Desultory Thoughts

There is a major smear campaign against the PTA going on right now, and it started on the hill in the guise of a bill (SB 199) that pretended to be in support of parent involvement at schools.  The PTA had a problem with some of the language in the bill.  The bill in its original form prohibited principals and school officials to work with any parent organization that collected dues (i.e. PTA).  The PTA Legislative Action Committee (of which I’m an appointed member) met to discuss this bill and the position that the PTA would take based on resolutions that guide our decisions.

The membership of the PTA are strong supporters of parent involvement, as much as any organization out there if not the most!  We’re also strong proponents of local control.  We also believe in working with our legislators so that the laws that are passed are in the best interest of all children.  It was with great effort that members of the Utah PTA Board met with Senator Bramble to work out a compromise.  Based on the compromise (which took out the anti-PTA language) the voting members cast their vote to support the substitute bill.  The very next day Senator Bramble paraded the PTA leadership on the Senate floor and praised them for their efforts to come to a compromise.

A week went by and we met again as we do on a weekly basis during the Legislative session.  We review the positions we have taken on various bills where the children of Utah are at stake and we discussed SB 199 again.  During the time between the compromise and the next meeting we began to understand some unintended consequences of the bill, even in its new form that we had previously agreed upon.  There was much debate as we discussed the ramifications of changing positions on a bill that we had previously taken a position on.  There were several consequences to consider, including 1) we had worked with legislators and come to an agreement.  2) Legislators were working on “good faith” assumptions. and 3) there were many political reasons why we shouldn’t change our position, despite the unintended consequences of the bill.  But when it came down to it, the voting members of LAC stood up for what was right, regardless of the consequences that might follow. Understanding that if the bill passed and became law, it would be bad law even with good intention (and I have some reservations about the original intent of the bill, especially since it contained “kill-the-PTA” language) because of the position it would put district superintendents and school principals in.  To fully understand the unintended consequences please read the talking points written by Holly Langton, Alison Walker, Sue Carey and other dedicated PTA Officers and Commissioners.

The original bill, SB 199, was opposed by Utah PTA.  PTA members mounted a great lobbying effort to have changes made to the bill.  The result of that effort was 1st Substitute SB 199.  There were still some concerns with portions of the bill, but Utah PTA was supportive of the fact that parental involvement is essential in every child’s education to support student success.  Therefore, Utah PTA took a position of support on the substitute bill.  Since that vote, additional input and information has been received from our attorneys and PTA members, and we have become convinced that 1st Sub SB 199 will not accomplish the goal of increasing parental involvement in our schools and may even have the potential to decrease involvement.

On March 4, Utah PTA’s Legislative Action Committee voted to change the position to on 1st Sub SB 199 to “Support the Concept.”  We appreciate Senator Bramble’s efforts to increase parental involvement in the schools, and we thank him for including Utah PTA in his efforts.  Utah PTA reaffirms its intention of working with all public school groups in an effort to serve the best interests of all children and youth.   However, the overarching concern is that much of the language in the bill takes away the authority of the “School.”  The administrator needs to make decisions based on the best interest of the school and its students.  The language of this bill puts administrators between “a rock and a hard place,”  forced into the position of deciding what is in the best interest of the parent groups, rather than keeping the focus on the students (lines 44-46).  For example, if a school permits a parent group to sponsor an assembly on a specific issue, then the school must allow other parent groups to sponsor an assembly on the issue.  If the administrator feels that one assembly on that topic is all that is necessary or can be justified in taking up class time, then the only recourse for the administrator is to not allow any parent group to sponsor the assembly.  If this becomes a recurring situation for an administrator, it could seriously hamper parental involvement or activities sponsored by parent groups in a school.

Concerns with the bill language:

What is required to be a “legally organized parent or parent/teacher group, association or organization” (lines 29-30)?

What are “patrons of the school” (line 31)?

Why are employees and officers of the entities included in the definition of the “School” (line 35)? Does this language preclude them from joining a group, because they would be seen as endorsing, supporting, sanctioning, or giving approval to one group over another (lines 53-54)?  Can a teacher be assigned to assist only one group and not be seen as endorsing?  Many employees who are parents of children in the school where they work might not be allowed to join one parent group without joining them all.

Individual employees, especially in secondary schools, may have a vested interest in a specific parent group.  For example, the band teacher would want to be involved with the band booster group but not necessarily the basketball parent group.  Would they be required to join all those parent groups in order to support the band group and not favor one over the other (lines 35 and 53-54)?

Would schools now be responsible to ensure that parent groups complete their annual IRS filings and have written fiscal management procedures, conflict of interest policies, and record-retention policies (lines 55-59)?  A school cannot be responsible for all the “applicable laws, rules, regulations, and policies” with which a parent group should comply.  This would take time and energy away from the students.

I couldn’t explain all the complexities of the unintended consequences any better than that.  Unfortunately there are other consequences that we’ll now have to deal with, but they won’t affect the children of Utah nearly as much as this bad law would.  I’m proud to be a member of an organization that will stand up for the children and stay true to their word, first and foremost, that they act in the best interest of all children.  What a noble and great act!  I would be ashamed if they took any other action.  They did the right thing!  No matter how mad Senator Bramble and Representative Lockhart are about the change in course, no matter how badly radio and newspapers spin it, the Utah PTA can be proud that they did the right thing.  Read their mission statement and ask yourself how they could possibly do anything different:

The Mission of the PTA is three-fold:

• To support and speak on behalf of children and youth in the schools, in the community, and before governmental bodies and other organizations that make decisions affecting children;
• To assist parents in developing the skills they need to raise and protect their children; and
• To encourage parent and public involvement in the public schools of this nation.

I rest my case…but you haven’t heard the last of me yet!

My wife made a brief appearance on the news this evening.  KSL’s Courtney Orton interviewed her to get her take on the budget cuts that Tooele County School District is implementing. She did a great job, especially considering that our son was attempting his own appearance on the news.  He poked his head into a shot or two until she took him up to his room and told him to cut it out.   Most parents of a five-year-old boy would be able to relate.

One comment Heather made during the interview that didn’t go live was about her trust in the board members that we elected to make decisions on our behalf.  I would like to echo that sentiment and thank the Tooele County School Board and Administration for making some really tough decisions about the future of our children.  I have no doubt that they deliberated hard and long and thought about the impact that their judgment would have on our children.   I hope that despite tough times, public school funding will continue as more difficult decisions are made in the 2009 Legislative session.

While it may be prudent to tighten the proverbial belt in uncertain times, it would be irresponsible if we didn’t continue to make education a priority.  It’s the same type of decision that we all make in our own families when the budget is tight.   A responsible family doesn’t spend a lot of money on vacations if they’re not going to have enough money to pay their bills.  If that still doesn’t cut it, a responsible family cancels their cable TV and they figure out other ways they can save money, even when it means  a little discomfort on the part of the parents.  The very last person to suffer (if at all) is the child.

Parents sacrifice a lot to make sure their children are happy, and it shouldn’t be too much different when it comes to our schools.  We all want the best for our children and  Tooele County School District is making the same types of decisions that fall right in line with the decisions a  responsible family would be making.  Of course, with tough decisions comes some tough criticism.  As long as it is constructive and not hostile, I’m sure the Board would love to hear from you.  They meet again on February 3 at 6:30 p.m. at the District Office.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com
(Begins with a short commercial)

I’ve been planning a big Obama post now for a while, but haven’t yet found time to organize my thoughts into a thorough, coherent post. When I do it, I want to do it right. It’s no news to anybody at this point (well, except maybe Hillary) that Obama’s coronation as the Democrat nominee for president is inevitable, so sometime in the next few weeks I’ll have a lot to say about His Highness.

In the meantime, I thought I’d make one observation about the conservative vs. liberal personality- at least when it comes to Internet media.

I’ll be perfectly honest- when it comes to the blogosphere, the Left all but has the market cornered. For every decent conservative blog in cyberspace, there are several hard-hitting liberal blogs. Lately I’ve filled my spare time commenting on a host of them (because let’s face it, it’s much more convenient to react to somebody’s content than create your own- plus stirring up pots in the Left wing of the blogosphere fills my soul with delight).

Liberals pride themselves on their influence and organization when it comes to the Web. I’ll hand it to them, they’ve utilized the Web very wisely in recent years. But outside the arena of ideas (where we eat their lunch every day), the huge difference between liberals and conservatives on the Web is the former’s utter inability to laugh at themselves and the latter’s irreverent sense of humor (this is also true in the world of stand-up comedy. Other than Mark Marin, I can’t think of a single liberal comedian that’s ever truly made me laugh). The fact that we can laugh at both ourselves and them is a long-term advantage.

What sparked this post was a comment Obama made the other day at a speech in Beaverton, Oregon:

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

57 states, huh? Impressive indeed!

Now of course I give the guy a break. He’s got to be exhausted, and when all you do is talk all day you’re bound to say something dumb.

But don’t throw conservatives a softball and expect them not to hit it out of the park.

Suitably Flip has produced and is now selling the official Barack Obama 57 state lapel pin!

This pin is even funnier now that Barack has apparently started wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin, after dismissing the practice earlier in the campaign as “a substitute for true patriotism.”

The more I learn about Barack Obama, the more I’m convinced that Hillary would make a much better president. But one thing’s for sure, conservatives in cyberspace will have just as much fun flaming him as we’ve had flaming her.

In 2007 a funny thing happened.  People began expressing their opinion on education issues like never before.  (I have no study to back that up, it’s just something I noticed and as I’ve talked to others they have noticed it too.)  It probably had a lot to do with the great voucher debate, but I saw more than just a discussion about vouchers.  I saw a lot of talk about making our public schools better.  I read many voucher debates, but I also read why public schools were good and how they could become better.  My kids attend public school so of course I want them to be the best they can be, we all want that. We all discussed that in 2007.  Somehow that discussion is no longer taking place; it died with the vouchers.  Or did it?  Has blogging about issues in education really gone out of style?  Is it no longer popular?

Yes, this year is an election year.  It would seem that many of the blogs have shifted gears and are talking about the candidates now, but isn’t there still room to talk about and put into action our plans to make education for children in Utah better?  Or did we all just blog about it back then because it was the latest craze?

I don’t think so!  I think that everyone that wrote about it last year can continue to write about it this year!  And they will write because they care!  And they care because they’re outstanding human beings that want to make a difference, not just hear themselves talk.

I was curious to see just how dead the subject had become so I went back to many of the blogs that I read during the voucher debate (not all of them because it took me several weeks just to get to where I am now)  to see how many of you have continued to keep education issues on your front page from time to time.  It would seem that my suspicions are correct because most blogs that wrote about vouchers in 2007 haven’t written one education-based post since last November.  The issues are still there, they’re just not being talked about in the blogosphere anymore.

Utah Educatiton Issues is a blog that, even in title, has determined to keep education on the front page.  It’s written by a teacher and recently has blogged quite a bit about candidates and parties, but continues to keep issues like class size reduction in the mix.  Many of you have participated in the comments there and if we’re serious about making education better the discussion (and more importantly the action) needs to continue.   Which brings up a possible answer to my question; perhaps we haven’t had time for blogging but we’ve been out there fighting hard to make education better.  Why don’t we take an hour and let others know what we’ve done to improve education this month?  By sharing these experiences we can inspire others to do the same.  We can continue to keep the debate alive!

I am not beyond reproach.  I could have posted my experience in participating in public comment at the State Board of Education in April, or attending a “What Counts?” meeting organized by the Tooele County School District Board and giving input as to how they can do better and what they should focus on.  I could (and should) blog more about my involvement with the PTA and our efforts to reduce class size and improve the education of all children in Utah.  Why aren’t we all doing this more?

In hopes that it will get people talking again, I’d like to call a few people out on this.  As bloggers we’re all quite aware of who is linking to us and why and I’m pretty sure that’s how you might have ended up reading this post, but that’s the idea.  Now that you’re here, defend yourself, won’t you?  Tell us all why you cared about education last year but this year you’ve fallen silent.  Express your awesome opinions once again!  Make a commitment today to keep education issues on your front page.  If you’re a political blog, talk about the candidates’ commitment to education.  Don’t permanently die and never post again when you did so much for us last year!  There are a few of you that continue to talk about education and we all thank you!

I hope 2008 will be another banner year for making a difference for our children.  We’d all give up our lives for our children if it ever came to that.  Let’s do them one better and give up our time and energy for them while they’re young and when it counts the most!  Commit today to write at least one post a month on an education related issue.  We can do this!  We have to do this!  If you don’t have a blog, participate in the comments!  We can all make a difference by working together!  I’ve overused exclamation points in this paragraph so it’s time to end!  NOW!

I think it’s important to stay on top of important issues that might have an effect on our children. Many times this can be easily accomplished just by staying informed. State School Board Chairman Kim Burningham (who has recently announced that he will step down from his Chairman position but will continue to serve on the State School Board) was kind enough to send out an email to let us know that two such issues would be discussed at an Education Interim Committee meeting. I was unable to attend in person (they didn’t have time for public input anyhow) but I did take the time to listen to the audio. The following is a fairly detailed synopsis of the discussion regarding legislation that would effect the State School Board.

During an Education Interim Committee meeting on November 14, 2007, modifications to the State Board of Education were discussed. These modifications would expand the membership of the State Board of Education from 15 members to 29 members whose districts would then be identical to the State Senate districts and also would change the election procedures to a non-partisan board to a partisan board.

The question to the committee was, “Is there a sponsor for this bill?”

The answer was, “Right now it belongs to the Committee.”

More confusion: “Who do we address the questions to? Who is going to answer the questions?”

The answer – even more confusion: “The Wizard of Oz.”

“Let’s pull the curtain back then!”

They finally determined that Senator Stephenson and Dee Larsen (Associate General Counsel) would be able to answer questions regarding the proposed legislation.

Representative Holdaway asked, “Why are we doing this, number one? Number two, in my mind and in many people’s minds this system is not broken.”

Representative Wimmer’s answer (paraphrased): This dates back to the 2006 election. My wife will kill me for this, but I’m going to use her as an example. With the advent of early voting some people voted several weeks prior to the election day. Finding information about State School Board candidates was nearly impossible because they didn’t hold town hall meetings, that we could see. My wife ended up not voting for a State School Board member because she couldn’t find any information. This bill will make the school board members, who do a good job, and puts them through the process where they will make them more visible. As they go through this process there is much more initiative on their part to hold town hall meetings, to hold debates, to hold Meet the Candidate events so the people can see, so that this will shine a light for the public. I don’t see this as anything but good. They are not required in any way shape or form, to pick a political party. What it does is bring it to the people; bring it to the grass roots level where the citizens will be able to shine a light on the candidates and have more of a view of who they are going to vote for. That’s my reason and purpose for it.

Senator Jones then made a comment (paraphrased): I interview people for a living. People really don’t know who their school board members are and sometimes don’t even know who their Governor is. What the public is clamoring for right now is less partisanship, not more. And in my view this does nothing to improve the current system; nothing whatsoever. And in fact, I think it makes it worse because it would include so much more partisanship in the process. It would be incredibly unfortunate for a very capable person to campaign and have people vote against her just because she has Republican behind her name.

Rep. Hughes asked (paraphrased): How many people are aware of the process we have now? How many people are aware that we have a selection committee? That is a partisan selection committee. You have members of the business coalition and members of the education community and they’re coming together as a committee to decide who gets to put their name on a ballot. We can live and die by that process but I don’t know that everyone is going to see that process as being nonpartisan and free of politics. I think we have a process in place that I think could be revisited. He continued to explain that he thinks that the convention process is a great way to elect officials. Anyone that has to go through that kind of refiners fire make a candidate a better public servant. He thinks that the size of the school board districts are too big for people to have one-on-one conversations with constituents; the numbers are too big. This will help bring the process to the people and have them be more a part of who their State School Board members will be.

Senator Stephenson (paraphrased): I agree with this concept. It would elevate the stature of the State School Board. At the same time I realize that anything we pass in the coming session would not have an effect for the 2008 general session because the process is already in place. Should we consider this legislation in the coming session or put it on the interim study list for the 2008 interim and have a thorough hearing process and then bring it back in the 2009 session so that it would be implemented in time for the 2010 legislature. I don’t think it could currently take affect in the 2008 legislature.

Rep. Wimmer concluded (paraphrased): I’m tremendously supportive of what Senator Stephensen said. This is an issue that cannot go away. That’s the way I view it. I’ve received some emails that accuse me of being a partisan hack in this issue. This has zero to do with partisanship. This has everything to do with shining the light on those who represent us. I’ll bet that less than one half of one percent of the citizens can name their school board members. I understand that most of our citizens can’t name us, but those who go to the caucuses can, those who go to convention can, those who are involved in the processes can; they know who we are and they help dictate the government. Right now our state school board members are way too far away from the people they represent. Being that it could not take effect until 2010 I have no problem with Senator Stephens’ suggestion.

A motion was made to have the item formerly placed on the interim study list and that they direct staff to make sure that that happens.

The motion was not recognized but it was the general consensus that this bill would be studied further and brought up in a future legislative session (not 2008).

Representative Wimmer believes that this issue cannot go away, so we’ll certainly see this revisited in the future.

Stay tuned for a synopsis of the second issue that was discussed that could have an effect on our children.

Before the committee met I wrote a letter to my representative (James Gowans) who sits on the committee and argued that a partisan State School Board would not be in the best interest of our children.  I’m fairly certain he agrees, although I have not received a response to my email.  This is an issue I’ll certainly continue to follow.