HVE | MID | RS | OM | total | |
K | 122 | 100 | 99 | 99 | 420 |
1 | 141 | 111 | 98 | 124 | 474 |
2 | 156 | 117 | 95 | 128 | 496 |
3 | 117 | 116 | 93 | 102 | 428 |
4 | 141 | 113 | 102 | 121 | 477 |
677 | 557 | 487 | 574 | 2295 | |
616 | 507 | 438 | 525 | ||
5 | 494 | 494 | |||
6 | 422 | 422 | |||
916 | |||||
7 | 494 | 494 | |||
8 | 460 | 460 | |||
954 | |||||
9 | 498 | 498 | |||
10 | 439 | 439 | |||
11 | 464 | 464 | |||
12 | 381 | 381 | |||
1782 | 1 | 6 | 89 | 1782 | |
5947 |
Friday, October 02, 2015
Wasatch School Enrollment by Grade
USOE figures, green elementary totals are adjusted to reflect half day kindergarten for 1/2 the students. (reportedly half of kindergarten students attend a full day ???). It is very difficult to find actual school capacity figures in Wasatch School District)
School Vanity Survey
During their 'contemplation' of the
school bond, the school district spent $12,000 for a School Bond Survey to "Assess quality of education at Wasatch County schools" and to verify
what they already knew they wanted – that adding a pool to the bond
would help the $62 million bond pass.
It appears a bit of bias may have been
used to achieve the desired results. On page 3 of that survey, this line
appears: “Results were weighted by age to align with population
base.” In the results, we find that the 'older' demographic was
less favorable to the bond than the younger respondents.
On the last page of the survey
we find that 36% of those polled had no “Children in Home” -
could that possibly be the 'age' group needing to be realigned?
On the same page, it is learned that
16% of those polled self reported they were “employed by the school district.”
With about 700 employees, is that 16% of the voting population? Not
even close! Why no 'realignment' for THAT demographic? Might employees have a bias in favor of the bond?
Similarly, Daniel
residents (the location of the proposed new elementary school) represented
2% of those polled, but Daniel has 4% of the population. No correction there either.
Another survey inconsistency, 79% felt
building maintenance was “good,” but only 49% thought the
buildings were in good condition. (pg 9) Why
are they even asking the question? - a bit of softening up push
polling: Questioning conditions, then asking do we need more
buildings.
There's an old adage, 'you get what you
pay for.' It appears the District was successful. For those
“voting against the bond (without pool),” 49% gave the reason
“Want Pool Included as Well.”
So apparently the school board got the
results they wanted, ignored the voice of the people in last year's
vote, and opted to add the pool for a perceived better chance of
approval by pandering to another interest group.
But as the pollster opined in the
survey presentation to the board, 'you'll have to work hard to get it passed,' so
their multi-faceted campaign is proceeding - in earnest.
Do your research, taxpayers
and voters! Remember that 65% of those polled felt the school
district was “probably or definitely (14%) spending tax money
responsibly” (???) Click on "School" on the right for a history of commentary - for years. The 49.33% property Tax increase, has allowed an abundance of funds since 2008.
"A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
Thursday, October 01, 2015
New Election LAW concerning Influencing Bond Elections
Some new (actually the same as before with minor correction) election law in effect this year, prohibits a public entity from spending public money to influence a bond election.
This IS NEW law: It prohibits the USE of a public entity's Email, (for example an @schooldistrict.edu email address) to influence a bond election. - and has a $250 civil penalty attached.
If, perchance, you receive any emails, using a wasatch.edu email address, "to advocate for or against a ballot proposition." (aka, Vote FOR, or AGAINST, the School building bond), THAT could be a violation of Utah Code 20A-11-1205.
Anyone who has seen, or received, any such email might consider reminding the sender of the law or forward the suspect email to the County Clerk for action, referencing, Utah Code 20A-11-1205.
This IS NEW law: It prohibits the USE of a public entity's Email, (for example an @schooldistrict.edu email address) to influence a bond election. - and has a $250 civil penalty attached.
If, perchance, you receive any emails, using a wasatch.edu email address, "to advocate for or against a ballot proposition." (aka, Vote FOR, or AGAINST, the School building bond), THAT could be a violation of Utah Code 20A-11-1205.
Anyone who has seen, or received, any such email might consider reminding the sender of the law or forward the suspect email to the County Clerk for action, referencing, Utah Code 20A-11-1205.
Effective
5/12/2015
20A-11-1203. Public entity prohibited from expending public funds on certain electoral matters.
20A-11-1203. Public entity prohibited from expending public funds on certain electoral matters.
(1) | Unless specifically required by law, and except as provided in Section 20A-11-1206, a public entity may not make an expenditure from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition. |
Effective
5/12/2015
20A-11-1204. Criminal penalty.
Each public official who violates Section 20A-11-1203 is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
Effective 5/12/2015
20A-11-1205. Use of public email for a political purpose.
20A-11-1204. Criminal penalty.
Each public official who violates Section 20A-11-1203 is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
Effective 5/12/2015
20A-11-1205. Use of public email for a political purpose.
(1) | Except as provided in Subsection (5), a person may not send an email using the email of a public entity, for a political purpose or to advocate for or against a ballot proposition. |
(2) | The applicable
election officer shall impose a civil fine against a
person who violates Subsection (1)
as follows: |
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Proposed School Buildings - Cost Comparisons
Recent Utah code has required more transparency in school construction costs this year. Each School District must submit an Annual Capital Outlay Report. This year data from 2004-14 has also been submitted - click here.
Below are some cost comparisons for 'contemporary projects' to Wasatch's proposals. Wasatch schools do NOT include LAND costs, the remainder generally do. School site says "*Costs for all projects include architectural fees, construction, contingency, and furniture, fixtures, and equipment."
(Land for WSD middle was $2 Million, for Daniel Elementary about $1 Million.)
Draw your own conclusion but, generally, the only school near the suggested per sq.ft cost being proposed was the 2009 Wasatch High!
cost | sqft | per sqft | per student | ||||
Wasatch | 2009 | Wasatch HS | $69,532,638 | 320,000 | 2,000 | $217 | $34,766 |
Proposed | 2016 | Middle | $33,000,000 | 142,000 | 1,200 | $232 | $27,500 |
2016 | Elementary | $18,500,000 | 79,040 | 800 | $234 | $23,125 | |
Alpine | 2014 | Black Ridge | $14,775,948 | 81,491 | 1,032 | $181 | $14,317 |
2014 | Dry Creek | $16,405,109 | 77,907 | 1,032 | $211 | $15,896 | |
2013 | Frontier Middle | $29,936,515 | 174,175 | 1,590 | $172 | $18,828 | |
Canyons | 2013 | Butler Middle | $30,492,495 | 177,000 | 1,781 | $172 | $17,121 |
17 Schools | Average | $19,178,735 | 122,489 | 1,004 | $157 | $19,106 |
Monday, September 28, 2015
Education in Digitized Schools
Wasatch is now a few years into Digitized Education. Are the new school plans taking that into consideration?
Districts across the nation are implementing and evaluating a variety of approaches that allow students ubiquitous access to computing resources for teaching and learning. These approaches have been referred to as anywhere, anytime learning, one-to-one computing, laptop learning, or 24/7 access. In as much as the names differ, so do the possible approaches to achieving ubiquitous computing for the range of pre-K through high school students. The purchasing, funding, and dissemination strategies differ as do the computing devices, software alternatives, and network access.
Digitization
of Classrooms
$5.7
million spent - so far. Details
HERE Before more 'bricks and mortar' these question needs to be
answered:
- If digital learning is the future of education, is there a possibility of a need for different type of physical facility? Or do we simply replicate the past?
- Will more students be capable of learning at home, or on their on time? Is it possible lecture time is on its way out?
- Are we analyzing digitized learning to find the most efficient way to use it? Do we have results of how it is succeeding? Should we WAIT before spending $62 Million? Review this article "As districts design and remodel school buildings, they are working on a belief that classrooms should mirror the workplaces of today and the future"
Districts across the nation are implementing and evaluating a variety of approaches that allow students ubiquitous access to computing resources for teaching and learning. These approaches have been referred to as anywhere, anytime learning, one-to-one computing, laptop learning, or 24/7 access. In as much as the names differ, so do the possible approaches to achieving ubiquitous computing for the range of pre-K through high school students. The purchasing, funding, and dissemination strategies differ as do the computing devices, software alternatives, and network access.
******
The
traditional classroom with rows of desks, a schedule of 50-minute
classes, and curriculum consisting of memorization of discrete facts
no longer aligns well with this vision of the emerging learning
landscape. Instead, public education needs to embrace spaces that are
flexible and promote group and collaborative efforts; schedules that
allow for engaged, project-based learning; and curriculum that
encourages interdisciplinary and cross-curricular research and
exploration.
Classes
will be self paced and conclude with interactive assessments that
measure students’ ability to find and use online resources to
answer probing questions.
Before
then we, as teachers, need to remember that the best way to educate
students today is not the same way that we learned when we were
students.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Those Who Do Not Learn From History . .
As we contemplate this $62 Million bond for two new schools and a POOL (closer to $80,000,000 total with interest), consider the possibility of 'overruns.' History may offer some good experience to learn from.
Here's a bit of fiscal history for the school district:
For those new in the District AND for those with longer memories, you may want to review the old North School History (aka Wasatch Education Center, now) Check this 1998-2004 History
For Fiscal History, it is also appropriate to look at Budgets. Try this from 2013
How about the Football Stadium at $3,500,000 plus? Here's a brief budget overview of budgets from 2004 to 2013 comparing revenues to enrollment year by year.
-->
See the post below about property tax receipts which were over the School Budget (again.) Here's how they handled the surplus in a 'get-away' meeting on 24 Apr 2013:
Daniels Summit, recording part 1- WCSD Daniels Summit Lodge Meeting 042413 A– local school district funding 101, 32:30 min. into recording business administrator talks about total dollars for 2013 budget is $1.5 mil better than expected. 37:00 min into recording school board compares spending taxpayer’s money to doing drugs “Just say no”. 37:30 into -All total expenses. 40:00 min into- better fiscal situation than last year. 41:00 min. supt. introduction to digital conversion. Digital conversion presentation by secondary curriculum director, Paul Sweat. $1 million for next (1) year, 6th and 7th grades! following years, high school conversion.
Here's a bit of fiscal history for the school district:
2008-9 budget shows $23M for high
school - funding source unknown
- High School construction costs over bond by $10-20 million Board of Education / Updated Cost of Wasatch High School “This page is currently unavailable. Last Modified on December 10, 2012” (previously listed at ca $70 million with a promised update)
For those new in the District AND for those with longer memories, you may want to review the old North School History (aka Wasatch Education Center, now) Check this 1998-2004 History
For Fiscal History, it is also appropriate to look at Budgets. Try this from 2013
How about the Football Stadium at $3,500,000 plus? Here's a brief budget overview of budgets from 2004 to 2013 comparing revenues to enrollment year by year.
2005 vs. 2013 TOTAL revenue | 79.4% |
enrollment | 27.8% |
2005 vs. 2013 gen fund | 71.5% |
See the post below about property tax receipts which were over the School Budget (again.) Here's how they handled the surplus in a 'get-away' meeting on 24 Apr 2013:
Daniels Summit, recording part 1- WCSD Daniels Summit Lodge Meeting 042413 A– local school district funding 101, 32:30 min. into recording business administrator talks about total dollars for 2013 budget is $1.5 mil better than expected. 37:00 min into recording school board compares spending taxpayer’s money to doing drugs “Just say no”. 37:30 into -All total expenses. 40:00 min into- better fiscal situation than last year. 41:00 min. supt. introduction to digital conversion. Digital conversion presentation by secondary curriculum director, Paul Sweat. $1 million for next (1) year, 6th and 7th grades! following years, high school conversion.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Overtaxation OR 'Community' reserves?
Once again in 2015, the School District collected an extra $1.6 million over budget. 2014, 2013
Don't worry, it will all be (or has been) spent. (School is emphasized here as the largest tax recipient, and they want to bond for more.)
(For older school budget analyses, click here)
And all of the other property tax recipients also receive windfalls. For example:
County $502K, 5.98%; Heber $35K, 3.2%; Midway $17K, 2.5%; Fire $77K, 5.5%
Would any entity consider reducing taxes one year because of this continuing overtaxation?
Friday, September 18, 2015
Year-Round School Websites
The Wasatch School District apparently will not be providing any information of Year-Round Education - but merely "threatens" its use - if the $62 Million school bond fails Here are just a few of the multitude of sites discussing Year-Round Schools, in no particular order.
WCSD Promotional Website 'Citizens for Better School' - (but buried deeply in a July 9th post.)
The California Department of Education’s Year-Round
Education Program Guide, for instance, highlights some cost
savings of year-round education:
WCSD Promotional Website 'Citizens for Better School' - (but buried deeply in a July 9th post.)
WCSD
Social Media Manager, Melissa
Campbell's July 9 report on the school board presentation by
Rosemarie Smith, Provo principal with ten years of experience with
year-round schools.
“The
interview with Rosemarie Smith is one data point out of others that
will be studied as the board seriously studies year round schools.”
Comment: That serious study apparently was postponed as soon as she finished
her presentation and answering questions so the Board could get down
to the more serious of getting the $62 Million bond passed. Listen to the complete hearing here.
“Provo
School District switched half of their elementary schools over to
year round schools back in the 1990s for two primary reasons (1) to
improve scores and enhance learning and
(2) for the cost of one school, three school buildings are saved.”
Utah Schools 2012
Utah Schools 2012
Granite: "The district began year-round schools about 20 years ago during a high growth period and it is estimated that over the years the decision saved the district $25 million in administrative costs and another $80 million in schools that weren't built, district spokesman Ben Horsley said.
But in recent years, the number of students in the district has stabilized at around 67,000 students, Horsley said. If the district had elected to build more facilities and keep the traditional schedule, students today would be attending half-empty schools."
Jordan: "In Jordan, 19 year-round elementaries have saved the district from building 13 additional schools, spokeswoman Sandra Riesgraf said. At an average construction cost of $16 million per school, the year-round format has saved taxpayers more than $200 million."
- Avoided Costs: capital outlay for additional facilities; avoided extra‐site operation and staffing, including classified, certificated, and administrative personnel, furniture, supplies and
Friday, September 11, 2015
Comments: "Citizens" for "Better" Schools on Facebook
Regrettably, or thankfully, I don't "DO" Facebook, but some folks are promoting the $62,000,000 School (and POOL, again) Bond (good for them). I can read it, but not comment so I will post a few responses here.
Names of posters have been removed here. It's assumed that "Citizens for..." is the page moderator.
Names of posters have been removed here. It's assumed that "Citizens for..." is the page moderator.
Moderator: (Re Year-Round) "It isn't a failing option
as far as test scores and retention for the students. It is a very
viable option. It is the parents that are moving the school districts
away from the YRS option. Smaller schools are better academically and
adding on only makes the number of students bigger in that building.
Having smaller numbers in more schools is an academically better
environment for the students. That is why the district does not want
to add on and would rather build new schools. As parents we do have a
choice in this and your questions are great! Thank-you!" AND
Moderator: Just
to be clear, year round school is not a long-term option because it
only solves the problem of overcrowding at the elementary level
(which includes TIS) but does not deal with the overcrowding at the
high school or Rocky Mountain Middle School. Year round school might
delay the need to bond by a few years but the school board would need
to bond relatively soon for new buildings.
Response: Yes, parents DO have a choice, as do ALL taxpayers and voters. It would have been nice if more (positive) information had been provided and discussed with the public and the viability of year-round and better utilization. As the only presenter to the school board said - parents and teachers generally liked YRE once they learned about it and used it. She also stated that it needs a year or two of community preparation to educate the public. For more of her comments.
(This is a fairly objective report posted by the School district's (paid) Social Media Manager who monitors and reports posts for the School district.)
Commenter: We moved from year round schools which
we did for 7 years- my guess is the real reason parents voted to go
back could stem to the nightmare it is when you have elementary kids
on year round and older kids on traditional. I loved it when all my
kids were year round/ we really enjoyed traveling when the rest of
the world didn't and found that even in tough
terms/stretches/homework loads, you could do anything for 9 weeks
knowing you'd get 3 to catch up and relax.
HL&P Commercial Rates
While HL&P raised residential rates across the board by 6% (including the monthly base charge), the commercial rates are presented as a 6% in each "class."
However, the monthly bills show a large variety of results. The Cost of Study analysis reports small commercial (about 1,000 accounts) example changes of -26% to -7% (Lower rates). For medium (120), increases of 7 to 12%; and Large Commercial (21) all at 7%, or so. They failed to seriously consider suggestions from the public to correct the inequities.
However here are a few examples of specific accounts provided by HL&P. NO large Commercial examples were provided (to protect the identity of the 21 users)
However, the monthly bills show a large variety of results. The Cost of Study analysis reports small commercial (about 1,000 accounts) example changes of -26% to -7% (Lower rates). For medium (120), increases of 7 to 12%; and Large Commercial (21) all at 7%, or so. They failed to seriously consider suggestions from the public to correct the inequities.
However here are a few examples of specific accounts provided by HL&P. NO large Commercial examples were provided (to protect the identity of the 21 users)
OLD RATES | NEW RATES | |||||||||||||
Monthly Usage kWH | Average demand kW | Peak demand kW | Monthly Base Charge | Energy - first 500 kWh | Energy -next 500 kWh | Energy - all addditional kWh | Total | Base Charge | Energy - first 10,000 kWh | Energy - all add'l kWh | Demand Charge per kW | Total | % change vs. current rate | |
med | 840 | 1.17 | 64 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $52.25 | $(12.78) | $120.57 | $15.20 | $50.74 | $640.00 | $705.94 | 486% | |
med | 960 | 1.33 | 49 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $52.25 | $(3.20) | $130.15 | $15.20 | $57.98 | $490.00 | $563.18 | 333% | |
small | 454 | 0.63 | 1.15 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $(4.81) | $(43.63) | $32.66 | $8.00 | $35.41 | $10.24 | $53.65 | 64% | |
small | 433 | 0.60 | 4.62 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $(7.00) | $(45.30) | $28.80 | $8.00 | $33.77 | $41.12 | $82.89 | 188% | |
small | 1,120 | 1.56 | 3 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $52.25 | $9.59 | $142.94 | $8.00 | $78.00 | $5.52 | $26.70 | $118.22 | -17% |
small | 974 | 1.35 | 4.95 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $49.53 | $(2.08) | $128.55 | $8.00 | $75.97 | $44.06 | $128.03 | 0% | |
small | 1,260 | 1.75 | 3.96 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $52.25 | $20.77 | $154.12 | $8.00 | $78.00 | $11.96 | $35.24 | $133.20 | -14% |
small | 2,923 | 4.06 | 2.27 | $6.50 | $74.60 | $52.25 | $153.65 | $287.00 | $8.00 | $78.00 | $88.46 | $20.20 | $194.66 | -32% |
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
The STEALTH $62 Million School Bond - YOUR TAX Increase
As the annual County Tax Notices did not include the effects of the proposed $62 MILLION School Building Bond, here is an example of what you can expect for your property TAX, if the bond appears on the ballot in November and passes. (Update:the school board DID approve the bond to be voted on THIS year - through a mail-in ballot.)
Public Meeting Notice: "on August 18,2015, the Board of Education (the “Board”) of the Wasatch County School District, Utah (the“District”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”)"
It is uncertain at this time whether taxes will change in 2016 or 2017. (Update: if passed, taxes WILL increase next year.)
Approval of this $62,000,000 proposed bond:
- Will increase your school tax bond (debt) burden by over 60%, and
- Will increase your total school taxes by about 15% (for 2/3 or your total property Tax)
- AND increase your TOTAL property tax bill by about 10%
If you would like to compute YOUR new taxes go to this link to determine your own increased TAX burden.
- Enter YOUR 2015 Property Value and taxes in the GREEN boxes
- Enter YOUR School taxes in the YELLOW boxes for 2014 & 2015
- This blog will reflect the most recent entry.
Also please note:
- After a “truth” in taxation hearing Summer 2016 – the new building operating tax would probably begin BEFORE new buildings are finished.
- NO expenses appear to have been budgeted yet for modification of OLD pool area (= more $$$$)
- If the bond does NOT pass, the School District has 'promised' to implement better utilization of the existing schools - at a MUCH lower cost.
Heber Light Proposed Rate Increase
Update: The rate increase WAS approved at a postponed August meeting on 2 Sept. As a result of some data supplied it appears some commercial users may get increases of up to 400%, while others may get a reduction. All residential users will get a 6% increase. The rate increase will occur in the next billing cycle.
A word to the wise, it may be very appropriate to carefully check your bills. One user recently found his residential account had been billed in error for several YEARS
************* *******************
Heber Power Board Members and Heber City Council
A word to the wise, it may be very appropriate to carefully check your bills. One user recently found his residential account had been billed in error for several YEARS
************* *******************
Heber Power Board Members and Heber City Council
As this epistle is too detailed for
presentation at the Public Hearing, I'm sending it to the decision
makers (Board) in the hope that you will take it under
consideration
in your decision on the rate increase.
My
two major concerns are raising residential rates and the
possible reduction in larger commercial, that may not be offset
by necessary Peak Power purchases. A minor concern is
also the lack of time based rates and its affect on peak power.
At last year's Rate Increase hearing,
Mr Pender talked about the concept of “Cost of Causation.” “means that those
who cause the utility to incur its costs should be
responsible for
payment of such costs.” pg 4, COS Study
The imposition, or continuation, of a
service charge further hurts those least able to pay bills – the
low residential user. But that IS being addressed somewhat,
relatively, with the new proposed rates.Removing it or reducing
it, with a per kwhr adjustment, might be a better alternative to
an increase.
The Board decision to increase impact
fees from 40% to 60% was a step in the right direction, in my
opinion. I believe last year 75% was recommended.
That does mean, however, that 40%
(rather than 60%) of the 'caused' cost burden must be still be
borne
by the remaining current ratepayers. While this was a good
decision,
it appears that this proposed rate increase may further the
inequitable burden on the residential ratepayer, rather than those
who have benefited from the past lower impact fees.
Last year's rate increase presentation
used 'examples' showing a standard 4.5% for all users. A closer
look
showed that not to be true. Smaller commercial faced a larger
relative burden that larger commercial. That appears to have been
corrected in this year's proposal. All small commercial seems to
be
getting a rate REDUCTION. This is probably a positive step, for
the
existing 1185 small businesses, who may have been beneficiaries of
the lower impact fees of the past.
It appears that an original 4.5% residential increase has been increased to 6% for all nearly
10,000
users. This does seem strange to me as one of the avowed reasons
for municipal (user owned) utilities is lower rates for the
'owners'
(municipalities and their residents and taxpayers). The supposed
advantage of lower impact fees was encouragement for
An Open Letter to the Wasatch School Board
(In case you missed it the Wasatch School Board will, in all likelihood, approve a bond election for $62 Million in new school buildings, here's a recent Email to the Board recommending an alternative, some editing done, links and highlighting done)
An Open Letter to the School Board
Dear School Board Members
An Open Letter to the School Board
Dear School Board Members
I took the opportunity to listen to
the School Board study session (July 7, 2015) on Year Round Education, the
Provo principal, Rosemarie Smith gave a great presentation!!! She
pointed out the pros and cons and clearly stated the #1 reason
for YRE was "enhanced learning."
++++(More in depth report here, (regrettably you need to scroll to July 9 to find it, amongst the other mainly pro building propaganda) from Melissa Campbell, WCSD Media Manager, with comments from others)+++ "Mrs. Smith recommended that at least one year before the switch (and preferably two) the district should:
1. create a committee of principals who would be involved in the switch to lay groundwork for the massive amount of planning
2. hold cottage meetings around the community to explain how the year round schedules would work and how it would affect families with students in the schools
3. meet with teachers
4. meet with district and then school based PTA groups
5. identify community members favorable to year round schools and help them be parent leaders in implementing
6. send out newsletters"
++++(More in depth report here, (regrettably you need to scroll to July 9 to find it, amongst the other mainly pro building propaganda) from Melissa Campbell, WCSD Media Manager, with comments from others)+++ "Mrs. Smith recommended that at least one year before the switch (and preferably two) the district should:
1. create a committee of principals who would be involved in the switch to lay groundwork for the massive amount of planning
2. hold cottage meetings around the community to explain how the year round schedules would work and how it would affect families with students in the schools
3. meet with teachers
4. meet with district and then school based PTA groups
5. identify community members favorable to year round schools and help them be parent leaders in implementing
6. send out newsletters"
The only previous Board discussion
on this viable alternative was apparently about 5 minutes in a
work minute, wherein a board member reportedly stated 'teachers
and parents are not happy with year round education.' (which effectively ended the discussion)
Professional Educator Smith, with her ten year YRE experience emphasized the need to
“educate” the public on the value, and efficacy, of YRE. This
has NOT been done in Wasatch County. Without that explanation,
the lack of accurate information devolves into emotion and a
reluctance to accept potentially advantageous, and positive,
change.
She also went to great lengths
discussing the scheduling flexibility and its acceptance by both
parents and teachers. She further elaborated on the virtual
elimination of time to get students “back on task” after the
long summer vacation, which greatly enhance retention and
learning.
Within the last few years, WSD
adopted education digitization with little public discussion, at
an expense of millions of taxpayer dollars. That computerized
system has the capability, and possible requirement, for a new
evaluation of school structures, to allow even more student
learning flexibility and learning possibilities. This may, in
fact, reduce the need for brick and mortar as a few, or many,
students may be able to use an alternative educational method
through computers.
As the wasatch.edu website states
you are only “contemplating
a
need for a bond?,” and you are now seeking “Citizen
Input on Facilities Bond,” I would strongly encourage a
deeper public discussion before attempting to pass a
$62 million bond. YRE could greatly extend the time in which
new buildings are truly “needed.”
On
a companion issue, I believe your survey results may be
slightly awry. The survey report states "Results were weighted by age
to align with population base" Checking the vote in those demographics
suggest that would create a more favorable vote.
But no
weighting was done for 16% school employees (16%, what is the
actual percentage of voters, maybe 5%), or geographic
(unincorporated county accounts for 31 %, but the poll
response appears nearer to 10%. The town of Daniel, where a
new school is proposed, received half representation in the Survey.
The choice is really quite simple:
-
a new $62 million bond,
-
with $850K in increased taxes for operations,
- Plus a large tax increase for debt payment and
interest ($3-$4 million per year?),
-
and the status quo, OR . . . .
-
"optimizing the use of existing buildings,"
-
with a tax increase of 'only' $765K, and
-
the “Enhanced Learning” reported by Rosemarie Smith,
-
with vastly greater scheduling flexibility!!!
Yes, Wasatch County is growing, but
remember the 2008 economic turn-down. A recurrence is not
beyond a possibility. More DEBT is NOT fiscal
responsibility!
A new mail-in off year election is not the time for experimentation with such an immense decision.
A new mail-in off year election is not the time for experimentation with such an immense decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)