Urquhart's SB 279: Help me identify what company stands to benefit from $5,000,000 more taken from general education funds

My last three posts all deal with custom-made RFP's (Referrals to Friends of stePhenson) where legislators write the requirements of a public bid process so that only one company may win.  They even let the companies themselves help write the bill, especially if that company has made campaign donations.  If we're mad about Swallow, why aren't we furious about this??

Here's a new bill I just saw over the weekend via a legislator's update. The legislator spoke of SB 279 as if it were a done deal and going to pass.  This despite the fact the bill was kept secret until last week (the way we can't follow "boxcar bills" and just have to constantly check to see if they become active is a blow to transparency and maybe something I'll have to go into in a post-session complaint.) and rushed through a non-education Senate Committee with Stephenson on it.  It allocates $5,000,000 to an interactive math program with very specific requirements. 

There are 3 big problems I see:

1.  This seems written for a specific company AGAIN.  Why is Urquhart joining the likes of Stephenson, Stevenson, and Adams in this unethical practice?  Can anyone help me figure out what company this is intended for?  Does Imagine Learning have a new math program being unveiled?

2.  We are going to guarantee $5,000,000 to a company, but schools cannot "require" students to use this program, only provide it?

3a.  We are then going to measure "learning gains" from a weird subset of students using it in totally different ways and amounts and report that as accountability?  It is flat-out impossible to get good data from that.  I think Sen. Urquhart would know that.  Did the vendor write this bill too?

3b.This (non-)accountability report will likely be written by the vendor themselves if recent trends continue.  This seems to me like doubling down on a destructive practice. First, we give vendors custom written bills because they have curried the favor of only one or two legislators.   The vendor then self-reports learning gains, and the legislature uses that report to justify more money.  It worked for Imagine Learning.  I've been to various vendor sales pitches, and every one proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their product would drastically raise student achievement.  I've never heard any claims of "mediocre learning gains" or "so-so achievement."  These practices are unethical even if the program ends up being great for the students.  That's very fortunate for the students, and may even be true of Imagine Learning, but it does not justify cronyism, political favors, pay-to-play, or not reporting useful data.

Here'e the language cut and pasted from the bill.


http://le.utah.gov/~2013/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0279.htm

Custom RFP.  What company already knows this is coming?

 (3) In selecting a program, the board shall consider the following criteria:
             44          (a) the program contains a strong instructional component focused on problem solving,
             45      number sense, and basic skills;
             46          (b) the program provides explicit instruction with a strong focus on highly effective
             47      and evidence-based strategies and comprehensive resources to address learners in need of both
             48      strategic and intensive supports, including English language learners;
             49          (c) the program is self-adapting to respond to the needs and progress of the learner,
             50      including allowing for increasingly intense instruction and additional practice opportunities
             51      based on individual student needs;
             52          (d) the program provides opportunities for frequent, quick, and informal assessments
             53      and includes an embedded progress monitoring tool and mechanisms for regular feedback to
             54      students and teachers; and
             55          (e) the program is self-paced.

 Can't require??

 (4) The board shall make the program available to school districts and charter schools
             57      that apply for the program based on the number of students in kindergarten through grade 6.
             58          (5) A school district or charter school may:

---

             59          (a) provide the program to a student by scheduling additional instructional hours or
             60      other means; and
             61          (b) may not require a student to participate in the program.

But will report learning gains??  How?  Compared to what? 

62          (6) On or before November 1, 2013, and on or before November 1 each year thereafter,
             63      the board shall report final testing data regarding a program provided under this section,
             64      including student learning gains as a result of the program, to:
             65          (a) the Education Interim Committee; and
             66          (b) the governor.

From the horses' mouths: SB 110 moves toward vouchers; SB 133, SB 82, and SB 257 are designed to gather all Utah students' data in one place and allow national vendors free access

SB 110 School-Based Budgeting

During the Senate Education Committee hearing, Stephenson says, "I believe we could empower school communities to actually take charge of their budgets."

Lisa Snell of the libertarian think tank, the Reason Foundation, says "This is not a new program. It’s not a crazy idea,"

Later, Stephenson says, "I’m fighting disinformation – they’re saying this is some kind of voucher bill, and it’s got nothing to do with vouchers.”

Then Lisa Snell, co-author of Reason Foundation's Annual Privatization Report,  says on March 5th "student-based budgeting or backpack funding is both all about vouchers AND part of a movement toward a totally new public education system.

"The growth of student-based budgeting in school districts and a few states mirrors a national trend toward more decentralized school funding where the money follows the child. In the United States, we are in a transition period, moving from funding institutions to funding students. K-12 education funding is moving closer to the funding model for higher education, where the money follows students to the public, private or nonprofit school of their choice."  (Underline and bold text mine)

SB 82 Student Achievement Backpack and SB 257 Personalized Educator Evaluation Technology with SB 133 School Performance Report Amendments as an enabler making sure all of the data, every student's test score in every classroom of more than 10 students, is legally accessible.

In the Senate Education Committee, Jerry Stevenson says about SB 82 ""It adds transparency to what our education system is doing,"

Judi Park of the State Office of Education says, ""It's going to be much more costly than what the fiscal note would suggest."

Howard Stephenson says, ""I just support this bill 100 percent, and I think what we're hearing in opposition to it are excuses for not wanting parents to receive this information," he said. "Parents have a right to all the information in the most easily accessible way."  So it's all about the parents and their rights.

I say, "Every parent in every district in the state can log into a website and see their student's grades, test scores, records, etc.  This unnecessary bill,SB 82, is a transparent ploy for some other goal."

Just before the South by Southwest (SXWE) educational technology conference this week, educational technology salesman and advocate, and friend and presenter at Parents For Choice in Education conferences, Tom Vander Ark, says,

The Ed-Fi solution extracts student information from a variety of educational data systems, and then standardizes, integrates and communicates it to educators and other parties through Web-based dashboards, reports and other applications.  Ten states license the Ed-Fi solution directly and four additional states benefit from partnerships with inBloom, which uses Ed-Fi XML interchanges to support states’ and districts’ adoption of personalized learning tools....

Digital Learning Now! created a 10 element state policy framework that embraces the potential of digital learning–all 10 elements rely on a great longitudinal data system.  DLN is releasing a Smart Series paper every month on critical digital learning topics.  The second paper Data Backpacks: Portable Records & Learner Profiles detailed next steps for states. 

 States should:
Adopt the Ed-Fi standards and join the Ed-Fi Alliance.

District and school leaders should:
 Encourage your state to adopt the Ed-Fi solution to ease transfer of gradebook data and use of common dashboards and reporting tools.
Work with a vendor on a super gradebook and expanded learner profile.

 (underlining mine)
So Ed-Fi = inBloom = massive database of student data for vendors.
SB 82 = "super gradebook" necessary to "ease transfer of gradebook data" to Ed-Fi/inBloom

During SXSW, Tom Vander Ark says,

Data is Beautiful.  inBloom is everywhere at SXSW with briefings, receptions, and parties. Along with the subtler Ed-Fi Alliance launch, data plumbing, policies and tools are all the rage in Austin.

 Marketing as education policy...

The paper mentioned above, Data Backpacks: Portable Records & Learner Profiles, outlines the goals and connected programs of this "Big Data" (their words) push.

To paraphrase the paper: It's hard to see your student's records with fees and forms.  [Is this true anywhere in the US in 2013?] Data is in a "patchwork" of systems. [That's an obvious buzzword of the paper. Turn it around and say "States and districts have insisted on autonomy when choosing data and grading programs.]

To quote from pgs 5-6:

"This expanded Learner Profile

must represent a holistic view of the

student’s unique learning preferences,

such as his or her best learning modality

(such as, “does the student learn best

through visual representations in some

cases and with hands-on learning in

others?”) and learning environment

(such as, “does the student perform

better in small-group or whole-class

settings?”)

Next-generation digital

tools, services, platforms, and systems

now give us the opportunity to collect

and classify information down to the

individual keystrokes of comparable

students in parallel situations.
(Underline mine)

Pg. 2 and 12: Make a new official transcript called the student backpack, specifically to enable the data (the uncomfortably specific data detailed above) to be shared with the inBloom database and mined by vendors.

Pg. 11 sidebar: BloomBoard is the designated "personal teacher professional development plan" program  SB 257 designed to be compatible with the new super gradebook SB 82.

The dots have been connected.  I half apologize to Common core conspiracy theorists.  You got part of the scheme right; you just missed who was perpetrating it.  Bill Gates and a bunch of unethical education technology profiteers want to eliminate student privacy and destroy neighborhood schools in order to enable a voucher system that funnels money to the best advertisers. 

Howard Stephenson, Stuart Adams, and Parents for Choice in Education shill for legislation in behalf of these national organizations who do not care what the majority of Utah parents want for our children.  Their words talk about "students, not systems," but their actions show that their motive is just to force students into a different system meant to exploit them for the profits of connected individuals and companies.

Connect the dots: Stephenson & Adams want to give away public ed. money to connected companies…and enable a national database of Utah students to be mined for profit??

                                      (UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST 3-9-13)
I’ve got a lot to say about custom RFP’s (Referrals to Friends of stePhenson) this session and in the past (Imagine Learning, iSchool, Waterford, etc.), but I’ll have to limit my focus tonight. Senator Stuart Adams had become PCE’s admitted newest waterboy over the last couple of sessions, and I’m fairly certain they coordinate and spread around which of their legislator friends will carry certain bills.

1. Senator Howard Stephenson wants to make sure all legal obstacles to accessing and publishing teacher data—student scores grouped by teacher—are removed with his SB 133. He claims the public will benefit from teachers being ranked and compared by standardized test scores. All questions of population and demographics, and the inevitable screwing over of special ed., ELL, and other poor students, are waved off: “There will be plenty of context.” (The simple fiscal note also took a month to be returned, resulting in this bill being slightly hurried in the second half of the session.)

As a separate caveat that will be important further down, remember that all of this supposed “teacher data” is more accurately a bunch of individual student test scores. The scores of actual Utah students attached to records containing names, grades, and social security numbers.

(The whole concept is wrong because of important technical and practical considerations, as well as questionably moral. Here is a one link to the posts on VAM (Value-Added Measurement) by an educational statistician at Rutgers, with a large focus on New York where this has already happened and been demonstrated inaccurate and harmful to teachers AND thus students. )

2. Senator Jerry Stevenson is now running SB 82, Student Achievement Backpack.  This bill’s original non-public drafting was requested by Howard Stephenson, and the numbered bill was listed under his name until a few days ago. Somehow the bill got switched to another senator; I suspect this was in order to diffuse the concentration of educational software bills being promoted by Stephenson. (This bill was not revealed to the public until late February and then was held in committee for two more weeks, ensuring that it will not have to go through the House Education Committee and face more testimony from the public. It will instead be rushed right to the House Floor Calendar if it passes the Senate. The public may not comment on the floor, unless they have the legislators’ personal cell numbers to text like the lobbyists do.)

I believe every school district in Utah has an online portal where parents can access their student’s records, seeing their current grades and past test performance. I could be wrong about some rural district, but I doubt it. All parents have to do is log in. In keeping with local control and budget priorities, the contracts for providing these online services are handled by the individual districts. When students switch schools, the records with grades and test scores are sent on with the student, with a slight delay while the new school requests the record from the old one.

So the bill really is pointless. Half a million dollars this year and $110K a year to duplicate what already exists, but centralized and controlled by the state. However Stephenson was vehement in his support for the concept and criticism of the educators who were explaining this to the Senate Education committee. All of the concerns about duplication and wasting scarce education fund money were only “excuses for not wanting parents to receive this information.”  It’s all about the children you selfish teachers! (Notice that the sponsor has chosen not to make the fiscal note public. Does it contain any concerns that the claimed costs are too low?) PCE’s spokesperson perpetuated the misconception that having access to your student’s records was some new innovation.

3. Stephenson certainly has a specific company, who may or may not be one of the Utah Taxpayers Association’s secret clients, in mind to design and administer this database. He has demonstrated in the past that he has no qualms about tailoring RFP’s (Requests For Proposals) in order to ensure that a favored contractor wins the government contract.

4. There’s a larger playing field of educational philosophy these bills are being positioned on. Both bills are based on and tacitly strengthen the assumption that teachers are the only variable that matters in education, and that their interests are opposed to students. There are many horrible teachers lazing around, and if we only pressure them more by centralizing this newly available data on teachers and students, we’ll quickly and innovatively find magic silver bullets to educate poor students that are cheap AND effective! (One of those assumptions is actually true, and leads to substantial profits for those involved…)

Both also lay the ground for a largely privatized system of “backpack” funding, the euphemistic term for vouchers, where students are constantly switching schools or “voting with their feet” in a competitive arena of variously priced schools. Of course, continually jumping back and forth between schools and losing most neighborhood schools, except those still educating the very poorest and most disabled students, won’t harm the students academically or socially.

4. Having all Utah students’ data in one expensive, redundant database at the state would I guess allow for slightly easier transfers in such a scenario. Charters often struggle a little bit more sending information in a timely fashion as they don’t always have the same staff and experience with the paperwork as the districts, but it still seems a bit weird to be pushing this so hard.

5. So now look at Senator Adam’s other seemingly unconnected bill which was the most out-of-the-blue bolt of technological wonder in a session full of software that will save education, SB 257, Personalized Education Evaluation Technology.  (This bill wasn’t revealed to the public until the last day of February. It too will skip public comment in the House Education Committee.)

Wow. What a concept! We’ll push the total dismantling of district economies of scale and teacher contracts with SB 110, mandating a huge increase in principals’ budgeting and HR responsibilities, but then pilot a way to have a computer program replace their evaluations of teachers. Maybe it makes a strange kind of sense. If you plan on making the principal do what a staff of accountants and HR people previously handled at the district level, he or she will not have time for the unimportant work of observing and mentoring teachers. It’s a great way to spend $70,000 this year before expanding the program next year and claiming that this isn’t taking away local control. “21st Century local control” means you get to turn the computer on yourself.

I don’t for a second believe Senator Adams (or even Senator Stephenson) came up with this chestnut alone. Who in the world is pushing this solution searching desperately for a problem?

6. While my head was spinning from the ridiculousness of this newest way to claim technology can replace teachers and principals (ridiculousness that passed the Senate Education Committee on a 5-1 vote earlier today), I saw a bunch of tweets from some national education people I follow about the Gates Foundation’s national student database. I continue to be very “meh” on the Common Core, but have largely dismissed the conspiracy theorists claiming the national takeover. It was hard for me to swallow their hypocritical denunciations of the Gates Foundation funding and backing, when they accepted their money and theories, as well as other out-of-state millions from Walmart channeled through Parents for Choice in Education, when they backed their pet proposals for merit pay or vouchers.

But this new information about what the Gates foundation is doing along with Fox New’s educational software company, Amplify, and others, is something that may unite varied groups in Utah against national student databases. It’s not the government gathering student data into one place to exploit our children; it’s educational software companies...

A few excerpts from a Reuters article from the SXSWedu technology conference going on right now in Texas:

But the most influential new product may be the least flashy: a $100 million database built to chart the academic paths of public school students from kindergarten through high school.

In operation just three months, the database already holds files on millions of children identified by name, address and sometimes social security number. Learning disabilities are documented, test scores recorded, attendance noted. In some cases, the database tracks student hobbies, career goals, attitudes toward school - even homework completion.

Local education officials retain legal control over their students' information. But federal law allows them to share files in their portion of the database with private companies selling educational products and services.

Entrepreneurs can't wait.

…

The database is a joint project of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which provided most of the funding, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and school officials from several states. Amplify Education, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, built the infrastructure over the past 18 months. When it was ready, the Gates Foundation turned the database over to a newly created nonprofit, inBloom Inc, which will run it.

…

Schools do not need parental consent to share student records with any "school official" who has a "legitimate educational interest," according to the Department of Education. The department defines "school official" to include private companies hired by the school, so long as they use the data only for the purposes spelled out in their contracts. 

The article interviews several software executives who will use this database to “personalize” programs for students as they sell them. Then it interestingly moves on to professional development for teachers.

Companies with access to the database will also be able to identify struggling teachers and pinpoint which concepts their students are failing to master. One startup that could benefit: BloomBoard, which sells schools professional development plans customized to each teacher.

The new database "is a godsend for us," said Jason Lange, the chief executive of BloomBoard. "It allows us to collect more data faster, quicker and cheaper." 

What a fortunate coincidence! Read the “open” RFP for software in SB 257 lines 55-76.  This program must contain “personalized professional development plans” with a “reporting dashboard,” a “free observation tool,” and a “free online library of professional development. ” Now go to Bloomboard’s website and see what three features are offered on the front page:

• Free observation & evaluation tools for districts

• Individualized learning plans & personalized support recommendations for teachers

• An open marketplace of workshops and resources for professional development

Next, scroll down one page to watch the handy video, remembering that lines 64-66 of the bill require the program to tell you the most effective resources according to “data on the implementation of professional development activities.” Another lucky break! This program happens to claim that exact function. (1:13-1:26 in video.)


Very convincing.  Evaluations are hard!

One page below, the sample dashboard with three tabs is even more convincing. The very non-generic evaluation and goals under the “Coach” tab are powerful, and the “Connect” tab shows an “online library of professional development” complete with articles and videos of classroom games, all apparently categorized on Levels 1 to 4. You just plug in a teacher’s test scores and a video, and this program, based on a proprietary collection of data that is 100% trustworthy, will give us personalized weblinks to other peoples’ educational training that we never could have googled ourselves. The program will pay for itself because now we can stop paying teachers to meet together for professional development. They will just go home and on their own time read a few links of “online resources” that are “more personalized” than face-to-face training. It’s brilliant!

7. And the key to making this marvelous miracle of 21st Century education work…a database with all of the students’ scores, identified by teacher and class, gathered to one central location.

This would normally seem an insurmountable obstacle in a state devoted to protecting its children.  However, in *another* fortunate coincidence, SB 133 allows the necessary data to be made available, and SB 82 unnecessarily gathers it into one central database. SB 257’s coincidental match with Bloomboard’s specifications will then not be in vain, and BOTH school choice AND school profits will be enabled. And all for the children.

Life is just full of surprises.

UPDATE:  Well, I found some smoking guns of a sort.  There is no more need to only infer what is happening from the non-coincidental program links.  I have quotes from those organizing the massive database, inBloom or Ed-Fi. The dots have been connected.  They make a cute picture of a dollar sign: $ :which is now hanging on Bill Gates' refrigerator. 

Weird Waterford software and Imagine Learning software connection. Who's getting state contracts?

1. I posted extensively a few years ago about when the failed UPSTART bill for free laptops for preschoolers, or "Welfare for Waterford" bill was dishonestly lumped into an omnibus bill of dubious constitutionality. http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-worst-bill-in-education-omnibus.html

It passed, and then Waterford Institute received a whole bunch of money after a Request For Proposals was specifically tailored to obtain their sevices. I would love some very solidly documented data on the demographics, locations, and initial Reading Scores of the students receiving these laptops. Then I would like the follow-up scores, and a comparison of the free laptop kids with the other students at their respective schools. Howard Stephenson, the omnibus sponsor, is all about accountability. Is this data available?

2. I posted once last year about how a local software company got a statewide contract (a mysterious statewide contract--I have never been able to track down where, when, and why it was granted) to provide software to help students learn English after making $12,000 in campaign donations to prominent local Republican legislators and the governor.
http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2010/08/local-educational-software-company-gets.html
Is there data available on how many schools used this software for how many students and how much they paid? What about comparable before and after scores? The program looks awesome, but do we know?

3. The Daily Herald printed a glowing profile of Imagine Learning today.
There were a few paragraphs profiling Susan Praetor, the Imagine Learning CEO, and she was a Vice President at Waterford Institute for 11 years. She specifically was the head of the team that developed the Waterford Software being used on the laptops for preschoolers. It's been years, but now she's the CEO who gets a state contract the year after Waterford and after donating $12,000 from her current company to influential politicians.

That is a really weird coincidence.

4. The Beverly Taylor Sorenson arts program was also part of that 2008 omnibus bill, but was one of the about-to-pass bills held hostage for the failed bills. The appropriated money got shaved by 1/3 during the recession, but this specifically designated program survived the hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts. The program seems great, both in terms of effective learning and in enriching school for kids when so much is being sacrificed for literacy and math test scores these days. Beverly Taylor Sorenson seems like a powerful advocate for the arts and an extremely generous philanthropist. I would love for my children to participate in her program integrating arts and other academic subjects. She was also the top political donor in the state in the 2010 election cycle.

The impressive program needs $4 million in new funding for next school year. What do you bet she gets it?

5. Initial conclusion: It doesn't appear bad programs are getting funded because of political contributions.

However, typically, education money from the state is sent to local districts to make spending decisions at the local level according to need. A lot of good programs exist to meet a lot of important needs, and not every company gets the contracts they desire.

It does appear that the key to getting your particular good program singled out for a contract and funded at the state level, before being sent on to districts, is to make significant financial contributions to local politicians and/or hire an influential lobbyist.

What do you think?

.

Virtual Vouchers -- Howard Stephenson and PCE put lipstick on the "innovative" future pig

I don't have time to go into this as much as it deserves. Howard Stephenson is convinced computers are they magic key to cheap education. Along with most bills, the text is not yet available 5 days before the start of the session. Looking at the pending bills dealing with education, I am assuming that the specific bill is the one titled "Online High School Program." He basically wants to run a free market voucher plan -- institutions "compete" for students and then receive the public funds...including private companies in year 2 of the plan. Here's the Trib article with comments from Stephenson, including:

“We ought to be willing to have our institutions, our schools, compete along with everybody else for students interest in obtaining high school credit,” Stephenson said. “Online has the capacity to individualize instruction in ways that a traditional classroom does not. We can see that many students who are currently falling between the cracks and failing in school actually thrive in an online environment.”

Diverting public funds to private institutions under the myth that they will virtuously provide better education IS vouchers. But not using the term and initially limiting it to online education avoids the public outcry. Within 3 years, Stephenson would laud the success of the voucher program nobody knew we had and uses it as "evidence" that a comprehensive voucher program should be passed as well.

There are a lot of good things about online education to fill niches and supplement instruction. There is no evidence it can replace large amounts of classroom education for children. The unique benefits of working with other students and insights gained through discussion of different viewpoints cannot be replicated online and the medium best lends itself to concrete, sequential courses such as math and science.

Claiming we can declare the online software sufficient with a couple of tests is uninformed. Ask any teacher of any subject about how much depth and breadth of their curriculum is captured by any standardized test. Declaring a student "educated" after some online assessments falls far beneath most people's conceptions of education that are not based on how much of a tax cut Howard Stephenson can achieve for his anonymous, big business clients.

Plus, we have multiple and recent examples of Senator Stephenson directing public technology funds to useless technology gimmicks and campaign donors, along with changing existing laws to literally allow conflicts of interest in public charter schools.

In that last link about charter school conflicts, I wrote on March 14, 2010:

Who thinks Senator Stephenson knows at least one person by name who just happens to be a legislator or GOP donor and will immediately profit from this bill? Maybe even someone who contributes secretly to the Utah Taxpayer's Association?

I don't know how this was not talked about more, but my suspicion was confirmed within 8 months. This Tribune article on Nov. 12, 2010 details how Howard Headlee, the powerful lobbyist president of the Utah Banker's Association and also the Board Chair for two schools under American Preparatory Academy, pays almost $1000 per student of public funds to his sister's charter management company.

Hiding vouchers under a different name and allowing conflicts of interest with public funds...once again, Howard Stephenson makes non-subtle efforts to show his disdain for public education.

The populace of Utah has already made it clear that they do not support routing public school funds to private companies. I do not trust Senator Stephenson and other legislators to best direct those funds for student benefit if the bill were to pass. Contact your legislator and ask them to vote against the virtual vouchers proposal.

.

Another technology integration issue: Howard Stephenson waxes wrathful and wastes tax payer dollars on “textbook reviews” that he doesn’t understand

Robert Gehrke broke this story almost a year ago and I’ve been meaning to comment ever since. I posted a bunch of articles on the subject separately. I highly recommend you read them all, but especially the first one listed: the Nov. 29, 2008 article by Robert Gehrke titled “Did Utah Senator’s Advocacy Go Too Far?”

The quotes listed are all from that same Gehrke article. The article triggered a 2-hour radio response from Senator Stephenson titled, "Stupid in Utah: How the Utah State Office of Education hurts kids and teachers."

Howard Stephenson and a legislative committee chose certain private companies in 2003 to support by awarding them state contracts and funds. Olene Walker vetoed the bill because it was inappropriate for the legislature to favor certain vendors, a position which Stephenson later agreed was correct when interviewed by Gehrke last year.

One of those favored companies was “ProCert Labs, which is seeking to review Utah's textbooks, pinpointing where concepts in the state's core curriculum are taught to help instructors teach the required lessons. The work could be worth millions.” Their funding got vetoed in 2003, but in 2007 Stephenson supported a bill mandating that private “textbook reviews.” I listened to the Red Meat Radio show on 12-06-08 when Stephenson defended his actions and interviewed the owner of ProCert, Paul Hoffman. Hoffman and Stephenson talked about how hard it was to know what was in a textbook, how time-consuming for teachers to figure it out, and how inefficient and pointless the current teacher review process was compared to the “21st Century” methods of ProCert using computers. Using my professional judgment, I will call BS on those claims. It boggles my mind how far Stephenson will go to waste money on anything deemed “21st Century” in education, even if he obviously has zero idea about the reality of the situation. In this particular case, a large amount of money is being directed to private companies to add repetitive detail to a process that can be done by willing teachers in one day for the cost of a substitute.

The state core curriculum standards are mandated topics to be taught in certain subjects each year. There is some educationese in parts of the text, but most people can easily understand the statements of what is to be taught. The current textbook vetting process on the state level is merely an initial screening to ensure that the textbooks cover the core curriculum and to give a brief impression of usability. The books that do not cover the required concepts will not be approved for districts to purchase; the others will be placed on an approved list along with the small blurb written by the reviewing teachers. The teachers who participate in secondary textbook reviews are volunteers who go to the State Office for a day to peruse stacks of new books from their subject. The only compensation they receive is lunch, and the state office pays the districts for their substitutes. The actual purchasing decisions will be made at the school and district level by educators who will examine the books regardless of who makes that initial review.

Reviewing the textbooks to see if they cover the Utah State Core is easy. Here is the state core for Algebra. A layman using the table of contents and index of an algebra textbook and flipping through the chapters could determine whether those state core standards (irrational numbers, Pythagorean Theorem, linear equations, formulas, graphing, etc.) were covered. A teacher familiar with the core and the subject matter can do it that much more easily and in a relatively short period of time. Just determining what is covered in a textbook is not rocket science and does not require expensive computers.

Here are the state core standards for geometry, biology, and 9th grade English. Look through them at the ordered list of standards and objectives. Would it be that hard to determine if a Biology book merely covers ecosystems, matter, organisms, cells, organs, genes, DNA, evolution, biological classification, etc.? I believe most readers of this blog could make that determination in 30 minutes or less. I know that actual Biology teachers can easily do it. An English text just has to teach Reading skills, Writing skills, and Inquiry skills, meaning research and logical thinking. The stories, plays, poems, lesson plans, etc. it uses to teach those skills are not mandated.

ProCert just wants to take a lot of time and money to break down the book page by page and tell you exactly what percentage of the book was spent on organisms, what percent on cells, etc. In a perfectly funded world, I would at least be curious about that data, but in our Utah schools struggling for funds, does that data measurable improve student learning as compared to teachers reviewing the books now? The answer is no.

There are stylistic, presentation, and quality differences between books that neither the quick teacher review or ProCert’s page counting and classifying address. Fotunately, it doesn’t matter. When a school decides to buy new Biology books (which given our strapped funds is NOT a common occurrence anyway), the teachers and administrators involved are going to look at the textbooks they consider. No one looks at the initial screening reviews, points a finger at the approved list, and justselects a book. The approved list saves them some time from looking at books that obviously are not adequate to Utah standards, but the teachers involved are going to evaluate the format, examples, graphics, lessons, etc. regardless of a good review. Having a more detailed review of what percent of pages are devoted to each topic according to ProCert isn’t going to hasten this process or really provide much meaningful information. No one will say, “Oh look. Company X is selling books with 2% more pages devoted to informational text than Company Y. Let’s buy sight unseen.’ It could point you to a company if there were drastic differences in coverage (which there generally won’t be between major publishers), but decisions on the actual quality of those pages devoted to geometric proofs, ecosystems, or short stories will be made by those purchasing the books.

ProCert is not qualified to evaluate the quality of material in a given textbook and does not pretend to provide that service. Paying them thousands of scarce education dollars for an initial screening is inefficient and wasteful. Howard Stephenson has obviously not taken the time to familiarize himself with how textbooks are actually chosen in schools and districts, and is thus “throwing money” at a gimmick that someone successfully pitched him. I listened to his words on the radio that morning, and he displayed zero knowledge of textbook purchasing procedures and just agreed with everything ProCert’s president claimed in his free sales pitch on the show. As quoted in the article, “Stephenson dismisses those in-house screenings as "schlock reviews" that are practically useless for teachers.” Where did he get that information? I’d bet from ProCert. His reliance on outside sources and distrust of educators fosters mutual distrust from our side. He holds the hoops and plays the music while we jump through them. (And why was Stephenson that personally and minutely involved? He claims that ProCert was not a Utah Taxpayer’s Association member [a claim we have no way of verifying since it’s a secret list], and Paul Hoffman debunked Gehrke’s assertion that Hoffman was related to lobbyist, Ruland Gill. Even with that denial, Rolly still claimed that Gill was related and involved in lobbying the USOE. I have trouble believing there was not some ulterior connection somewhere that got Stephenson invested in this “textbook review” idea. The “Welfare for Waterford” bill was supported by a prominent, ex-legislator and lobbyist, Cap Ferry. What was the ProCert connection? )

I am unsure to what extent ProCert or some other outside company is reviewing textbooks currently. The Gehrke article mentions that the law requiring outside review passed in 2007, that the bidding process got tangled in controversy, that the legislature subsequently amended the law in the 2008 session (I don’t know what that amendment did), and that as of Nov. 29 last year, the contract had not been awarded. I can say that the traditional textbook review/screening process was still going on at the State Office of Education last year. I can also confirm that the two employees Stephenson wanted fired were in fact either reassigned or fired before Gehrke’s article was even written. The textbook department had new directors still adjusting to their responsibilities in Fall 2008. They had only been in their positions for a few months and were reluctant to discuss what had happened to their predecessors, although they implied that the former directors were still employed at the state office somewhere.

The point is that technology does not always make a process more effective or cost-efficient. Mindlessly turning education over to the huge educational material industry will not ensure quality. (Think about the college textbook racket for a point of reference. These “educational” companies do not always have the best interest of students in mind.) Legislators need to work with actual educators to find technologies that truly improve learning for the students and not just take as gospel the claims of every slick-talking salesman out there.

.

Collection of articles about ProCert and Howard Stephenson's drive to favor them with state education contracts

All underlining of sections of the articles was done by me.

1. The initial article bringing the issue to light. Excellent interviews and historical context. Top notch reporting by Robert Gehrke.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11102649
Did Utah senator's advocacy go too far?
Textbook case: Stephenson leaned on educators on behalf of an Orem company.

By Robert Gehrke

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 11/29/2008 10:08:40 PM MST

It was past midnight and Sen. Howard Stephenson was livid.

Hammering out an early-morning e-mail to Utah education officials, the Draper Republican lashed out at "subversives" in the department for their shabby treatment of ProCert Labs, an Orem-based company whose services Stephenson had been advocating for years.

In a series of heated e-mails and phone calls, Stephenson, who heads the committee that sets the public education budget, threatened to withhold support from the Utah Office of Education, suggested it be downsized and have work outsourced and that the malcontents mistreating ProCert could be fired.

"This persistent, long-term and ongoing defiance on the part of [the two employees] is unacceptable and, in my opinion, is justification for termination of employment," Stephenson wrote.

The e-mail, and other angry phone calls and missives from Stephenson on ProCert's behalf, stunned state Superintendent Patti Harrington.

"When it gets to be a strained relationship around one vendor and irate e-mails around one vendor, that does get problematic, and it feels like we're being bullied," Harrington said. "I don't think that's an appropriate type of pressure to be put on a state agency."

But it was just one example of several since 2007 in which Stephenson had waded into the minutiae of contracts and vendors at the state education office, attempting to shape education programs created by the Legislature and the lucrative contracts
to implement them.

"I'm just trying to get the 21st-century tools into the hands of our teachers and I don't care who gets the bid," said Stephenson, who also is president of the Utah Taxpayers Association and a registered lobbyist. "When you're as committed to saving money, precious taxpayer resources, as I am, that's why I want to make sure we get the best bang for the buck."

He said his watchdogging stopped education officials from diverting $30 million meant for technology improvements into salaries and pushed stubborn bureaucrats into adopting new technology and upgrading Utah's lagging rate of computers in classrooms.

Records show that, on several occasions in the past two years Stephenson made detailed recommendations and suggested specific changes to criteria for picking companies to receive state funds, including revisions to a program to provide laptop computers to preschoolers.

That degree of legislative involvement is rare. Typically, lawmakers set policy, allocate funds and then let the executive branch award contracts. Occasionally legislators have called with input, but none, aside from Stephenson, has put any complaints or recommendations in writing.

Harrington said Stephenson is the "singular example" of a legislator who has weighed in with the education office and, as the senator who controls the education budget, his wishes are hard to ignore.

That type of interaction "is exactly what everyone doesn't want to have happen," said Steven Schooner, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in government contracting.

"It could be the people doing the purchasing were incompetent," Schooner said. "But if your Legislature is getting involved in individual procurements, the system isn't going to work in the long run."

Last summer, the Legislature's general counsel gave GOP lawmakers a primer on the propriety of intervening in government-contract issues, a response to Stephenson's actions and other factors.

The Legislature's ethics rules state that members "shall not exercise any undue influence on any governmental entity," but Stephenson maintains he's crossing no such lines.

"It's my job, as chairman of the committee," he said, "that the will of the Legislature is carried out when we do pass laws and make appropriations for these things."

Stephenson said he has no financial stake in any of the companies involved in the contracting issues. They have not contributed to his campaigns nor do they belong to the Utah Taxpayers Association. His only motivation, he said, is a passion to ensure teachers get the tools they need.

Harrington said she respects Stephenson's vision and drive for using technology in classrooms, and they frequently see eye to eye.

At the same time, her department no longer provides advance copies of "requests for proposals" to legislators, rules have been adopted to insulate the contracting process, and she now makes the final determination on high-profile contracts to protect her staff from political pressure.

Stephenson said he suspects educators may be criticizing him now because in tough budget times he has resisted their effort to ax many reforms he championed, such as performance pay for teachers and laptops for preschoolers.

"Collectively, these things I've been pushing have a toll on the state office and there is a desire to neutralize me as chairman of education appropriations, and I think this reaction is an attempt to do that," he said, adding that he won't stop pushing the office for reforms.

The most striking example of Stephenson's activism involved ProCert Labs, which is seeking to review Utah's textbooks, pinpointing where concepts in the state's core curriculum are taught to help instructors teach the required lessons. The work could be worth millions.

ProCert President Paul Hoffmann, who is the son-in-law of prominent lobbyist Ruland Gill, said the company has clashed with some education officials for years for reasons he doesn't understand, but suspects the bureaucrats might feel threatened by privatization.

In 2003, a legislative committee, which included Stephenson, took the unusual step of writing specifications for innovative education programs, then awarded handpicked vendors, including ProCert, money to bid for the programs. But when the Legislature tried to fund the ProCert contract the next year, then-Gov. Olene Walker vetoed the project.

Walker said she felt having lawmakers award contracts to specific vendors was inappropriate.

"The Legislature has the right to make policy and set divisions of power, but it's the executive branch's job to implement them," Walker said last week, "and I felt quite strongly about that separation of powers."

At the time, Stephenson accused Walker in his taxpayer-association newsletter of caving to the teachers union. "In hindsight," he now says, "after reflecting on it, she probably did the right thing."

Harrington has been no fan of private "curriculum alignment." She says the panel of educators that has screened textbooks for more than eight decades has done it well.

Stephenson dismisses those in-house screenings as "schlock reviews" that are practically useless for teachers.

In 2007, Stephenson helped pass a bill requiring private textbook reviews, leaving it to state education officials to pick qualified reviewers. But when he felt ProCert was being treated unfairly by the state office, he made his displeasure known.

"I've had it!" Stephenson wrote in an e-mail. "It is obvious that [the program directors] are subversives who will stop at nothing to prevent the effective alignment of the texts to the core. … Perhaps downsizing USOE or outsourcing is the answer."

In another e-mail from his Senate account, he said, "I've never seen anything more outrageous in my 15 years in the Legislature."

Harrington replied that the office had "reached out to ProCert beyond what we have to others," and if Stephenson wanted to give ProCert the contract, "then we do have a problem that will need a broader remedy."

Stephenson says his e-mails were "advocacy for fairness." After a bidding process that dragged on for months, the Legislature amended the law last March and the contract has yet to be awarded.

gehrke@sltrib.com


2. A Tribune editorial a couple days later, criticizing Stephenson for his inherent conflict of interest as an industry lobbyist and violating the separation of powers between the branches of government.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11114659
Throwing weight
Senator should stick to legislating

Tribune Editorial
Updated: 12/01/2008 09:41:58 PM MST

Thanks to Utah's open-records law, we know that Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who does questionable double duty as both a legislator and a lobbyist, inappropriately lambasted the State Office of Education for failing to hand a contract to a company that Stephenson likes.

Stephenson ignored the boundaries that constitutionally separate the branches of government and has, far too often, tried to bully education officials into applying laws and rules in ways that suit his purposes. It seems the good senator needs a lesson in how the separation of powers is supposed to work.

Here's a primer: The legislative branch's job is to appropriate funds and make the laws that broadly dictate how the Office of Education should run public schools for all Utah's children. A necessary line is drawn between legislating and the management of day-to-day functions of the various state bureaucracies.

In specific terms, a legislator isn't in charge of deciding what companies get contracts to provide the services that schools need in order to function. But Stephenson seems to believe otherwise, and he's not shy about wielding his funding power to get what he wants.

Stephenson, who chairs the Senate committee that holds the education pursestrings, stepped over the line when he angrily threatened in e-mails and phone calls to cut funding to the education office, get some of its work outsourced and have employees who defied his orders fired.

The senator should get a better grip on what's in his job description. If he needs help with that, he might very well check out the text of the Utah Constitution, the part, Article 5, titled "Distribution of Powers."

Stephenson says his meddling on behalf of ProCert, a textbook-review company, is necessary watchdogging to make sure taxpayers get "the best bang for the buck." But there's a difference between oversight and micromanaging.

Stephenson is no education expert, though he obviously sees himself as one. Instead, he is president of the Utah Taxpayers Association and a registered legislative lobbyist for that nonprofit group funded by businesses. As both lawmaker and lobbyist, he can argue for the policies he favors both on and off the floor of the Senate. That should keep him busy enough, without trying to do others' jobs, too.

In his questionable dual role, he is on shaky ethical ground and not in a good position to be flouting the Utah Constitution's express division of powers by throwing his senatorial weight around where it doesn't belong.


3. Tribune article detailing Stephenson's use of his Red Meat Radio show to attck the State Office of Education..."Stupid in Utah."

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11162878
Lawmaker rips office of education
'Stupid in Utah' » Stephenson claims Tribune article spurred his rant on radio show.

By Lisa Schencker

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 12/07/2008 07:58:27 PM MST

Tension between state education leaders and lawmakers over the years has been no secret.

Saturday morning, however, it noisily burst into public earshot with a two-hour radio show hosted by Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, titled, "Stupid in Utah: How the Utah State Office of Education hurts kids and teachers." Stephenson heads the legislative committee that shapes the state education budget.

"I thought the title for his show was beyond the pale," said State Superintendent Patti Harrington after hearing the show Saturday. "I was disappointed in that from Sen. Stephenson."

For two hours, Stephenson mostly slammed the state office for "subversiveness," dishonesty and for, he said, in some cases, resisting implementing state law.

He said an article that ran in The Salt Lake Tribune last week spurred him to air his complaints during his regular Saturday morning K-TALK AM 630 radio show, "Inside Utah Politics." That article revealed that Stephenson had pressured state education leaders with threatening e-mails regarding the process of selecting vendors vying for state education contracts.

"I have worked behind the scenes to try and get improvement there," Stephenson said. "But in defending myself against the Tribune attacks, I have to tell you why I was so involved in the State Office of Education."

He maintains that without his involvement, money allocated by lawmakers, in several cases, might not have been used for what lawmakers intended. For example, he said $30 million meant for classroom technology would have instead paid for support staff had he not examined the office's guidelines for the money, which were changed at the last minute by office employees. Harrington said she took "corrective action" toward those employees when she learned of the issue.

In another case, Stephenson said he became involved after he believed the state office showed bias against one company, ProCert Labs, which sought to gain state approval as a vendor aligning textbooks to curriculum.

Stephenson said Saturday he suspected the office was biased against ProCert because the company helped bring Saxon Math, a system that teaches math partly through drills and repetition, to Utah.

Harrington said Saturday she has only good things to say about Saxon Math and no bias against ProCert, which she said Saturday was "an excellent vendor."

Despite the public attack on education officials Saturday both Stephenson and Harrington said they don't think continuing to work together on state education issues in the future will be a problem.

Stephenson said the tension between him and education leaders will not guide his decisions during the upcoming legislative session.

"I don't punish those who speak against me, and I don't reward those who speak for me," Stephenson said in a phone interview after the show. "The policies we make during this coming session will not be affected by negative things said last Sunday." He also acknowledged during his show that most public education employees are dedicated and hard-working.

Harrington said she still worries about the pressure Stephenson puts on the state office regarding contracts and vendors, but she respects him as an overall education leader.

"I frankly believe you can disagree agreeably and still have a relationship that builds upon collaboration," Harrington said.

Stephenson said he hopes all the talk improves lawmakers' relationships with education leaders.

"Hopefully, it will be a healthier working relationship because we'll be open, honest and frank with each other," Stephenson said.

lschencker @sltrib.com


4. kcpw's recap of the radio blast and Stephenson saying he thinks the USOE is trying to "subvert the Legislature's intent." If they want one of his wasteful "reforms" cut, they are "out of control" and hurting Utah's children.

http://kcpw.org/blog/local-news/2008-12-09/sen-stephenson-slams-office-of-education/

Sen. Stephenson Slams Office of Education

12.09.2008 by KCPW

(KCPW News) Senator Howard Stephenson has taken his beef with the State Office of Education public. He featured the USOE on his weekly talk show, Inside Utah Politics: Red Meat Radio. Stephenson says the public should know the state office is "out of control."

"The public generally doesn't know what's happening with that 500 plus bureaucracy that basically has general governance of education in Utah," Stephenson says. "And they needed to know the kinds of things that were happening there that hurt children and hurt teachers, that make it harder for teachers to do their job and make it harder for children to do better in school."

Stephenson's discontent with the office of education stems from a six-year-old debate about whether a private company should be paid to determine whether school districts are using textbooks aligned to the state curriculum. But more recently, Stephenson takes issue with the state's education leaders for wanting to cut three education reform programs passed last year: pay for performance, differentiated pay for math and science teachers and a computer-based preschool program. He says the office is trying to subvert the Legislature's intent.

"The state office and the state school board has shown its hostility toward many of the things that the Legislature has enacted, especially those things that are market driven, those things that give pay for performance, those things that satisfy teacher shortages," Stephenson says. "And the state board of education has officially said it wants those things cut."

Despite the tension, Stephenson says he doesn't hold grudges and will continue to work with the Office of Education. State Superintendent of Public Education Patti Harrington declined to comment on this story, but previously called the radio show "beyond the pale."


5. Letter to the editor from ProCert President, Paul Hoffman.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11176627

Stephenson wronged

Public Forum Letter
Updated: 12/09/2008 10:08:26 AM MST

In his story about Sen. Howard Stephenson and ProCert Labs, reporter Robert Gehrke wrote that I am "prominent lobbyist" Ruland Gill's son-in-law. I am not ("Did Utah senator's advocacy go too far?", Tribune, Nov. 30). He also implied that Stephenson supported textbook alignment based on my relationship with Gill. Wrong again.

Utah teachers deserve to know which sections of the thick, nationally published textbooks apply to Utah's curriculum without having to spend countless hours sorting through the textbooks themselves. That curriculum is the basis for student testing and grading teacher effectiveness.

What the Tribune story missed is that ProCert's detailed review would have identified on the Internet what textbook sections would be used in the testing of school children. It would allow parents access to information about what their children are learning.

Utah teachers go above and beyond to compensate for the lack of modern tools to help them. Sen. Stephenson is working diligently to bring useful modern education tools to them. I applaud him for holding the Utah State Office of Education accountable and making sure that taxpayer money is well spent.

Paul Hoffmann
President, ProCert Labs

Cedar Hills


6. Paul Rolly weighs in. He repeats Gehrke's initial claim that Hoffman is related to Rulon Gill which was stringly refuted by Hoffman. He adds that Rulon Gill was frequently involved in lobbying for the ProCert bill. Why? Rolly also details other instances of the legislature selcting individual companies for special treatment.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11231527

Contracting with Utah? Helps to know a legislator

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 12/14/2008 08:46:13 AM MST

Since The Salt Lake Tribune published a story Nov. 30 that detailed Sen. Howard Stephenson's outrage at state education officials for not issuing a contract to a private company Stephenson favored, the Draper Republican has been on a public rampage.

He railed against the State Office of Education on the Saturday morning radio program the Republican legislative caucus sponsors and Stephenson co-hosts, and the Republican Senate site on the Internet has urged readers to listen to Stephenson's rants or read them on that site.

But the senator's aggressive advocacy for ProCert labs getting the nod over any other potential bidder is nothing new for Stephenson, R-Draper, or other members of the Legislature who have tried to use their power to benefit one particular company.

Stephenson, as outlined in the Nov. 30 story, wrote a series of heated e-mails and made phone calls threatening the budget of the Utah Office of Education and suggesting education staffers not cooperating with the ProCert agenda be fired.

ProCert employs a system of evaluating Utah's textbooks, pinpointing where concepts in the state's core curriculum are found to help instructors teach the required lessons.

The initial legislation that singled out ProCert for the contract was vetoed by then Gov. Olene Walker, who said it was inappropriate for legislators to award contracts to specific contractors.

Subsequent legislation included procurement requirements favorable to ProCert's program, but ProCert officials have complained that public education officials have not been cooperative.

The contract is yet to be awarded.

Stephenson has said he has no financial interest in ProCert, but one of the company's executives is Scott Hoffmann, the son-in-law of lobbyist Ruland Gill, who is on the board of the Utah Taxpayers Association, which employs Stephenson as its president. Education officials said Gill approached them several times on Pro-Cert's behalf in 2007.

Meanwhile, Stephenson got involved in the bidding process for a pilot program the Legislature approved to provide educational software for preschoolers. The request for proposals was tailored to a program developed by Waterford Schools, whose lobbyist is Republican insider Cap Ferry.

Other custom-fit programs approved by the Legislature favoring one vendor include:

» A database for posting student test scores was the subject of intense scrutiny by some legislators, including Stephenson, in which a company named Digital Bridge was invited several times to make presentations. The RFP was subject to several challenges with Digital Bridge allegedly receiving unusually favorable treatment by lawmakers.

» Stephenson and former Rep. Jim Ferrin pushed a bill in 2006 to prevent local municipalities from refusing to issue building permits for schools in their cities. The bill paved the way for those who wanted to build charter schools in residential neighborhoods. Ferrin, former Rep. Glenn Way and Rep. Mike Morley were in the business of financing and constructing buildings for charter schools.

» Rep. Becky Lockhart sponsored a bill to study the feasibility of privatizing the state's mental hospital in Provo after she and several other lawmakers were invited to Florida to tour a private mental facility there. Her bill would have had the Legislature's Executive Appropriations Committee review proposals for the project rather than the State Purchasing Office, which normally handles contract proposals.

» Rep. Greg Hughes sponsored a bill last year allowing the state to contract with a private company to evaluate sex offenders to determine the likelihood of them reoffending. When Sen. John Greiner amended the bill in the Senate because of concerns it was written for just one specific company, an angry Hughes aggressively confronted Greiner.

The amendment was taken out and the bill passed in its original form. But, because of a mistake, the bill was filed with the amended language. So far, because of that glitch, the program has not been implemented.


7. Rolly details the fears of education officials during the 2009 session that Stephenson's SB 64 was aimed at attacking their employees for disagreeing with him.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11880484

Beware the wrath of Stephenson

By Paul Rolly

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 03/10/2009 03:50:38 PM MDT

Sen. Howard Stephenson, known for his tempter tantrums when state agencies don't give contracts to his favorite vendors, has a bill this year that would allow the Administrative Rules Review Committee to examine how the agencies spend money appropriated to them.

If an agency does not obey the intent of the Legislature, according to Stephenson's SB64, it will be reported to the Legislature's Executive Appropriations Committee.

The bill has passed the Senate and has been pending in the House since Thursday. Word is that some House members, as well as the governor's office, are concerned about the potential intimidation factors in the bill.

If an agency doesn't find a favored company to be the best fit for a contract that the Legislature funds, for example, will it be punished financially for its impudence?

Stephenson, R-Draper, who is co-chair of the Administrative Rules Review Committee, was scheduled to meet with the State School Board last Friday to explain the bill, since the Office of Education has most often borne the brunt of his wrath. But he didn't show.

Stephenson has gone apoplectic in the past when his favorite bidder, ProCert, was not awarded the contract for textbook review; when his designated vendor did not get the nod for a pilot gifted and talented program; and when the State Procurement Office didn't steer the bidding process the way he wanted on a student database system.


8. The House never did vote on SB 64.

.

The challenge of effectively integrating technology and education--A Utah district turns to expensive Play Stations with no teacher supervision?

I posted recently about the desire of some to use technology resources as a replacement for classroom teaching or an excuse to raise class size. I use computer assessments and online resources in my own classroom that are extremely beneficial for the students. However, I think “technology” or its euphemism, “21st century teaching,” often become context-free buzzwords used as an end to themselves rather than a means to learning content or skills. In most cases, technology is just a tool that succeeds or fails according to the preparation and skill of the teacher. A traditional public school teacher and a dedicated homeschooling parent can both successfully use technology, especially online resources, and likewise, they can both fall for enticing gimmicks with little real educational value. I plan on posting about some current situations in Utah schools that demonstrate the hit-and-miss, politicized nature of educational technology. (I also plan to follow up on what little information I have on the implementation of the Waterford Software program and would love further information or data anyone could point me to.)

This post will talk about a recent purchase in a Utah school district that appears to fall squarely into the “enticing gimmick” category.

The Bullet Point Version for easy digestion:

1. A school district received a large amount of stimulus money earmarked for Title I schools. Title I is a 45-yr-old federal funding grant for schools designated as having a high percentage of low-income students.

2. A single employee had almost complete latitude to make the decision on how to spend that money.

3. That person had the feeling, true or false I’m not sure, that he/she had to “hurry” and spend that money.

4. The person got the idea somewhere that kids would use learning programs more willingly if they were on a Portable Play Station (PSP).

5. 60 of the PSP’s were purchased for a pilot program at a cost of $180 each. However, the district did not want to be seen as having purchased Play Stations, so employees are under strict instructions to call them “Achieve Now devices” instead, referring to the name of the learning software that was purchased to play on the non-Play Stations.

6. The Achieve Now software was purchased from a vendor the district had previous experience with, Plato Learning, but Plato had no previous experience making games for the PSP. (Many districts and schools had used Plato “lab” in the past as a remediation class where students spent time using a set math or language drill program from Plato. Both my school and the district in question had cut those labs in past years. My school changed because we found the lab was not as effective as we wished; I believe budget concerns drove the elimination of Plato in this district. I’m sure Plato programs are still in use in schools around the state.) The new Achieve Now “games” for math and language skills are not engaging or adapted for the PSP in any way. They do not use the graphic capabilities of the PSP or even the joystick. You can only use the arrow keys and the games appear to just be bumped over from Plato’s already-mentioned computer division. They are just drill games that could be played on a regular computer.


7. Furthering this unwise rush to spend money on the appearance of progress, the Achieve Now games come in a different format than the regular mini-CD-like discs used for PSP games. Instead, the learning games come on little memory cards similar to what is used in a digital camera, and the PSP has to be specially formatted to use these cards. If a child places a normal game disc into the PSP, an automatic prompt will ask them if they want to update the PSP. When the child selects yes, their game disc will work perfectly, but the PSP will no longer accept the memory cards with the Achieve Now games. This change is irreversible without shipping the PSP back to Plato for expensive reformatting. Plato has advised the district that the reformatting is not cost effective, so they should just tape the game port in back shut and lie to the kids that these PSP’s will not play the regular games.

(Insert memory of some kid named Josh sneaking a Weird Al Yankovic cassette tape into the machine at an audio learning center in 5th grade. We LOVED that center for the week or so he got away with it.)

8. Speaking of cost-effectiveness, two of these memory cards, one for math and one for language arts, were purchased for each of the 60 PSP’s. Each card cost $550, bringing the total for each PSP with two cards to $1280. If a kid reformats the PSP on the first day—sorry, no refunds. Total cost so far = $76,800.

9. At the district’s bulk pricing, that $1280 for each set is enough to buy about 2 and ½ desktop computers. A multitude of websites feature free drill games of the same quality, or in many cases higher quality than the precarious memory cards. If the computers were installed in a lab in a school, they could then be used to play math or language practice games AND ALSO be available for all of the other activities computers are used for in a school. (writing, powerpoints, grades, research, etc.)

10. These 60 PSP/2-card sets were purchased to pilot in 2 schools’ summer programs. The current plan is to soon purchase 30 sets for each of the Title I schools in the district, with each set costing that same $1280 price—$38,400 per school. I don’t believe those purchases have been made yet.

11. The early feedback from those involved in the summer program has been negative. The games are boring and the employees involved had difficulty cajoling the students to play the Achieve Now games for any extended period of time. The language arts games are especially confusing and their real effect on reading comprehension, vocabulary, etc. is extremely questionable. The problem is magnified because the the PSP’s and Achieve Now games are being used exclusively in after-school settings supervised by aides. The aides are generally assigned only to supervise and are unprepared to answer questions that arise if a student is practicing a skill he/she does not understand. The classroom teachers will not be involved in order to give advice at what level of practice to place kids on the Playstations. It’s a case of throwing the kids in a room with a game and hoping they learn.

12. I believe this was a well-intentioned attempt to find creative ways to reach struggling students, but the spending decision was made hastily at a district level without input from school personnel actually working with these disadvantaged students. The district is paying an extremely high cost for a mediocre product. Just sticking a boring learning activity on a Play Station will generally not make a kid enjoy it more. If high quality learning content were developed that took advantage of the PSP’s enticing capabilities at a cost effective price, then maybe an investment into these machines would aid student achievement.

As it now stands, I believe the “Achieve Now devices” are merely an ineffective boondoggle. I hope that district personnel will seek honest feedback about the program and reconsider the upcoming purchases. There are better ways to use the hundreds of thousands of dollars from the stimulus.