The education related items the legislature resolved to study before the 2013 session

SJR 13 is the Master Study bill for the interim. There were 155 items to study before a last minute bunch of at least 19 additions. They are all under line 431 with letters in the current draft of the bill to explain how it will look when I list some below.

There is not even a miniscule iota of a chance that all of these items will get looked at by the legislature and their staff during the entire next year, let alone in the 8 or 9 interim meetings the legislators will have.

I am going to list below the study items that have to do with education. Who decided which ones will they actually study? I'm betting Stephenson's priorities won't be skimped on, such as items 25, 30, 32, 34, and 431w.

The elections will be over, and it will be the year to push more strident anti-public ed. stuff in the off year. He's already stated his intention of pushing in 2013 Sen, Reid's destructive constitutional amendment to eliminate the State Board of Education, replacing them with the Governor and an appointed Secretary of Education. After the best year I can remember for public ed. (thanks to the House stopping some bad Senate bills), I predict 2013 will be rocky.

Education Related Study Items

23. Academic Achievement Gaps - to study high quality preschool impacts on academic achievement gaps for at risk students.
24. Alternatives to GED - to study whether to issue high school diplomas to adults and those who do not graduate with the class instead of awarding a GED, to study the relative value between a high school diploma and a GED in the employment marketplace, and to study how to eliminate the GED in Utah and give diplomas instead, to give these students a higher value.
25. Charter School Local Replacement Funding - to study whether school districts should contribute an amount equal to per pupil district property tax revenues for each resident student enrolled in a charter school.
26. Charter School Mission and Online Education - to study whether a charter school student should be denied permission to take an online course through the Statewide Online Education Program because the charter school's mission is inconsistent with the online course.
27. Concurrent Enrollment - to study the current program structure, cost, delivery, and coordination of public education and higher education.
28. Credit for Teacher Professional Development in Technology - to study options for giving credit on the pay scale for teacher professional development in technology unrelated to college credit.
29. Education Interim Committee Reports - to study whether one or more reports required to be submitted to the Education Interim Committee should be discontinued.
30. Enhanced School Calendar Incentives - to study how to encourage school districts and charter schools to utilize their buildings year round to extend calendars, and how to offer teachers a 50% pay raise with no additional costs to taxpayers, with added benefits like paid vacations, holidays, and class room aids.
31. Financial Literacy - to study ways to promote financial literacy.
32. K-3 Class Size Reduction - to study caps on K-3 class sizes and class size reduction line item accountability (S.B. 31).
33. Necessarily Existent Small Schools - to study the current distribution formula, review cost differentials between small and isolated schools and other schools, and determine the best funding mechanism.
34. Pay for Performance Impact on Student Achievement - to study the impact of teacher pay for performance on student achievement and performance gains.
35. Professional Development Classes - to study the impact of enabling professional development classes or tracks under "lanes compensation" schedules.
36. Public Education Funding - to study and carefully review the formulas currently in use and determine if they are meeting the needs of the current education environment.
37. Public School Funding Criteria - to study how money is distributed to public schools based on prior year enrollment, and whether public schools could receive funding based on current year enrollment instead.
38. Quality Teacher Incentive - to study an incentive program to retain quality teachers in the public schools.
39. School District and Charter School Postemployment Benefits - to study how school districts and charter schools are addressing any continuing liability to provide postemployment benefits to employees (H.B. 460).
40. School Funding - to study long term funding options for public education.
41. Sex Education Through Online Video Components - to study in collaboration with the State Board of Education the delivery of online sex education through video components in lieu of in-class instruction, with each component to be approved by the parents before the student has access to the materials.
42. Specialized Student Counseling - to study ways to provide specialized career college counseling, focusing on admissions and scholarships, for high school students (H.B. 65).
43. Student-based Budgeting - to study whether to require a school district to distribute certain revenues to schools in accordance with a weighted student formula and to require a principal to determine how to use revenues available to the school to meet student needs (H.B. 158).

115. Trust Lands Issues - to study and receive a report on school and institutional trust lands issues from the Children's Land Alliance.
116. Utah Land and School Trust Funds - to study the protection of Utah lands and school trust funds (1st Sub. H.B. 209 and amendment #2).

118. Allocations to Schools - to study school allocations measured by property tax (H.B. 507).
119. Computer Software Exemption - to study whether to provide a sales and use tax exemption for certain computer software.

137. School District and Charter School Postemployment Benefits - to study how school districts and charter schools are addressing any continuing liability to provide postemployment benefits to employees.

431o. Comprehensive overview of the WPU in public education

431w. School funding - study of the statewide equalization of school funding.

Grad school, chance encounters with Bob Aagard, and researcher/practitioner tension

I started grad school a couple of weeks ago and it is kicking my butt. I’m learning a lot about research and education, and it’s a lot of reading. The other aspects of my life have been extremely busy as well, so I haven’t commented on various important educational topics that have come up in the past month. I want to. I’ve got a short “break” between summer and fall classes that happens to overlap with the hectic beginning of my school year. I’m aiming for some daily posts then.

I’ve run into Bob Aagard twice on campus and felt kind of dumb about it. He’s a total stranger, yet I know his face well and kind of feel like I know him–blogging is weird that way. So I was in a hurry (that’s a theme the last two weeks) and almost ran into him as I walked out of the bathroom and gave him a really weird look. He paused and in that split-second when you’re confronted with an unexpected situation and thoughts run through your head like “It doesn’t matter,” “Introduce yourself,” “No, play dumb,” “He’s probably busy and doesn’t care,” “I’ve got to be somewhere in 15 minutes,”etc., I managed:

“I know you from the bloghive.”
“Oh. I could tell you looked at me funny.”
“Yea. It was because I recognized you.”
“Oh.”

That is probably not word-for-word perfect recall, but it was something to that effect.

Now I feel dumb for not introducing myself, but it was just one of those awkward moments when my brain was totally taken by surprise in the midst of trying to organize a huge to-do list while hurrying home. So good to see you Bob.

I also think I saw Alex Kirry from the Nightside Project walk by at the balloon festival in Provo on the morning of the 4th of July, but I’m not sure.

Now for something relevant to education. It has been interesting to see the tension between my professors and what they perceive as shortcomings in schools. My professors all taught in the public schools for some time before getting their Masters and Doctorates and moving to the university level. They all read and conduct educational research frequently. They’re not ranting passionately or anything, but in the course of discussion, various professors have brought up that they don’t feel that teachers pay enough attention to research or respect the findings of the overall field. They have been a little defensive as being perceived as living in the ivory tower and not remembering the realities of the classroom. And they're right that teachers often do think that certain studies or attitudes are not realistic.

I think that is an interesting dichotomy and that there’s some truth in what the professors are saying…but I also feel that they are inherently removed from classroom reality to a degree. From my vastly knowledgeable perch as two-week grad student and less-than-ten-year classroom teacher, I think that teachers do at times get caught up in day-to-day practicalities and lose sight of big picture type goals and what research has found. AND I think the researchers lose sight a little bit of how hard it is to implement ideal ideas with real classes of unique personalities. One professor said “You just don’t forget what teaching was like.” I totally agree, but you still start to gradually have other priorities and feel the burdens of your current situation while the memories of past obstacles fade by degree.

The professors also have a better grasp of the overall body of research rather than isolated studies from a media report or a professional meeting. They are not thrown when a study shows something seemingly odd or conflicting because the body of evidence will slowly point to a best practice. So there is often a difference in what a certain professor or body of researchers and currently practicing teachers believe about the “best” way to accomplish certain tasks in education. And the professors, national “experts,” different schools, and various studies within the body of research differ too. There are very few unanimously accepted ideas on literacy teaching, math teaching, character education, ESL teaching, school structure, etc. I think this stems partially from the impossibility of quantifying some things about teaching classes full of unique individuals. This uncertainty can be exciting as we find out more and improve, but it can also make people cynical as they hear differing ideas of “good” teaching from year to year or report to report.
I would think that tension would exist in all fields as new research points to better methods, but some specific ideas end up discredited after initial excitement, which sometimes leads to distrust or excuses about the other good ideas that represent changes in the normal way of doing things.

I think I’m rambling a little bit, but hopefully you can see what I’m saying. There are many commonly agreed-on principles in education, but there are many, many, many disagreements on everything from specific programs to larger methods and styles of teaching to the effectiveness of specific tests to underlying principles of how humans attain knowledge. This maybe shows why merit pay is not just an easy fix to the bad teachers out there. Some are lazy and they know it, but other perceptions may arise from honest differences in opinion about best practice. I’m not saying merit pay is impossible, but I am saying it’s complicated and that teachers are not just whiny obstructionists when they express concerns about exactly how they will be evaluated. I’m glad the legislature put the implementation in the hands of the districts to give local voices more input—that was a good move as long as they were throwing it in on the second-to-last day with minimal debate.

I have been planning on writing more about merit pay for months, but I will have to get to it soon with the new programs starting up. I also would like to write more about research and why it is often misread and misused. And UVU…and teacher political involvement (way less than Greg Curtis and Paul Rolly would have you believe)…and district split issues…and extended school year…and social promotion…and my interesting conversations with neighbors about education…and referendum restrictions in SB53 and SB54…and further discussion on how WPU, MSP, and other school funding is distributed… We’ll see how it goes.

Clearing up "potential misconceptions" and one bald-faced lie about the education omnibus bill

Over the last week and a half, every member of the family has taken repeated turns being extremely sick. (I don't know if JM Bell and Jeremy were contagious through the internet or what....) So I haven't posted in nine or ten days and the session ends in two days. Luckily, President Valentine has wrapped up all of the remaining education bills into one omnibus bill that he claims has a little something for everyone.

I often disagree with the Senate Site, but they post a lot of good information and acknowledge criticism fairly well. Earlier tonight, my wife and I listened to the audio of the "Education Press Conference" featuring Senators Valentine, Stephenson, and Dayton. It's a little over 18 minutes long and the Senate Site states that the purpose was "to clear up potential misconceptions about education funding that seemed to be swimming around." Let me give you a quick summary:

We have put a lot of money in public education this year.
We are including a lot of the Republican "reform bills," including the American Board program because of its "track record" (see below), in one, gigantic omnibus bill.
We love merit pay and we are going to "experiment" with lots of merit pay proposals. Of course we're not interfering with Rep. Last's merit pay taskforce.
We're putting it all together into an omnibus bill. Of course this is not a plan to ram through unpopular, right-wing, Senate-Caucus-devised-and-Eagle-Forum-approved legislation sprinkled with token Democrat bills so we can accuse no votes of being "obstructionist." The fact that some of these proposals were already voted down individually just shows how diverse and "experimental" the education omnibus package of fun will be this year.
Senator Dayton briefly speaks for no apparent reason, answers no questions, thanks the governor, and tells us that she hopes Utah will become known as "the feeder state for NASA" through differential pay.
Omnibus is good. Omnibus is good. Omnibus is good.
Individually considering the bills isn't actually as good as throwing them all together. If you don't like it, make an amendment.
Omnibus is good. Omnibus is good. Omnibus is good.

My comments on "potential misconceptions":

At about 1:10 in, President Valentine estimates that funding is up 50% from last year. He's serious too. Take off the 0 and I believe a 5% increase would be closer to the mark. But I will grant him, it's a good increase overall. I understand why it's less than originally proposed.

BLATANT LIE COMING... At about 2:35 and again at about 3:50ish, Senator Valentine specifically praises the American Board program as having been "tried and tested" and having a "track record." Did he even read the original bill? It's like Senators Dayton and Peterson on the IB program all over again. Except a simple web search here would give you the openly acknowledged fact that the "Distinguished Teacher" award from American Board is a less-than-a-year-old "pilot" program. You can become "one of the first teachers in the nation to earn this prestigious certification" and they are so desperate that you do so that they will pay you $1000 dollars to earn their award. I honestly wonder how the legislature grabbed onto this random program from a profit-seeking headhunting company that claims they can turn you into a teacher with "a classroom of your own in less than a year!" all for $850 bucks. My earlier post on the subject reveals the organization is tied to national voucher advocacy groups and testing companies. I've been too lazy to hunt down the campaign contributions, but I can't figure out another way this random program gained traction to be funded with one million taxpayer dollars. Maybe they Googled " corporate teacher award" and threw a dart at the results? Why not put money towards teachers who earn the truly proven and well-known National Board certification? This is the organization whose name American Board is trying to copy and for which Rep. Moss has already written a bill, HB 84.

At about 7:10 into the audio, Senator Stephenson defends the proposals as "research based" right after he and President Valentine talk about how they're all experimental too.

It is hard to hear the reporters, but around 9:45 a reporter asks a long question about why so many bills that have already been voted down in committee or on the floor are included in the omnibus bill. Senator Stephenson assures him around 10:20 that many of these bills were going to be revoted on anyway because they had just been "misunderstood" during their initial defeats. Just like vouchers, right?

At 12:15ish, Senator Stephenson apparently reveals that they are taking out the original "critical shortage" criteria (lines 12, 17, 40-41, 45-49) for the extra $5000 bucks for math and science teachers. So instead of paying teachers extra to teach in Dugway or Juab, which I could support, all math and science teachers will make more money.

And to finish off, President Valentine assures us at about 18:05 that despite the fact that many of these proposals wouldn't pass by themselves, "we can look at the total and say that this is a good plan."

Does any of that sound suspicious to you too? I want to see the text of this omnibus bill immediately. I wonder if it will be available online at all before it is debated or passes...

Speaking of Merit Pay, How About a “Teacher Test” Delivered Under False Pretenses by Voucher Supporters?

The next few posts will be fairly critical of some legislators and their philosophies of education. My last post talked about the Merit Pay Task Force and my hopes and fears for what it will accomplish. Merit pay proposals may indeed bring some sort of positive effect, but there are LOTS and LOTS of real questions about how to evaluate, who to evaluate, who evaluates, standards, remediation, paying a certain percentage of teachers or paying for meeting certain requirements, etc. Merit pay proposals are seen by many as a veiled attack on the value of teachers in general, and specifically as retribution for their opposition to last year’s voucher bill. Rep. Last says the task force was created to bring together legislators and educators to try and reach "consensus" on the standards, alleviating some of those concerns about top-down regulations.

So why is Senator Mark Madsen running SB0091, a bill that institutes merit pay under the guise of a teacher qualification, instead of contributing his input to the task force as they consider all the alternatives and ramifications of merit pay? I’m afraid the answer is that it’s about retribution and corporatization of education, as well as another attempt to weaken the bargaining role of the UEA in teacher compensation.

The bill proposes paying for teachers to obtain a special certification and then paying them more salary afterwards. At first glance, while still puzzled as to why the proposal wouldn’t be wrapped into the Merit Pay Task Force, I thought the bill was just recognizing the merit of a widely respected teacher training program, know as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). This organization was founded by education professionals in 1987 and is known for its broad, rigorous requirements for showing classroom mastery. Teachers have to demonstrate mastery of the subject matter and an understanding of classroom and community principles through extensive evaluation and a portfolio of their work. Here are the standards for a Junior High English Teacher.

But the bill is about another organization, The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. The similar sounding name is just a coincidence of course. Founded in 2001 as a “bargain” teacher headhunter, the organization tries to address the national teacher shortage by recruiting applicants, “certifying” them as teachers through the rigorous, yet quick and easy, $850 online text and test offered (see Utah’s special page and how easy it is! “Become a teacher and have a classroom of your own in less than a year!”), and then aggressively shopping them as “better” than normal teacher applicants to school districts desperate to fill positions. Because of course, one online course is all you need to be a teacher. Now, ABCTE is trying to offset this inherent cheapening of what the teaching profession requires by offering a “Distinguished Teacher” certification, which is the subject of SB0091.

This distinguished award is less than a year old and “is being piloted right now in several school districts in order to ensure the requirements will be measured in a valid and reliable way.” That certainly inspires confidence that our tax money will be well spent. Currently, they are so anxious to establish their award as legit that they will actually pay you to go through the process. (I would assume that Sen. Madsen knows this and just proposes paying for it because he knows the company will charge hundreds of dollars once they’re off the pilot program...) The process consists of 1. Passing an online test on the subject matter. 2. An evaluation by the principal. 3. An evaluation by someone else using a rubric that is similar to what Utah already uses, but must specifically come from another for-profit education corporation. 4. The test scores of your students.

In other words, almost a carbon copy of some of the merit pay proposals, but under a different name to fly under the radar and avoid any input from concerned educators. I see this as ideology over integrity. The program is voluntary, but Senator Madsen is hiding its true intent. But how did Senator Madsen even hear about this company and formulate the bill? The national, corporate “school reform” web strikes again! I need to find the campaign donor records of Senator Madsen and check them out. I wonder how much he received from large educational testing companies or pro-voucher organizations. The big corporate money and pro-voucher connections are everywhere.

The President of ABCTE, David Saba, is a businessman who spent much of his career working for Kaplan, another expensive testing and tutoring company. He takes quite a few potshots at the union in his blog and makes it very clear that he supports No Child Left Behind, especially the provisions about shutting down schools. Wouldn’t that worry Utah Senators who constantly worry about federal encroachment, especially one who actually sponsored a bill rejecting NCLB money? (Senator Margaret Dayton heads the Senate Education Committee and already passed the bill out of committee with a favorable recommendation.) Apparently not if big money and vouchers are involved.

The Board of Directors of ABCTE contains some impressive looking names and titles, but also some revealing ones. One director is the president of the Texas Institute for Education Reform. “Education Reform” is the rightwing codeword for pro-voucher, pro-merit pay, pro-privatization. Another director was actually hired away from the Alliance for School Choice and holds a simultaneous position doing research at the Goldwater Institute, another rightwing, explicitly pro-voucher advocacy group. Another lady works for ETS, the “non-profit organization” (I know it’s Wikipedia, but the NY Times article and blog quoted are solid.) that has “non-profit” monopolies on the SAT, TOEFL, GRE, and others including the CRAPI…I mean PRAXIS. The PRAXIS is ETS’s response to the “highly qualified teacher” requirement of NCLB. This test is the easiest way for a state to claim their teachers are “highly qualified” while spending no money and exerting no effort. Instead, teachers pay close to $300 to take two multiple-choice tests that “prove” they know both their subject matter and how to teach: a. Work with your student to find solutions to the problem. b. Belittle your student each time he misbehaves. c. Blame the government. d. All of the above. ETS makes a killing, the state checks off a box on their NCLB form, and the prospective teacher jumps through the hoop, rolls over, sits up, and begs for mercy. The American Board “Distinguished Teacher” test is almost identical: 4 hours of torturous bologna consisting of 5% multiple-choice questions about Instructional Knowledge and Professional Skills.

It would appear that Senator Madsen and the other members of the Senate Education Committee had to answer for themselves two basic questions about this legislation. Should we in good faith commit resources, information, and proposals to the Merit Pay Task Force…or try to pass an arbitrary, one-sided proposal via a deceptive out-of-state mechanism? And second, should we define merit as a rigorous examination of all aspects of teaching by a well-known and respected teacher organization…or as passing a multiple-choice test and receiving a “pilot certification” from a front organization for “education reform” groups? Apparently, the answers come pretty easily if money and vouchers are involved. I wonder what the simple, multiple-choice test to become a legislator looks like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And…

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

Two questions immediately come to mind.

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

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

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

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

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