- Howard Stephenson
Senate Education Committee meeting, 9:00 AM, Feb 2, 2011
(The committees often start 5-20 minutes late. If you refresh the Meeting Schedule page I linked to, a Live Audio icon will appear next to the date when the meeting begins. You will need Real Player.)
There is already a seven member State Charter School Board that the governor appoints after receiving nominations from charter schools and the State Board of Education. I would not be able to explain very well what they do. This bill summary states that the bill:
"provides that of the seven members appointed by the governor to the State Charter School Board, three members shall: be nominated by an organization that represents Utah's charter schools; and have expertise or experience in developing or administering a charter school;
allows the governor to seek nominations from more than one organization that represents Utah's charter schools;
allows the governor to remove a member of the State Charter School Board at any time for official misconduct, habitual or willful neglect of duty, or for other good and sufficient cause;
What is the purpose of the bill? Looking at the bill text, I'm guessing it was fuzzy exactly who decided the nominations in behalf of "charter schools." The bill mandates now that the nominations will made by "organizations" that represent and manage charter schools. That seems like power is being given to the few charter school lobbyists and management companies who are almost 100% connected with conservative legislators and the Parents for Choice in Education voucher crowd. This City Weekly article treats the Utah Association of Charter Schools Board as the "State Charter Board." Is that accurate? If not, the association is another of the advocacy groups given power to pick the members of the state board. The article delved into the massive conflicts of interest on the association board, with legislators (Craig Frank) and board members profiting from contracts. 4 of the 7 members are are either directors or trustees of PCE, and most also run for-profit charter school contract management companies. The new board forced out the executive director of the association right after the previous article was written because he was providing too much "training and support" of charter schools, which of course conflicted with the business interests of the management company owners.
I have also written a couple of times about how Howard Stephenson purposely changed charter school law last year to allow conflicts of interest, and how at least one lobbyist/charter school board chair with ties to Howard Stephenson is now paying his sister's company $986 per student.
So I'm very suspicious that this purpose of the bill is literally to give board selection authority to lobbyists and relatives like Lincoln Fillmore, Jed Stevenson, and Carolyn Sharette. (Those are basically the only active charter management organizations in the state.) I would love to hear if I am wrong or right on this one.
2. HB 83 Charter School Revolving Account -- Greg Hughes
House Education Committee meeting, 2:00 PM, Feb. 2, 2011.
I just have no idea on this one. The summary reads:
eliminates the Charter School Building Revolving Subaccount within the School Building Revolving Account and creates the Charter School Revolving Account within the Uniform School Fund;
specifies the permitted uses of funds in the Charter School Revolving Account and procedures for making loans from the account;
and makes technical amendments.
Who knows the difference made by designating the Charter School Revolving Account as its own account instead of a subaccount of the School Building Revolving Account? Not me.
The bill's fiscal note reveals no costs. So what is the point? Is it just technical? Or does it change what the account can be used for? Other effects?
Please comment if you can. Thank you.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
