Posted in Education Politics

Two stories in this mornings Deseret Morning News: a wire story about sexual abuse in public schools; and the second a closer look at the same issue in Utah. According to the AP, there are more than 2500 cases of teacher sexual misconduct each year:

While some educators lose their licenses for theft, substance abuse or fraud, an Associated Press analysis shows most suspensions or revocations are related to sexual misconduct. Utah's incident rate is more than double the national average.

This is just one more indictment of the faulty structure of the public education system.  Lets put our children in a concentrated population that will attract pedophiles, and then try to screen out the pedophiles that apply for the job! Even if we manage to perfect the screening process, we are still creating an artificial environment that will skew the natural neuro-chemical responses of the teachers and other staff.

Take a normal, sexually healthy man and put him in an environment where his senses are assaulted for several hours each day by nubile underage students that are biologically suitable for mating, but legally underage and socially and morally unavailable. It is unreasonable to not expect the normal biological drives to affect the man's neuro-chemistry, with the attendant affect on his reasoning ability. It is amazing that sexual misconduct happens as infrequently as it does.

Posted in Education Politics

The federal judge hearing the Herriman challenge to the division of JSD, Judge Ted Stewart, ruled on Oct 11, 2007, that Herriman is unlikely to succeed in its constitutional challenge to the division of the largest district in the state. He declined to issue the requested injunction.

His ruling was fairly predictable based on the existing case law, but as one might guess, there are those that see his ruling as partisan or activist. Meanwhile, the east-side JSD cities have asked to intervene in the suit.

Here's where it now stands: Herriman, et. al., have been denied the injunction, but are "considering their options" of whether to appeal Stewart's ruling or proceed with the wider lawsuit. The AG is defending the law and has a very strong case built on existing precedent that Stewart has already determined is likely to prevail. The east-side cities have moved to intervene because they have additional defenses resulting from their "taxation without representation" and "legislative due process" complaints that would ensue if they were not allowed partition into a new district.

Herriman's challenge: overcome the presumption of constitutionality and the existing case law, establish that there are actually damages or the significant potential of damages sufficient to warrant relief, and that they can't mitigate this damage. Then they will need to counter the east-side's case that not allowing self determination will violate their due process and other rights. That's a pretty large burden, under the circumstances.

Posted in Education Politics

The Tribune didn't publish my OpEd, so here it is:

 

Granite School District get D Grade in Academics

 

Mark Twain said that “there are lies, ****ed lies, and statistics.” With the release of the 2006-07 school year Annual Yearly Progress results, the truth of this aphorism is brought home in light of the “spin” placed on its results by Granite District. Granite is relying on the complexity of the results to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

In an email sent to various patrons, Granite makes the statement, “If less than 95% of a group takes one test, the entire school does not make adequate yearly progress.” What Granite omits is that this requirement only applies to groups with 40 or more students. They also leave out the fact that this requirement is included because a school could cheat by sending its poor performing students home on test day. Out of 41 schools that failed AYP, only two failed because of participation: Granite and Hunter Highs. Both schools failed whole school participation, not based on a single subgroup.

The other 39 schools failed to meet academic standards.

Granite is quick to point out that failure of any subgroup within a school will fail the school, but they neglect to point out that each school has four shots at passing each subgroup. For example, the target for math in elementary schools is 71% of students proficient. If the test shows that more than 71% are proficient, that group passes; if a sub-group is close, but not quite above 71%, then the group passes if it falls within the “confidence interval” or statistical margin of error. For example, only 64% of the “Limited English Proficient” students at Cottonwood Elementary were proficient in math, but they were statistically “close enough” that they “passed.”

If the subgroup can’t make the target within the confidence interval, they may pass if they can show progress toward the proficiency target from the previous year according the “safe harbor”10% rule. Using Cottonwood as an example again, only 53% of the Disabled group scored as proficient (goal of 77%), but since they had improved from 48% in 2005-06, this group passed.  

At Copper Hills Elementary, three groups passed based on this Safe Harbor rule by scoring within the confidence interval.  The Hispanic subgroup scored 59% proficient in language arts compared to 60% last year, but this was “close enough” to a 10% improvement. LEP students “improved” from 59% to 58%, and Students with Disabilities “improved” from 38% to 34%. In math, the LEP students went from 57% to 58% (hardly 10%) and disabled students “improved” from 49% to 40%.

When we look at a failing school like Hillsdale, which had two “No” boxes, we see that only 6 out of 10 subgroups have enough students to matter; two groups (Asian and Pacific Islander) passed in the confidence interval on Language Arts; Caucasian, Hispanic, LEP,  Low SES, and Disabled made Safe Harbor in the confidence interval; in fact, no group with 40 students passed the proficiency target. Hillsdale failed on a whole school basis because the “confidence interval” for the whole school would not let a 59% proficiency masquerade as 77%, nor let it pretend to be a 10% improvement over last year’s 64%. This school received only two “No” boxes: Whole School in Language Arts and Hispanic in Math, but only one of the “Yes” boxes was based on the subgroup actually making its target: 74% of Caucasian students proficient in Math, (goal of 71%). Of the remaining 17 academic checks, six passed by the safe harbor rule, with five of those in the confidence interval, seven passed the academic test in the confidence interval, and 4 groups had populations so low they weren’t counted. According to the Granite email, 21 schools have more “No” boxes than Hillsdale, seven shared the 2 No box status, and only 13 did better.

When Granite’s scores are compared to the state averages, whether by whole school or by subgroups, Granite scores below the average in every group but two. Graded on a “curve,” this is a ‘D’ grade for Granite.  

 

Posted in Education Politics

AYP results are out for Granite School District. Granite has sent out an email touting how many "yes" boxes they managed. But they don't say how many of those yeses are really NA's, have astericks next to the yes, came from safe harbor, or are safe harbor with an asterick. I've submitted an Op Ed to the Tribune on their spin factor. If it gets published, I will link to it, otherwise I will publish it here.

In the meantime, here is the break down on what all of those options means:

NA means either there weren't enough students in the group to count for participation purposes (<40) or enough to count for academic purposes (<10)

Yes* in the academic column means they didn't really pass the proficiency target, but were within the statistical "confidence interval" of passing. The smaller the group, the larger the confidence interval. This permits many minority groups to pass with scores well below the targets. A school with small minority populations that are underperforming will pass where a school with a higher percentage of minorities with the same proficiency rates will fail AYP because the confidence interval is smaller.

Yes in the safe harbor column means that the group did not make proficiency targets, but showed 10% improvement from the previous year. Basically, a yes here says that the group was so bad last year that improving by 10% still wasn't enough to reach the confidence interval of the proficiency target.

A Yes* in the safe harbor column means that the group didn't make the 10% improvement, but fell within the confidence interval. Again, the smaller the group, the larger the confidence interval. It is not only possible for a group to post a decline in its proficiency rates and get a pass in this manner, but there are many schools in Granite School District that have done this.

At Copper Hills Elementary, three groups passed based on this Safe Harbor rule by scoring within the confidence interval.  The Hispanic subgroup scored 59% proficient in language arts compared to 60% last year, but this was “close enough” to a 10% improvement. LEP students “improved” from 59% to 58%, and Students with Disabilities “improved” from 38% to 34%. In math, the LEP students went from 57% to 58% (hardly 10%) and disabled students “improved” from 49% to 40%.

 

One school, Hillsdale, passed every single subgroup except Hispanic in Math, but not a single one of them actually exceeded its proficiency target. Every group had an asterick or was in safe harbor. The school failed language arts whole school, and the Hispanic Math result would have failed them anyway, but when GSD is touting their "yes box percentage" this is absurd. This school got "yesses" in 95% of its boxes. Granite is claiming that, district wide, they got yesses in 95.2% of their boxes.

I'm not impressed. Not at all.

Posted in Education Politics

Herriman has filed a suit challenging the Jordan split referendum.  All of the other JSD west side cities have either jumped ship (Riverton & Bluffdale) or decided to pursue their own split options (West Jordan & South Jordan). Herriman will have to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, a raft of case law on the issue that the AG has already discussed, establish standing (which is going to be difficult with just the referendum on the ballot and not passed), and overcome the countervaling constitutional arguments of taxation without representation and self-determination.  

Posted in Education Politics

South Jordan has joined in the fray to divide Jordan District. If it goes as I believe it will, this November, the east side of Jordan will form one new district, West Jordan City will form a second. Then in the spring primary next year, South Jordan City will break off. That will leave Herriman, Bluffdale and Riverton.

Granite, meanwhile remains stuck. Millcreek is too large for the cities to override the county and get it on the ballot. So we wait. Granite has decided to hold some public hearings without agenda at the local high schools to allow patrons to voice their opinions. Interestingly, there won't be a hearing at Hunter High School.  GSD is still playing this as a public relations issue; they haven't figured out that it isn't about school closures, its about academic failure.

Posted in Education Politics

The cities on the west side of Jordan School District are, one by one, deciding to abandon the legal challenge to the school district split, and it is looking like Jordan will end up split three ways. The east side cities will become one district, West Jordan will be a second new district. Bluffdale, Riverton, Herriman and South Jordan will the the remaining district.

This challenge, which is based on a theory that not allowing the entire district to vote violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, is a bit thin to begin with. The state AG has already issued an informal opinion that the current statute is constitutional. His opinion is strongly supported by case law. On top of that, there is an inherent disconnect between the challenge and the facts. How can the "one man, one vote" issue be legitimate when the citizens of the seceding cities don't have a voice in the planning and land use policies of the cities bringing the suit?

Update

The SL Tribune reports that Herriman decided last night to sue, while Riverton decided to postpone a vote. If this challenge makes it all the way to court, I may have to take time off to go hear the arguments. It promises to be a very interesting case.

Posted in Education Politics

I got a surprise call this afternoon from a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune wanting a comment on the Salt Lake County Council's non-action in taking the Granite School District division ballot proposal off of the ballot. I was disappointed, but not as disappointed as I would have been if the Legislature had done their job.

The special session was called to consider a bill to equalize property tax burdens for new school construction in the areas that are growing so fast even the existing school districts can't keep up. Especially in Jordan and Alpine. Instead of passing either of the two bills that addressed the issue, they deferred to a "task force" to study the issue in more detail. Then they substituted a bill that opened the vote district wide rather than only allowing the cities wanting to leave to vote.

In truth however, neither of the bills was the correct solution. I've been preaching for two and a half years now that we need a three pronged solution. First we do need a moderate equalization of school construction funding; second, we need to impose a moderate impact fee on new residential development; and third, we need to better control our growth. Without all three prongs, there isn't a good solution out there.

Ordinarily, I would be the first to champion free enterprise and oppose something like and impact fee or controls on growth. If we had a totally free market economy in housing development, I would take that position. But we don't have a totally free market economy. We have a socialized education system that is subsidized by property taxes. The new schools are not paid for by the people moving into the new houses, they are paid for by the existing taxbase. An impact fee would required at least a portion of the cost be borne by the people causing the need for new schools. Controlling the growth would ensure that we aren't allowing the new developments to cause the taxes for the existing tax base to climb outrageously, while an equalization measure would spread the portion paid by "everyone" out over a larger base. Enacted carefully, the three pronged approach would solve the funding problem without major impact on any one group.

Meanwhile, the legislature overrode Salt Lake County and passed a measure that places the measure on the ballot if the municipal governments representing at least 80% of the population in the area desiring to break away vote for the initiative. All of the cities in JSD's east side have voted to place the JSD split on the ballot, so they will get to vote. But the district wide vote provision will proably be a  hurdle too high to clear. There are a lot of people hollering about it not being fair that only the seceding cities got to vote; I wonder if they will now decide to let the seceding cities vote in the west side cities municipal elections or give them a veto over zoning and planning & land use issues. I doubt it. To me the whole issue is a great reason to privatize all education and get government out of the picture.

The Small District Coalition is meeting next Thursday to plan our next move. The ride could get interesting.

Random observations: There was an article in the Deseret News this morning about the special session. I read through the comments. It was amazing how misinformed the commentors were. One commentor acused the Republicans of pushing their agenda. Funny but all but 2 democrats in the senate voted for HB1001s1. Another claimed that the Cottonwood High/Taylorville solution was from the SDC (which is different than the normal allegation that it came from Holladay city) when the truth is that it was the Cottonwood HIgh Community Council President and the Taylorsville Mayor who said that they'd all rather stay in the remaining district, while Murray city told us that their survey data indicated that the folks living in Murray City wanted to go to Murray even if the Cottonwood needed to close. The SDC solution, which I wrote, would have allowed East Millcreek to decide for itself if it wanted to be part of the new district or go to Murray district, and would have allowed CHS to stay open provided the people in its service area could keep enrollments up. They didn't like that idea. The list of goofball ideas in the comments defies belief and is a potent argument for not allowing anyone to vote on a district split. The electorate simply won't educate itself on the issues. My favorite misconception however, has to be the moron that thought Senator Pat(ricia) Jones was male.

Posted in Education Politics

Lets see, Utah has the lowest per student public education spending in the country, Jordan School District has the 2nd largest student to teacher ratio of the 100 largest school districts in the US. Utah has the 4th highest state and local tax burden in the nation. Jordan School District has the third highest school district property tax in the state, is laying off the largest school bond in Utah history, and is putting another record setter on the ballot for November. Parents in the Oak Crest Elementary area are considering a lawsuit because their school is serving 1400 students in a building designed for less than half that number and a dozen portable classrooms, bussing kids 40 minutes each direction every day, and are getting lip service from the district. Cottonwood Heights, Sandy and Draper are ready to abandon Jordan and start their own district because of constituent complaints.

 

So I guess it makes sense to divert some of the school district's revenue to help build a new soccer stadium for Utah's professional soccer team, right? Especially when the Real can't get a decent turnout at Rice Eccles Stadium.

 

I can think of a lot of things to do with $15 Million than help build a new soccer stadium.

Posted in Education Politics

There's been an ongoing debate in Utah's Alpine School District over math curricula. This is an excellent example of what I mean when I say that knowing one's philosophy is crucial to developing a cohesive educational plan. The Investigations curriculum they are using falls within the ontology of Experimentalism, while the parents that are calling for its removal tend to be more Idealist or Realist.

 

To me this is a great argument for having as many educational alternatives available as possible.

Posted in Education Politics

The first two cities to actually consider putting a school district division under Utah's newest partitioning law, both voted against putting the measure on the ballot for voters to consider this fall. Pleasant Grove voted unanimously against putting the measure on the ballot, and Orem split the city council 4-3 againts. Here's the story from the Provo Daily Herald and the Deseret News.

 

I've also received word that the Orem city attorney has opined that the language of HB77 (the legislation that allowed cities to put the measure on the ballot) would split the district 45 days after the election rather than 20 months after. We (The Small Districts Coalition) have always believed the law called for a process that would have the new district operational by the beginning of the following school year, but that the entire process would take up to three years to complete.

 

Since the deadline for getting a measure on the ballot is today, and that would be pushing the County Clerk to get it certified in time, it looks like we'll have to go another year before we can right size any of Utah's big 4 school districts. Could make for some interesting fights for the bond initiatives that have been proposed for Alpine and Jordan districts.

 

In the meantime, we've got some very riled up voters in Salt Lake and Utah counties, and some momentum behind a number of grass roots issues. More on those issues later.