Do you believe Governor Huntsman actually read SB53 before signing it? What about legislators? What about Senator Goodfellow? Was it just cut and pasted from an email from Steve Barth? And this is the shorter of the two referendum change bills...
I am posting these articles with a few things underlined by me.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9175754
Utah AG has doubts about new law banning voter initiatives on land issues
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 11:22:19 PM MDT
Posted: 9:42 PM- The Utah Attorney General's Office believes there's a good chance that a new law banning voter initiatives on land-use ordinances is unconstitutional.
In an April 29 letter to Sevier County Attorney Dale Eyre - obtained by The Tribune today through an open-records request - Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts said there is "a serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
Roberts wrote that by banning initiatives and referenda on land-use ordinances, the law "appears in direct conflict with the Utah Supreme Court cases" on such voting rights.
A group of Sevier County residents, dubbed the Right to Vote committee, turned in 1,536 signatures last Friday to put plans for a coal-fired power plant to a public vote. SB53 took effect Monday.
The bill's sponsor, along with the lobbyist credited as the brains behind the developer -friendly measure, defended its purpose.
"My legislation was in no way intended to take away the right of the people to petition their government," said Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City. "But I think that right applies to legislative matters, not administrative or executive. I was trying to put into statute what is already in case law."
Lobbyist Steve Barth agrees.
"The court has been very consistent in drawing that line and this was to save people the time and money of a wasted referendum effort," Barth said.
One of Barth's clients, Mount Holly Partners, faces extended litigation brought by Beaver County residents who oppose the multi-billion-dollar Mount Holly Club project planned for 1,800 acres in the Tushar Mountains.
A 5th District Court judge ruled last July against the residents and their desire to put that development to a public vote. Their attorney, Joel Ban, appealed the case to the Utah Court of Appeals and briefs are expected to be filed this week.
Ban said he suspected - but did not know - that developers had turned to the Legislature to try to cut off such citizen ballot movements.
"That's typical of these kind of developers," Ban added. "I'm not surprised by anything they've done."
Goodfellow's SB53, touted as mostly housekeeping during the recent Legislative session, sailed through with little opposition
"No one asked for our opinion on its constitutionality until now," said Attorney General spokesman Paul Murphy.
Eyre, the Sevier County Attorney dislikes SB53. And he agrees with the AG's opinion.
"It will help the county make its decision," Eyre said, noting that commissioners can either enact the Right to Vote committee's ordinance themselves, place it on November's ballot or reject it.
That ordinance would require that all future power plant applications go to a public vote and would also revoke any power permit granted between the filing date of the initiative and the time of the vote.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed SB53 in mid-March.
"It's fair to say that we don't get an AG opinion on every bill that passes," said Lisa Roskelley, the Governor's spokeswoman.
"Considering it passed with such an overwhelming majority, we thought it was appropriate to sign it into law and if it came to this situation, any judicial clarification would be beneficial."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9200987
Beaver County: New law put to the test by developer
Attorneys argue that it renders a citizens referendum on a development moot
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
A law that took effect Monday - a law the state Attorney General's Office believes could be unconstitutional - is being used as a developer's argument to get a voting-rights case tossed out of court.
When SB53 was going through the Legislature earlier this year, backers called it a "housekeeping" measure that simply put into code established case law.
Attorneys for a planned $3.5 billion Mount Holly Club development in Beaver County, however, argue the new law is much more than a technicality.
On Tuesday, one day after the new law took effect, lawyers representing Mount Holly Partners LLC, CPB Development LC and Beaver County, filed briefs in the Utah Court of Appeals asking that a lawsuit brought by a group of Beaver residents be dismissed.
The attorneys argued that SB53 renders a citizens referendum on the project moot and that the case belongs in the state Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals.
Steve Barth, a lobbyist who claimed credit for the bill, lists Mount Holly as a client.
"The 2008 Utah Legislature has enacted revisions to the Utah Elections Code, effective May 5, 2008, which make land-use ordinances of the nature at issue in this case not subject to a referendum vote," the briefs state. In other portions of the documents, the attorneys specifically identify SB53 as the basis of their argument.
A message left for the Mount Holley attorneys was not returned Thursday.
Attorney Joel Ban, who represents the residents group, said he has 10 days to file his response.
"I don't think SB53 is constitutional - that's what I'm sure about," Ban said Thursday. "But in terms of its effect on this case, that's up in the air right now."
A letter released by the Utah Attorney General's Office Tuesday in a different voting-rights case - this one in Sevier County - said there is "serious concern that a court would strike SB53 down as violative of the Utah constitutional provisions concerning initiatives."
The Beaver County dispute heated up last spring when county commissioners passed an ordinance authorizing the county to enter into a developer's agreement, paving the way for phased construction of 2,000 multimillion-dollar homes around a ski resort and premiere golf course.
Members of a long-standing homeowners association went to court to halt the project and gathered 845 signatures to put it to a public vote. Last June, a 5th District judge ruled in favor of the developer, deeming the commission's decision administrative and therefore not subject to referendum.
The residents' group is appealing that ruling.
The original version of SB53 introduced in the Legislature stated that the voting ban applied to a land-use or zoning matter "administrative in nature." However, before it's first floor vote, that was replaced with broader language.
Lincoln Shurtz, legislative analyst for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, helped to craft the substitute version, which passed with minimal opposition.
The bill was changed out of concern the original went too far in trying to "draw a bright line between administrative and legislative" actions, Shurtz said.
"That line is quite blurry at times," Shurtz acknowledged.
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
What does SB53 do?
Lobbyist Steve Barth pushed for legislation to help his client, Mount Holly Partners LLC. In the recent legislative session, Sen. Brent Goodfellow, D-West Valley City, sponsored SB53 and Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, co-sponsored it in the House. Here's what SB53 does:
* Bars legal voters of any town, city or county from initiating a land-use ordinance or a change to a land-use ordinance.
* Also bars the aforesaid voters from requiring the implementation of a land-use ordinance to be submitted to a public vote.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9342999
Mount Holly
Lawyer urges project to go to referendum
Developers, on their part, say the appeal should be dismissed
By Cathy McKitrick
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 01:05:32 AM MDT
A developer's legal battle to block a public vote on its plans for a
pricey ski-and-golf resort in Beaver County took a circuitous and
"desperate" detour through the state Legislature, charges an attorney
for resort opponents.
"In what can only be described as a series of desperate acts,
[developers] have taken extraordinary measures to try and avoid a
legal review of the trial court's conclusions," Joel Ban, attorney for
a grass roots group trying to put the Mount Holly project to a vote,
wrote in appeal briefs filed Wednesday.
"[Developers] hired a lobbyist, pursued an amendment to the
referendum statute and then filed a request to extend the briefing
schedule. Knowing that SB53 had been signed by the governor and would
become effective May 5, they nonetheless waited until the last day to
act," Ban wrote.
Sen. Brent Goodfellow's SB53 - a new law confusing to the point
state lawyers say it could be unconstitutional - took effect May 5.
A day later, CPB Development LC and Mount Holly Partners LLC used
it as the basis to ask that a resident group's appeal get tossed out
of court.
Ban wants the Utah Court of Appeals to allow the Mount Holly
project to go to a referendum vote. A lower court, in a complex
decision, ruled it could not.
Ban claims the issue is subject to referendum because the county
decision constituted legislative action - the enacting of an ordinance
establishing the details of the Mount Holly Club development
agreement.
Developers say the appeal should be dismissed, arguing that SB53
bans referendums on all local land-use issues. It also claims the
state Supreme Court is the proper forum for an elections dispute.
In late April the state Attorney General's Office questioned
SB53's constitutionality in a letter sent to Sevier County Attorney
Dale Eyre - concerning another right-to-vote effort, this one over a
controversial coal-fired power plant.
Assistant Attorney General Thom Roberts cited Article 6 of the
state Constitution, which provides for the people's fundamental right
to legislate through initiative and referenda.
That right - viewed as sacrosanct - bucks up against individual
property rights, said Dan McDonald, an attorney with Smith Hartvigsen,
the firm representing CPB and Mount Holly.
"More and more, citizen groups who dislike a landowner or
development organize themselves to challenge land-use decisions,"
McDonald said.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that individual
property rights are important as well as deference to local land-use
authority."
McDonald intends to file a quick answer to Ban's brief today -
although the court could rule without it.
The weighty issues of SB53's constitutionality - and application
to this case - cannot be ignored, McDonald said.
"This has statewide impact and is important enough that we think
it will percolate to the Supreme Court, no matter who loses in the
Court of Appeals."
cmckitrick@sltrib.com
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9597737
Muzzling the people: Legislature should not take lawmaking petitions away
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/15/2008 10:47:56 PM MDT
The Utah Constitution says that two groups can make laws: the
Legislature and the people. The first group is trying to cut the
second group out of the process. That isn't right, and the Utah
Supreme Court should put a stop to it.
This year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 53, which says that
the voters of any county, city or town may not initiate a land use
ordinance or a change in a land use ordinance. That's the right of
initiative we all learned about in school.
For good measure, the Legislature also said that the people may
not require a land use ordinance passed by the local legislative body
(city council or county commission) to be submitted to the voters for
approval before it can take effect. That latter process is called a
referendum.
This bill, which was passed virtually without opposition in the
Legislature and signed quickly into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman, is an
insult to the plain wording of the Utah Constitution, which reserves
the rights of both initiative and referendum to the people.
In 2002, the Utah Supreme Court commented that "the power of the
Legislature and power of the people to legislate through initiative
and referenda are coequal, coextensive and concurrent and share 'equal
dignity.'" It follows that the Legislature can't take that power away
from the people in defiance of the Utah Constitution.
Why would the Legislature do this? To help developers, of course.
In the delicate balance between private property rights and community
interests, the Legislature is putting its thumb on the scale to favor
property.
Private property rights are a foundation of the republic. But when
one property owner does something that profoundly affects his
neighbors, and their property, there's got to be a balancing process.
That's where local planning and zoning laws come in.
SB53 passed during a bitter fight in Beaver County over the
redevelopment of Elk Meadows Resort into the $3.5 billion Mount Holly
Club. The citizen effort to make that project the subject of a
referendum will provide the test case for SB53 before the Utah Supreme
Court. The outcome of that case also will affect an initiative
petition in Sevier County targeting a proposed 270 megawatt coal-fired
power plant near Sigurd. Both of these projects will have far-reaching
effects on the neighboring communities.
In both fights, the people should have the right to seek a direct
voice at the ballot box, and the Legislature should not be allowed to
muzzle that voice.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sad, but true--I don't think teachers are very politically minded or generally mobilized to fight for important issues
This is a follow up to a previous post discussing whether education issues actually affect how people vote.
My two broad points:
1. Teachers generally do not follow the legislative session closely, do not contact their legislators about issues, and do not feel extremely comfortable arguing policies or even articulating their stories in public forums. This sometimes prevents legislators and the public from knowing the real picture of everyday teaching, the good and the bad of public education in Utah. That’s bad.
2. The corollary to point #1 is that teachers and the UEA are not some huge, powerful political machine as described by some legislators and commentators trying to portray themselves as the underdog or victim in disputes over education policy. (Much less the PTA. It always makes me shake my head that people try and argue that the PARENTS who would join a parent-teacher association would somehow be biased in favor of teachers in the supposed conflict of interest between teachers and students. People sign up for the PTA not because they want to be involved in their children’s school, but because they suddenly feel an untrustworthy longing to help teachers? Their $5 membership in PTA somehow makes them enemies of their own children? That’s stupid. The PTA on a local level is about as grassroots as it gets. Can’t you just admit that these people can honestly like their public schools and pursue policies strengthening those schools to benefit all students?) Sure, there’s a small politically active core of teachers in the UEA. Yes, there are individual teachers who are angry and individual teachers who are informed and politically active. But when they try and pawn off the voucher defeat as solely because of the UEA vote or blame legislative defeats on teachers, it’s a political strawman meant to energize those who have a negative view of public school teachers. That’s good…or to say, the understanding of that reality is good when legislators try the “pity poor me” defense when attacking public schools against the will of the electorate.
I have tried to follow local politics and especially education issues much more closely in the last year. Before, I think I was more like the typical teacher or person in general. I would be aware of big issues that showed up on the front page, but couldn't usually give you names, bill numbers, history of the conflict, etc. I knew more about some national issues than local issues and thought more about the presidential campaign than local elections.
I know other people and other teachers have similar feelings and it kind of makes me sad now that I see this huge disconnect between our state leadership's perception of public education and reality. We as teachers need to be talking to people and making our experiences known, but we get too busy. On the other hand, I totally understand. Like many good people, work takes a lot of time to do it well and we often want to spend time with family and pursue our outside interests in our limited free time. I have personally had a lot of difficulty balancing all of my responsibilities this summer.
Two examples of teachers I know and current education controversies in Utah:
First, I was talking to another teacher at a meeting in June soon after school ended. He is an excellent teacher, highly respected by students and teachers alike for being very effective at teaching his subject as well as making his classroom an inviting place to be. We were chatting before the meetings began and I asked him what he thought about the education omnibus bill. He had no idea what I was talking about. I believe that would hold true over the whole district—there would be more teachers who haven’t heard of the omnibus bill than who have.
Second, I was taking classes this summer with a bunch of highly motivated teachers seeking their Masters Degrees, and our small talk often consisted of educational issues. I didn't talk to all of them about it, but no one I spoke with had heard of the 20 million dollar merit pay bill that passed the legislature this last year. And as far as I know of my school's faculty, only the couple other guys I talk to about politics had heard about it as we started our meetings in August.
Teachers rarely if ever win political battles—the UEA or a sympathetic legislator might hold a press conference, the papers will cover it, a Dan Jones poll will reveal for the umpteenth time that Utahns in general support higher funding for public education, and…the legislature will still do whatever it wants and rarely suffer an election night defeat because of it. Or to repeat myself, here is part of a comment I made in the discussion of a post I wrote about the UEA (with one corrected typo):
My two broad points:
1. Teachers generally do not follow the legislative session closely, do not contact their legislators about issues, and do not feel extremely comfortable arguing policies or even articulating their stories in public forums. This sometimes prevents legislators and the public from knowing the real picture of everyday teaching, the good and the bad of public education in Utah. That’s bad.
2. The corollary to point #1 is that teachers and the UEA are not some huge, powerful political machine as described by some legislators and commentators trying to portray themselves as the underdog or victim in disputes over education policy. (Much less the PTA. It always makes me shake my head that people try and argue that the PARENTS who would join a parent-teacher association would somehow be biased in favor of teachers in the supposed conflict of interest between teachers and students. People sign up for the PTA not because they want to be involved in their children’s school, but because they suddenly feel an untrustworthy longing to help teachers? Their $5 membership in PTA somehow makes them enemies of their own children? That’s stupid. The PTA on a local level is about as grassroots as it gets. Can’t you just admit that these people can honestly like their public schools and pursue policies strengthening those schools to benefit all students?) Sure, there’s a small politically active core of teachers in the UEA. Yes, there are individual teachers who are angry and individual teachers who are informed and politically active. But when they try and pawn off the voucher defeat as solely because of the UEA vote or blame legislative defeats on teachers, it’s a political strawman meant to energize those who have a negative view of public school teachers. That’s good…or to say, the understanding of that reality is good when legislators try the “pity poor me” defense when attacking public schools against the will of the electorate.
I have tried to follow local politics and especially education issues much more closely in the last year. Before, I think I was more like the typical teacher or person in general. I would be aware of big issues that showed up on the front page, but couldn't usually give you names, bill numbers, history of the conflict, etc. I knew more about some national issues than local issues and thought more about the presidential campaign than local elections.
I know other people and other teachers have similar feelings and it kind of makes me sad now that I see this huge disconnect between our state leadership's perception of public education and reality. We as teachers need to be talking to people and making our experiences known, but we get too busy. On the other hand, I totally understand. Like many good people, work takes a lot of time to do it well and we often want to spend time with family and pursue our outside interests in our limited free time. I have personally had a lot of difficulty balancing all of my responsibilities this summer.
Two examples of teachers I know and current education controversies in Utah:
First, I was talking to another teacher at a meeting in June soon after school ended. He is an excellent teacher, highly respected by students and teachers alike for being very effective at teaching his subject as well as making his classroom an inviting place to be. We were chatting before the meetings began and I asked him what he thought about the education omnibus bill. He had no idea what I was talking about. I believe that would hold true over the whole district—there would be more teachers who haven’t heard of the omnibus bill than who have.
Second, I was taking classes this summer with a bunch of highly motivated teachers seeking their Masters Degrees, and our small talk often consisted of educational issues. I didn't talk to all of them about it, but no one I spoke with had heard of the 20 million dollar merit pay bill that passed the legislature this last year. And as far as I know of my school's faculty, only the couple other guys I talk to about politics had heard about it as we started our meetings in August.
Teachers rarely if ever win political battles—the UEA or a sympathetic legislator might hold a press conference, the papers will cover it, a Dan Jones poll will reveal for the umpteenth time that Utahns in general support higher funding for public education, and…the legislature will still do whatever it wants and rarely suffer an election night defeat because of it. Or to repeat myself, here is part of a comment I made in the discussion of a post I wrote about the UEA (with one corrected typo):
But that illustrates the true lack of power of the UEA (My point #1). They make a lot of noise and get news coverage...and what? Senator Dayton mentioned how mad she felt over the UEA's "paving over the backs of students" ad campaign a couple years ago. (The legislature assigned tons of surplus to transportation in '06 when polls and the UEA wanted more for education. I feel we direly need both and it's a tough call, but I definitely believe that many legislators have a personal grudge against education.) The legislature was pilloried in editorials and in polls, but the money still got assigned to roads, none of the Republicans got ousted (well, PCE picked off a few anti-voucher Republicans, but with other Republicans), and business went on as usual. Polls support giving more money to education all the time, but legislators know that doesn't translate to the ballot box. How many teachers are there compared with habitual Republicans like my dad? The UEA has some token influence and gets some publicity, but the public only got really mad and acted with the rich money grab of vouchers.The empirical evidence of my observations is the results of the elections so far this year. Behold the (non-)power of the education lobby! I wish that teachers and public education concerns did have more influence on some of these races, but right now we’re just one more loosely affiliated group of semi-frequent voters with little quantifiable power.
The Tribune's excellent editorial on Legislative Lawyer Legerdermain (Omnibus lawsuit)
This worries me. Did any of the legislature's lawyers voice concerns about the constitutionality of SB2 before it ran? Could they be called to testify under oath and reveal what discussions they had while drafting the bill? Not if they are safely under the shield as part of the defense's legal team.
The Tribune clearly and rationally explained various possible ramifications of a seemingly small decision about which lawyers can participate in the defense of the SB2 lawsuit. Amen, Trib editorial board...amen.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10356916
More machinations: Legislators should stay out of SB2 lawsuit
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 08:55:59 AM MDT
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an omnibus education bill passed by this year's Legislature has been delayed and muddied by a legislative committee, headed by Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis, who want to get legislative attorneys involved.
It's a complicated legal maneuver, and we don't pretend to understand all its ramifications and the legal underpinnings. But two things are clear: A legislative committee cannot speak for the entire Legislature (some legislators are plaintiffs in the suit), and the state attorney general needs no help defending the case. Further, involving legislative attorneys in defending Senate Bill 2 could unfairly undermine the lawsuit.
For these reasons, we feel the attorney general's office, alone, should defend the case. After all, the attorney general is, according to the Utah Constitution, the lead defense attorney when a Utah law is challenged. Furthermore, Mark Shurtleff, in his capacity as attorney general, is named as a defendant.
Legislative attorneys work for the Legislature to craft legislation, and their testimony might be valuable to determine the history of SB2 as the lawsuit goes forward. If they are part of the defense team, they probably would be barred from testifying.
And we can believe that might be the motive behind the move by the legislative management committee, since the history of SB2 has been one of back-room political maneuvering from the beginning. Its sponsors have an interest in keeping that history from public view.
Congress has long used omnibus bills to hide undesirable initiatives among many others thrown together at the last minute. Utah legislators unwisely followed that model, introducing the huge education bill two days before the session ended.
Many of its 12 portions had already been debated and voted on as separate bills before SB2 lumped them together. There was no good reason to package them except as a way for the legislative leadership to get unpopular bills passed that otherwise would have been, or already had been, defeated.
Omnibus legislation is a devious way to govern, lumping bills together so they are not debated and voted upon on their own merits. The way this omnibus bill was passed is an underhanded way to make public policy, and so is the attempt to thwart the legal challenge against it.
The Tribune clearly and rationally explained various possible ramifications of a seemingly small decision about which lawyers can participate in the defense of the SB2 lawsuit. Amen, Trib editorial board...amen.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10356916
More machinations: Legislators should stay out of SB2 lawsuit
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 08:55:59 AM MDT
A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of an omnibus education bill passed by this year's Legislature has been delayed and muddied by a legislative committee, headed by Senate President John Valentine and House Speaker Greg Curtis, who want to get legislative attorneys involved.
It's a complicated legal maneuver, and we don't pretend to understand all its ramifications and the legal underpinnings. But two things are clear: A legislative committee cannot speak for the entire Legislature (some legislators are plaintiffs in the suit), and the state attorney general needs no help defending the case. Further, involving legislative attorneys in defending Senate Bill 2 could unfairly undermine the lawsuit.
For these reasons, we feel the attorney general's office, alone, should defend the case. After all, the attorney general is, according to the Utah Constitution, the lead defense attorney when a Utah law is challenged. Furthermore, Mark Shurtleff, in his capacity as attorney general, is named as a defendant.
Legislative attorneys work for the Legislature to craft legislation, and their testimony might be valuable to determine the history of SB2 as the lawsuit goes forward. If they are part of the defense team, they probably would be barred from testifying.
And we can believe that might be the motive behind the move by the legislative management committee, since the history of SB2 has been one of back-room political maneuvering from the beginning. Its sponsors have an interest in keeping that history from public view.
Congress has long used omnibus bills to hide undesirable initiatives among many others thrown together at the last minute. Utah legislators unwisely followed that model, introducing the huge education bill two days before the session ended.
Many of its 12 portions had already been debated and voted on as separate bills before SB2 lumped them together. There was no good reason to package them except as a way for the legislative leadership to get unpopular bills passed that otherwise would have been, or already had been, defeated.
Omnibus legislation is a devious way to govern, lumping bills together so they are not debated and voted upon on their own merits. The way this omnibus bill was passed is an underhanded way to make public policy, and so is the attempt to thwart the legal challenge against it.
Search terms
I saw Bob post something months ago about the search terms that led to his blog.
Last week, someone found me with the query "How long has Utah been a country?"
We'll skip the snarking over whether this person was educated in private or public school and just enjoy the diversity of the electorate.
Last week, someone found me with the query "How long has Utah been a country?"
We'll skip the snarking over whether this person was educated in private or public school and just enjoy the diversity of the electorate.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Educational Research and Research in General
Now this may be obvious to some, but I gained a new perspective on research, studies, and "proof" this summer. Saying that I’m cynical about research wouldn’t be accurate, but I definitely feel that I see research in a larger context now. Major issues of reliability and validity are prevalent, and any studies involving people rather than physical things like battery life or something are inherently less definitive.
There are frequent arguments about the findings of studies and I was well aware of biased research done in the past, especially about the voucher issue. But I thought of the research world as a generally dependable bunch except for a few screwballs with agendas (looking at you Jay Greene) and self-justifying studies done by companies pushing a product. That generalization mostly sorta holds true, but the research landscape is much more free-flowing, personality driven, and scattershot than I had previously conceived it. Individual, institutional, and regional biases, current hot topics, media, politics, and of course profit, strongly affect which fields of research are heavily pursued and which are not. Many different avenues exist to get published or “validate” your research, and the differences in credibility are not immediately apparent to the average reader, or more likely the average newspaper or magazine writer who then passes their take on the gist of the study to their readers. Many, many different publications, both in print and online, publish research in every imaginable field. There are prestigious, peer-reviewed journals with relatively high standards, mid-level journals with differing levels of standards, and then plenty of other printed journal-type publications looking for interesting writing, or just whatever is submitted (Kind of like those lame flyers you’d get in high school advertising that “Who’s Who” book of students that claimed to help with college and job applications, but was actually just a catalogue of the parents gullible or desperate enough to pay to get their kid’s photo in and then pay more for expensive books the family looked at once, and the colleges not at all). And even in some of the better journals, it is possible to find “holes” in many studies—variables that are unaccounted for or things left unexplained that should be explained to make the findings more credible.
This applies to all research, but especially research on people whether it be educational, psychological, behavioral, or even medical research. Almost nothing about people can be neatly buttonholed into definitive rules--we're just too uniquely weird. There are prominent recent examples of medical studies that were rushed through limited population studies and botched in the name of profit, triggering huge lawsuits afterwards (I love the movie The Fugitive….). And a body of research can strongly suggest certain effects, but the medicines and procedures are approved based on an arbitrary FDA standard of “safe enough” because nothing is absolutely certain when it comes to unique individuals. Side effects vary, vaccinations sometimes don’t work, patients react differently to identical procedures, and the same drugs, even safe and common ones like acetaminophen, don’t work for everyone. Research just leads us to the most likely best treatment, not the absolute “best.”
These same limitations and more apply to education research because it deals with psychological and social aspects of a student’s make-up, as well as biological. Our professors discouraged us from using the word "prove" when talking about education research. Every study has limitations. It was conducted by a specific person who is a member of a specific organization or university with a specific research culture and various funding pressures. The subjects of the study are in a specific place with certain teachers, schools, and curriculum and each has a unique background, learning style, and personality. I realize this could seem obvious, but even studies that are conducted with rigorous scientific standards and randomly sampled from large diverse populations only tell us so much. There is nothing definitive. Nothing. The results may show "strong tendencies," or be "generalizable," but that at best means the findings will be true for many kids in many contexts. With the diversity of individual students, it cannot mean it will hold true for all students in all contexts, even among a relatively homogenous population like Utah Valley.
Viewing research as an evolving body of literature rather than definitive snapshots that prove certain points of view is necessary to find defensible “best practices” that have shown repeated positive effects. In other words, you need to look at an entire body of research to begin to understand a subject. A meta-analysis is a study that gathers as many relevant studies as possible on a topic and then runs statistical analyses on the combined numbers to find the consensus. I have a book detailing effective teaching practices where each chapter is based on the results of a meta-analysis on a certain practice. Looking at the charts detailing the findings of the individual studies within each meta-analysis shows a lot of variance in the results. One particular effective practice had a chart showing some studies with extremely high effect sizes, others with medium or small effects, still others that found gains that were barely statistically significant, and one study with a fairly large negative effect. In other words, the students in one study scored measurably worse when taught with the prescribed method that was so effective in other settings and others showed almost no improvement. There are numerous factors that could be responsible for the discrepancies, and even researchers cannot always pinpoint the reasons for differing results from similar research. That’s par for the course as researchers, educators, and parents muddle through trying to find the best ways to teach our diverse children.
Both school systems and school critics have sometimes overused “Research shows” or “if you read the research” as justifications for practices that were speculative, and single studies as arguments against larger bodies of research. (I need to post about the hour I spent listening to Carolyn Eager, the home researcher buddy of Margaret Dayton who is an “expert” on such topics as home school and the IB, being interviewed by Gayle Ruzicka on 630 AM while I drove home from the airport a few weeks ago. It had to be some sort of record for unsupported claims of “If you read the research, you’d find…”) I know I’ve heard it in professional development meetings in public school, and charter or private schools will sometimes search out the studies justifying their founders’ opinions on the “right” curriculum or methods to use.
So I’m not saying disregard education research. I am saying that any one study needs to be approached with a critical eye and possibly a grain of salt, and that even an educational method or curriculum with a well-documented positive effect in multiple studies does not by definition have that effect on all students—the positive effect comes from statistical analysis on the net results from a large sample of students and may not have the same benefit for an individual student or class.
There are frequent arguments about the findings of studies and I was well aware of biased research done in the past, especially about the voucher issue. But I thought of the research world as a generally dependable bunch except for a few screwballs with agendas (looking at you Jay Greene) and self-justifying studies done by companies pushing a product. That generalization mostly sorta holds true, but the research landscape is much more free-flowing, personality driven, and scattershot than I had previously conceived it. Individual, institutional, and regional biases, current hot topics, media, politics, and of course profit, strongly affect which fields of research are heavily pursued and which are not. Many different avenues exist to get published or “validate” your research, and the differences in credibility are not immediately apparent to the average reader, or more likely the average newspaper or magazine writer who then passes their take on the gist of the study to their readers. Many, many different publications, both in print and online, publish research in every imaginable field. There are prestigious, peer-reviewed journals with relatively high standards, mid-level journals with differing levels of standards, and then plenty of other printed journal-type publications looking for interesting writing, or just whatever is submitted (Kind of like those lame flyers you’d get in high school advertising that “Who’s Who” book of students that claimed to help with college and job applications, but was actually just a catalogue of the parents gullible or desperate enough to pay to get their kid’s photo in and then pay more for expensive books the family looked at once, and the colleges not at all). And even in some of the better journals, it is possible to find “holes” in many studies—variables that are unaccounted for or things left unexplained that should be explained to make the findings more credible.
This applies to all research, but especially research on people whether it be educational, psychological, behavioral, or even medical research. Almost nothing about people can be neatly buttonholed into definitive rules--we're just too uniquely weird. There are prominent recent examples of medical studies that were rushed through limited population studies and botched in the name of profit, triggering huge lawsuits afterwards (I love the movie The Fugitive….). And a body of research can strongly suggest certain effects, but the medicines and procedures are approved based on an arbitrary FDA standard of “safe enough” because nothing is absolutely certain when it comes to unique individuals. Side effects vary, vaccinations sometimes don’t work, patients react differently to identical procedures, and the same drugs, even safe and common ones like acetaminophen, don’t work for everyone. Research just leads us to the most likely best treatment, not the absolute “best.”
These same limitations and more apply to education research because it deals with psychological and social aspects of a student’s make-up, as well as biological. Our professors discouraged us from using the word "prove" when talking about education research. Every study has limitations. It was conducted by a specific person who is a member of a specific organization or university with a specific research culture and various funding pressures. The subjects of the study are in a specific place with certain teachers, schools, and curriculum and each has a unique background, learning style, and personality. I realize this could seem obvious, but even studies that are conducted with rigorous scientific standards and randomly sampled from large diverse populations only tell us so much. There is nothing definitive. Nothing. The results may show "strong tendencies," or be "generalizable," but that at best means the findings will be true for many kids in many contexts. With the diversity of individual students, it cannot mean it will hold true for all students in all contexts, even among a relatively homogenous population like Utah Valley.
Viewing research as an evolving body of literature rather than definitive snapshots that prove certain points of view is necessary to find defensible “best practices” that have shown repeated positive effects. In other words, you need to look at an entire body of research to begin to understand a subject. A meta-analysis is a study that gathers as many relevant studies as possible on a topic and then runs statistical analyses on the combined numbers to find the consensus. I have a book detailing effective teaching practices where each chapter is based on the results of a meta-analysis on a certain practice. Looking at the charts detailing the findings of the individual studies within each meta-analysis shows a lot of variance in the results. One particular effective practice had a chart showing some studies with extremely high effect sizes, others with medium or small effects, still others that found gains that were barely statistically significant, and one study with a fairly large negative effect. In other words, the students in one study scored measurably worse when taught with the prescribed method that was so effective in other settings and others showed almost no improvement. There are numerous factors that could be responsible for the discrepancies, and even researchers cannot always pinpoint the reasons for differing results from similar research. That’s par for the course as researchers, educators, and parents muddle through trying to find the best ways to teach our diverse children.
Both school systems and school critics have sometimes overused “Research shows” or “if you read the research” as justifications for practices that were speculative, and single studies as arguments against larger bodies of research. (I need to post about the hour I spent listening to Carolyn Eager, the home researcher buddy of Margaret Dayton who is an “expert” on such topics as home school and the IB, being interviewed by Gayle Ruzicka on 630 AM while I drove home from the airport a few weeks ago. It had to be some sort of record for unsupported claims of “If you read the research, you’d find…”) I know I’ve heard it in professional development meetings in public school, and charter or private schools will sometimes search out the studies justifying their founders’ opinions on the “right” curriculum or methods to use.
So I’m not saying disregard education research. I am saying that any one study needs to be approached with a critical eye and possibly a grain of salt, and that even an educational method or curriculum with a well-documented positive effect in multiple studies does not by definition have that effect on all students—the positive effect comes from statistical analysis on the net results from a large sample of students and may not have the same benefit for an individual student or class.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
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:
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.
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.”That is probably not word-for-word perfect recall, but it was something to that effect.
“Oh. I could tell you looked at me funny.”
“Yea. It was because I recognized you.”
“Oh.”
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Good election night for education--two moderates beat out ultra-conservatives and Doogie Howser C.P.A. loses
Way to go Weber and Davis counties! We couldn't quite get the moderate Republican candidates over the hump at the county convention here to even hold primary elections, but two challengers from the northern Wasatch Front beat out two of the same ol' pack of far-right, voucher/omnibus/stadium, power-abusing crowd in the legislature.
Ryan Wilcox surprisingly put the hurt on Glen Donnelson with 61% of the vote.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/29000.html
And Becky Edwards pulled out a close one with Paul Neuenschwander.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/30006.html
And most satisfyingly, though still scratching my head on how this even happened, Richard Ellis defeated Mark Walker for the Republican nomination for State Treasurer with 59% of the vote.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/30000.html
I still can't figure out exactly why all of the leadership was gunning for the treasurer position. I hope word leaks on what proposals they were considering that would require the acquiescence of a 32-yr-old salesman managing 12 billion dollars of state investment funds without even being able to accurately understand (about half way through his long interview) basic investment concepts.
The whole bribe thing was a sideshow, though it does show how desperate Walker was for the help of the qualified man he was criticizing. Seriously...what were they thinking? I'm sure Speaker Curtis, President Valentine, and Attorney General Shurtleff would not allow Walker to manage their personal portfolios, so why allow him to manage the state's multi-billion dollar portfolio?
Ryan Wilcox surprisingly put the hurt on Glen Donnelson with 61% of the vote.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/29000.html
And Becky Edwards pulled out a close one with Paul Neuenschwander.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/30006.html
And most satisfyingly, though still scratching my head on how this even happened, Richard Ellis defeated Mark Walker for the Republican nomination for State Treasurer with 59% of the vote.
http://electionresults.utah.gov/xmlData/30000.html
I still can't figure out exactly why all of the leadership was gunning for the treasurer position. I hope word leaks on what proposals they were considering that would require the acquiescence of a 32-yr-old salesman managing 12 billion dollars of state investment funds without even being able to accurately understand (about half way through his long interview) basic investment concepts.
The whole bribe thing was a sideshow, though it does show how desperate Walker was for the help of the qualified man he was criticizing. Seriously...what were they thinking? I'm sure Speaker Curtis, President Valentine, and Attorney General Shurtleff would not allow Walker to manage their personal portfolios, so why allow him to manage the state's multi-billion dollar portfolio?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
