Local Education Control
My H.B. 43 (School Land Trust Program Funding Amendments) passed out of the House today with only 3 "no" votes. As my January 18th entry details, the bill increases the amount of money that will go directly to local schools for parents and teachers to determine how to spend it. The bill presents the simple question: who can better determine how discretionary money should be spent at an individual school --(1) 104 legislators from all over the State or (2) parents and teachers at each individual school? The answer seems obvious to me.
A few speeches in the House provide prologue to the Senate deliberations, where I think the bill will have a tougher go. I'm very pleased that Tom Hatch has agreed to be the Senate sponsor. There, I believe Sen. Hatch will face a serious effort to restrict the amount of money that can flow to community councils -- perhaps lifting the current restrictions from 22-million to 30- or 40-million dollars.
I think such incrementalism would be short-sighted. Either we believe in local control or we don't. Either we believe in community councils or we don't. Either we believe in parental involvement in our schools or we don't. If we do believe in these things, we should have no problem ensuring that more money be made available for local control, community councils and parental involvement.
To me, Utah citizens and parents seem to want the cap removed. They seem to want local community councils to be funded and empowered. I would prefer to run the bill in exactly that form and let it pass or fail on those terms, rather than bump up the cap and send the message that at some point we will have had enough local control and parental involvement.
Though the bill is in the Senate, the issue is in the hands of Utah parents, teachers, and citizens. Like the House, the Senate is a representative body. If it clearly determines that Utahns want the cap removed, it will remove it. If it determines that Utahns don't care that much, the cap might be bumped up a little or it might simply be left in place. We'll now see whether Utahns do care.
A few speeches in the House provide prologue to the Senate deliberations, where I think the bill will have a tougher go. I'm very pleased that Tom Hatch has agreed to be the Senate sponsor. There, I believe Sen. Hatch will face a serious effort to restrict the amount of money that can flow to community councils -- perhaps lifting the current restrictions from 22-million to 30- or 40-million dollars.
I think such incrementalism would be short-sighted. Either we believe in local control or we don't. Either we believe in community councils or we don't. Either we believe in parental involvement in our schools or we don't. If we do believe in these things, we should have no problem ensuring that more money be made available for local control, community councils and parental involvement.
To me, Utah citizens and parents seem to want the cap removed. They seem to want local community councils to be funded and empowered. I would prefer to run the bill in exactly that form and let it pass or fail on those terms, rather than bump up the cap and send the message that at some point we will have had enough local control and parental involvement.
Though the bill is in the Senate, the issue is in the hands of Utah parents, teachers, and citizens. Like the House, the Senate is a representative body. If it clearly determines that Utahns want the cap removed, it will remove it. If it determines that Utahns don't care that much, the cap might be bumped up a little or it might simply be left in place. We'll now see whether Utahns do care.
posted by steve u. at 1/24/2005
Subscribe
3 Comments:
Yes, please remove the cap of land trust money. Each school needs to have the power and right to make long reaching goals impacting their individual students. We, at Oakridge Elem. in SLC have needed this cap removed to make the music program flow and continue for years to come. It enhances, and in many students lives, it makes the total state curriculum come together. Instead of going month-to month, by the seat of our pants, it would be nice to plan on money that will be in place for the long-term. Parents can better evaluate schools and communities that would be best for their children if the schools had the power to do their very best with an uncapped amount of land trust money. If the money remains capped, all is the same--mediocre schools with over crowded classrooms. No Utahan wants that.
Thank you, Michelle Larsen Sandy, UT
I believe that Utah Republicans value local control and site-based decision making at a school is a great example of this principle. The schools in my area use trust land money to target high school students who are struggling academically, to provide remediation for junior high students who read below grade level, and for math and science supplies for elementary students. We need to remind the Senators that local control is the best control.
Sue Carey, Alpine
In my experience working with Granite District and Arcadia Elementary (both as co-chair of the Arcadia Fully Accessible Playground Committee and in serving on the community council), my impression has become that most of the money schools get has to be spent in specified ways. So sometimes money is spent on something less important just because money is available, while pressing academic needs remain unfunded. This trustlands money belongs to education and can be used by each school's community council to actually make a difference. Please do not allow our lawmakers to limit these funds!
Let local community councils continue to choose how this money is spent. I can't speak for other schools, but I do know the following about Arcadia:
** Arcadia was one of three schools that rose from "inadequate yearly progress" last year to "adequate yearly progress" this year under No Child Left Behind
** We are one of the largest traditional elementary schools in Granite District (672 students)
** We are bordering on becoming a Title 1 (low income) school but currently do not qualify for Title 1 funding
** Though every student improved in math on their CRT scores last year, Arcadia is still below district and state averages in math in all grades but 2nd.
When community councils look at information like this, they feel compelled to do something that matters. Again, please do not limit their funding.
Lynette Simmons, Arcadia Elementary PTA board member
<< Home