German-style Education in Utah?

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Obama made a rather bold and unexpected statement about education. 

He said, "Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so those German kids, they're ready for a job when they graduate high school...We need to give every American student opportunities like this."

It was bold, because he laid out his vision for education in very clear terms. It was surprising, because he's usually been more cautiously obscure about his intentions.

For months, opponents of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been trying to show people that CCSS is being used by the Federal government to expand its role in education. The president helped us paint that picture last night.

Most states adopted the CCSS as part of the first Race to the Top (RTT) program, which Obama initiated in July 2009. He praised the results of the original program last night, saying, "Four years ago, we started Race to the Top, a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards."

Then, in conjunction with his assertion that he wants the U.S. system to work like Germany's, Obma proceeded to announce a second RTT program.

It appears that not only were the opponents of the CCSS right about increased Federal involvement, but that it goes even further than we've said. Based on Obama's bold statement last night, the current thrust of education reform is toward a centrally-managed education system that assigns kids to tracks - like Germany. And a centrally-managed education system is part one of two parts to a centrally-managed economy, the other part being high government regulation of businesses.

How will this affect kids (and by extension, businesses) in Utah? That all depends on how our legislators and elected officials in the executive branch respond to the money that will be offered, and the nice-sounding promises  that will be made. 

We will either join the movement toward a German-style education system, lured by the siren song of educational utopia and the millions of dollars in the new RTT competition; or stand for basic American freedom, say "No" to the money, preserve our free markets, and protect our kids' basic right to choose their own destiny, rather than be told what they are "best-suited for."

Obama's statement was very clear: he wants our education system to look like Germany's, where the test you take about the time you are 10 years old determines your future. 

German Education Tracks

We in Utah need to be just as clear: we want no part of this system. While there are a few aspects of its system which are perhaps worthy of emulation, its disregard for individual liberty and undermining of the free market by projecting what jobs will be needed and slotting kids for them is not. We want no part of the Federal government's promises of educational Eden, "if we'll just let them be more involved and share our kids' personal data with them."

Education is not just about producing workers, which seems to be Obama's attitude. It is about acquiring knowledge to enrich one's understanding of the world, one's appreciation for beauty, one's understanding of the deep truths of humanity. Acquiring skills that enable one to seek employment in the occupation of his or her choice is an inevitable consequence of teaching for the former purposes. 

And education is best handled entirely at the most local level. Utah's elected officials should turn down the RTT bait, which will draw us into deeper dependence upon and accountability to the Federal government. They must remember and honor the basic principles of the American way of life while they formulate ways to strengthen our educational system.

One final item worthy of note: homeschooling is illegal in Germany. Does Obama aspire to imitate this feature as well?

Further Information:

An overview of the German system
http://library.thinkquest.org/26576/schoolpage.htm

A comparison of education systems: Germany v. U.S.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/klein.356/tracking

Praise for the German system
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-19/german-vocational-training-model-offers-alternative-path-to-youth

Transcript of the State of the Union address
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/12/State-of-the-Union-Full-transcript/9081360720324/


What You Can Do:
Contact your state representative and senator and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want them to oppose bills that will move us in that direction.

Contact your state school board member and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S. Tell them that you want them to tell the State Office of Education not to apply for the new RTT grant, and get us out of Common Core.

Contact the governor and tell him you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want Utah to get out of Common Core and not participate in the new RTT grant competition.

Where Does it Stop?

If you were to make a long list of things that people shouldn't do, smoking would probably be on it. There really isn't anyone left who thinks smoking is a good thing, including those who smoke. That's part of the reason bans on smoking in restaurants and other public places have been passed in so many places.

So it's not very surprising that there's a bill in the Utah legislature that aims to make the jump from prohibiting people from smoking in public places, to prohibiting them from smoking within the confines of their own personal property. That bill is HB0013, which would prohibit adults from smoking in a car when a child under the age of 16 is present.

We all know that exposure to smoke is bad for children. But that doesn't justify the overreach of this bill, which aims to tell people what they can't do in the confines of their own property. Being inside one's vehicle is much like being inside one's own home. Where will this desire to reach into people's personal lives and tell them what to do - however good it may be - stop?

If the state can get away with making it illegal to smoke in a person's own vehicle with their own children or their friends present, what's to stop it from doing the same in people's homes? Far more secondhand exposure occurs in homes than in cars. 

What about some things that are closer to home for most Utahns? Watching too much TV, playing too many video games, eating Cheetos, spending too much time texting, and not getting enough sleep are also bad for children. Should the government make laws to regulate these behaviors as well?

Isn't it possible that this camel's nose could make way for the rest of him? I contend that it's likely, given the current political climate, in which our freedoms are disappearing faster than a late spring snow. 

Does anyone want young people to be in cars where adults are smoking? No, of course not. But does anyone want the state of Utah to be able to tell individuals what to do with their own property and children? No. The latter is the greater threat. While smoking in the presence of children is bad, it's a much greater offense to force someone not to do it. 

Catharine Littlefield Greene

Catharine Littlefield Greene, wife of the great Revolutionary War 
General Nathanael Greene, said, "We all know that anything which is evil and harmful when done outside government is equally evil and harmful when done through government." 

That is to say, if it's wrong for an individual to demand $45 from his neighbor when she smokes in the car with her kids, it is just as wrong for a government to do so.

There is virtually no freedom that can't be legislated away by a desire to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. This is even more true when applied to the desire to protect other people's children from their parents' bad choices.

We have to be willing to protect others' freedoms to do what we feel is stupid or bad, if we want our freedoms respected and protected. This bill should be opposed. It is the camel's nose.

Further Information:

The text of HB0013

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0013.pdf

Salt Lake Tribune: 'Utah bill to ban smoking in cars with kids gets committee approval'

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55774328-90/smoking-utah-cars-bill.html.csp

Deseret News: 'Representative again hopes bill will snuff out smoking in cars with children'

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865572397/Representative-again-hopes-bill-will-snuff-out-smoking-in-cars-with-children.html

What To Do:

Contact your state representative and state senator and ask them to vote NO on this bill. All it takes is a short couple of sentences. Include the bill name and number, HB0013, 'Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles.' Find your representative here.

Share this blog with others and tell them to do the same. This is the camel's nose.

Common Core is Just Standards?

If you've followed the debate about the adoption of the Common Core State Standards as the new Utah Core Standards, you know that proponents of these new standards assert that they are "just standards" and that they don't dictate curriculum or approach. Those who oppose the standards, including myself, see plenty of evidence that Common Core does dictate teaching methods, and we know that once the assessments are in place, curriculum will be more or less dictated by the need to do well on those assessments.

KSL helped add to the evidence last Thursday with this article, New Ways of Teaching Math Focus on Concepts, not Just Memorization. David Smith, the elementary mathematics specialist at the Utah State Office of Education (USOE), is quoted as saying, "The questions parents have about math instruction changing, they are absolutely right, it is changing." 

What? Then why have we been told that the Common Core is just standards? 

Apart from the frustrating doublespeak - on the one hand, it's just standards, not orders to teachers on how to teach them; and on the other, "math instruction [is] changing" - the way in which it's changing will not help most kids learn math any better. In fact, it will undermine students' ability to do and therefore understand math.

What's involved in this "new way" of teaching math? A teacher gives the kids a problem, and lets them try to figure out how to solve it, often in groups. Even though the students may eventually be taught the traditional algorithm - which always works in finding the answer, which is the real point of math - students are often required to show several different ways of getting the same answer.

There is no research or evidence showing the benefits of this kind of instruction for elementary and secondary students. Even so, it's fair to think that this may be a great approach for some students. 

But for others, it's a disaster. With this approach, a child who prefers math to reading and writing is forced to do even more reading and writing for their math assignments. If you get the chance to look at your child's Common Core-aligned math book, you will see far more words than numbers, very few problems to solve (plenty of research points to the fact that repetition is essential for mastering a mathematical concept), and requirements for the students to write actual sentence and paragraph answers for what would be easily answered with a simple number sentence.

Can you just hear your little math genius screaming with frustration? 

The U.S. put a man on the moon with engineers who learned math the traditional way. It seems we're getting a little carried away with the "new is always better" mindset. 

Several years ago, this "new way" of teaching math was widespread in Alpine School District. Kids in 7th grade didn't know their times tables, 10th graders couldn't do long division, and parents got upset. It's widely known that the high number of charter schools in the Alpine District are a direct result of parents wanting their kids to have traditional direct math instruction. They know that kids who've experienced direct instruction can do the math, even if they can't fully explain it, while kids who've experienced this "exploratory" math may be able to explain it, but often can't get the right answer.

Why would the state require teachers to teach in this way? Isn't that outside the scope of standards? Shouldn't the parents and teachers in any given school be able to decide how they want to handle teaching methods?

In a touch of ironic commentary, the KSL article quotes two owners of math tutoring businesses, who offer their services to the parents whose kids are struggling with this "new" math. I think math tutoring businesses serve a purpose, and I'm glad they're there. But I don't think the state should be increasing their business by mandating an ineffective teaching approach which kids can't understand and parents can't help them with, because it's "new."

Further Information:

KSL Article
New Ways of Teaching Math Focus on Concepts, not Just Memorization

USOE Instructional Materials Review of Saxon Math
Instructional Materials Search Detail Course: Grade 4
Saxon Math is a popular approach to teaching math which employs a lot of direct instruction (the teacher tells the student how to do the problem) and repetition. It revisits concepts and builds upon them lesson after lesson and year after year, which, according to this review from the Curriculum Department at the State Office, is not desirable because the Federal "National Math Panel" has said that concepts should not be revisited. This review highlights how Common Core does indeed get into dictating teaching approaches.

What To Do:
Contact your representative on the State Board of Education and let them know how you feel about teachers being required to teach a certain way under the new "Utah Core," and how you feel about this "new" approach to math in particular. 

Find your State Board member here.

Contact your local School Board members and tell them how you feel about these same things. 

Educate yourself on the debate about teaching approaches for math, and if you've been feeling frustrated with what you're seeing with Common Core, don't think you're the only one. Heed that sense that it's not quite what you'd like, and talk to your kids' teachers and principals. While they'll probably tell you why it's a great approach - a lot of time and money has been spent in training them how to teach CC (another piece of evidence that it's not just about standards), and colleges of education have been teaching this approach to young teachers-in-training for years - they need to hear from involved parents when things aren't working for them.

Utah Moms Care: 10 Easy Ways Even Busy Moms Can Be More Engaged Du...

Here's another blogger who shares my passion for getting involved. Read through this great list, pick one, and DO it!

Utah Moms Care: 10 Easy Ways Even Busy Moms Can Be More Engaged Du...: We are all busy.  Really busy.  There are always more things that we would like to do, then we can actually do.  But here is a challenge, ...

ASD Code of Conduct Discussion on January 30

On January 30, the Alpine School Board will be discussing their priorities at their semi-annual Board Retreat. In the past, this has included a review of its Code of Conduct.

The Code of Conduct describes the way members of the Board are supposed to conduct themselves in regard to other Board members and the school District. Much of it is a useful, and should be praised and supported. 

But there are a few things about this code that are troublesome. They are these points:

1.  "Have the courage to speak your perspective and then when the decision is made support the Board and Administration.
Be accountable for policies and decisions made by the board.
Support the Board and Staff once a decision is made."

2. "Achieve Unity and Trust
Show unity as a board.
Have faith in the administrators."

3. It fails to reference the families or voters of the District.

School Boards were set up to represent the interests of the people in the District in which they serve, to hold the District accountable to the voters and taxpayers. These points of the Code of Conduct suggest this role has been turned on its head in Alpine, and the Board is supposed to represent the District to the people.

I have a hard time imagining any other legislative body abiding by such rules. Requiring every member to be accountable for a rule or policy once a decision has been made undermines the representative role which Board members are elected to fill. 

If the legislature operated under this policy, representatives could not go back to their constituents and tell them how they had voted against such and such a bill. It would preclude them from responding to a constituent who asked for a certain bill to be introduced, if it went contrary to recently-passed legislation.

How would our U.S. Congressional representatives feel if constrained by such a policy? How would you feel about how Congress operated if it was expected to represent the President's and Congress' wishes to the people, and not express dissent?

Board members should be free to communicate their disagreement of District policies, just as they are free to communicate their support of such policies. If they can't communicate to their own constituents their dissatisfaction with a certain rule or policy just the same as they can their satisfaction, constituents can't know whether or not they agree with that individual and whether to re-elect them.

Trying to create unity is a noble goal, but hardly to be expected in a civic body. Dissent in a civic body is healthy. It shows that a variety of views are represented and considered in that body. Creating an illusion of unity by requiring Board members to act as though they agree with every policy doesn't help anyone, least of all those who elected the members and pay for the school District.

Which brings us to the problem with the charge in the Code of Conduct to "have faith in the administrators." Of course Board members should have general trust in the qualifications and competency of the administrators, but that trust should not extend to every action taken by them, in the sense that Board members should never question them. The Board's role is to scrutinize everything administrators do in their roles as powerful government officials, to protect the voters and taxpayers from possible District overreach and misdirection. 

James Madison

A school board is supposed to function as a check on the power of the administration. James Madison said, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

In a school district, the Board is that auxiliary precaution. 

It is an abiding principle that no matter how good the people in government are as individuals, they must be watched and held to a critical standard when they wield power as public officials. In reality,  government policies and the actions of administrators can only be improved by being appropriately challenged and held accountable to a school board.

Reflecting on the state legislature or U.S. Congress helps highlight how mistaken it is to ask for elected representatives to not question the actions of the officials and departments they vote to fund and regulate. Can you imagine the U.S. Congress being asked to have faith in the administrators of the Federal Department of Education, or Defense, or State? Of course not. They scrutinize and reevaluate and say "no" to more funding and "yes" to good policy changes, and that is the appropriate role of a school board.

My third and final concern with the Code of Conduct is its failure to reference the families or voters of the District. While it directs the Board to honor and support the will of the administration or Board many times, it never mentions honoring or protecting the people who elected the Board, and to whom the Board is ultimately accountable.

Having a Code of Conduct is a good thing. But this one could be greatly improved, and should be. The lines referenced above should be stricken from the Code of Conduct, and acknowledgement of the Board's responsibility to the voters, families and taxpayers should be added. 

 If you feel you'd like to see changes as well - or if you disagree with me and like it the way it is - contact the Board and let them know your thoughts.

Further Information:
Read the Alpine School District Code of Conduct for the Board of Education.

Alpine District's explanation of the Code of Conduct: About the Board

Toward Openness and Accountability to Parents, from Fortifying Our Families.org

The comments under this blog post by Alpine School Board member Wendy Hart: 
Code of Conduct

What To Do:

1. Contact the Board and let them know what you think about the Code of Conduct. If you'd like to see any changes, let them know what those are. You can find the Board contact info here. 

If you'd like to find the specific Board member who represents you, check here. You'll need to click on each map until you find the one of your area, then match the Precinct number up with the corresponding Board member. (Wish there were an easier way; if anyone knows of one, please tell me.)

2. Attend the Board Retreat, which is open to the public, although they won't be taking any public comments at this meeting.

Jan. 30, 2013
Mountainland Applied Technology College, Room 230-N
2301 W. Ashton Blvd.
Lehi, UT

8:30 - 9:00 Continental Breakfast
9:00 - 9:30 Past Basket Items Report (Priorities)
9:30 - 10:30 Current Basket Items Conversation/Suggestions
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 12:00 Current Basket Items/Rating/Ranking to Prioritize
12:00 - 12:30 Lunch
12:30 - 2:30 Question: "How do we unite and move forward as a Board to make sure these priorities are realized?"

School Boards were set up to represent the interests of the people in the District in which they serve. They can only do that well if they know what you want, so get to know your representative - via email, or by attending a Board meeting and becoming acquainted - and stay in touch with them when the Board is handling issues that are important to you.

"I Know Where You've Been"

License plate scanners in Utah - How much info should be stored, and for how long?

Senator Todd Weiler said it well: "On the one hand, this technology is cool, but it's also creepy," he told the Associated Press.

License plate scanners are already in use by law enforcement agencies. The devices can take a snapshot of a license plate as a car zooms by, and then run the plates through software to compare them against criminal databases, or lists of registered drivers to find the unregistered or uninsured.

Sen. Weiler said police agencies in Utah currently store the information collected by scanners for up to two years.

Sen. Weiler plans to introduce a bill this session to place limits on the amount of time that scanner information can be stored to six months. He believes this will enable law enforcement to use it for good - helping track down stolen vehicles, or spot a suspected criminal on his getaway - while minimizing the risk of its being utilized for inappropriate uses, such as evidence in divorce cases.

He falls in the middle of the spectrum on the debate, with the ACLU advocating a law to restrict storage to just 12 hours, and Beaver County Sheriff Cameron Noel saying police should be able to store it as long as they like.

It's possible that the Senator has not only Utah law enforcement in mind, but also Federal agencies. The DEA approached Utah last year with a request to install stationary scanners on I-15 in southern Utah. That means that everyone who traveled that road would have their time, date and location stored in a DEA database.

Senator Weiler has got this one right. There is too much potential for privacy abuses with indefinite storage, and there should be a limit on how long the information can be stored. There doesn't seem to be any scientific way to determine the best time frame, and I would be inclined to shorten it to three months, but I am willing to support a bill that limits storage to six months.

Further Information:

Daily Herald - License Plate Scanners Spark Legislative Debate

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/legislature/license-plate-scanners-spark-legislative-debate/article_5f8f85e6-56b0-11e2-9924-001a4bcf887a.html

Deseret News - DEA Withdraws Request to Install License Plate Scanners

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865557302/DEA-withdraws-request-to-install-license-plate-readers.html

Salt Lake Tribune - Utah Law Enforcement Scanning License Plates

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54341662-78/plate-license-data-scanners.html.csp

What you can do:

Shoot a quick email to your state representative and state senator and chime in - let them know how you feel about it. Should law enforcement be able to store data from scanners 12 hours? 6 months? Indefinitely? Or some other length of time? 

Find your representative and senator here:

Find your elected officials

Alpine School District's Code of Conduct

When I moved to Utah last year, I found the environment in the local public elementary school to be a breath of fresh air after the experience I had in Nebraska, my beloved home of seven years. I spent my last six months in Nebraska - and first nine months here - fighting an outrageous new school attendance law which took away a parent's right to excuse her child from school. 

My local district had embraced the new law, made draconian changes to our local attendance policy, and became the most notorious enforcer of it, to the detriment of dozens families in just the first year. This happened despite my district's boasting a 98% graduation rate and an average daily attendance rate of 96% before the policy change! This was the leading district in the state, but it was treating parents as though they were enemies not be trusted with the best interests of their own children.

I found that attitude did not exist here in Alpine, and I was delighted and relieved. My children enjoyed an enriching 2011-2012 school year at our local elementary school, with nothing but cordiality between me and the teachers and staff.

But I began to hear whispers of things that concerned me. First, I learned that Utah had adopted the Common Core State Standards, which had been developed by the National Governor's Association. I had come across this association during the school attendance fight in Nebraska, and I don't trust its intentions. I also didn't care for a few points of the standards themselves, nor especially for the anything-but-local nature of them.

As I sought to learn how Alpine School District was responding to this mandate, I was pleased to discover that it was thinking through things and taking the longest amount of time the state allowed to implement it so as it to make it go more smoothly for teachers and students, but I was frustrated to see it embracing the new standards and defending their adoption with the same alacrity with which my Nebraska district had embraced the school attendance law. I had hoped to find some push-back and protectiveness of our local territory.

Then I read through archived newspaper and blog articles about past disputes between the District and parents over teaching methods and District policy statements, and through several pages on the District website covering District and Board policy. I realized that that while Alpine does not have the intensely problematic attitude toward families which I found in the school officials in Nebraska, even Alpine has unwittingly absorbed some of the attitude which seems prevalent in public education today, one of educators knowing better than the parents of the children they're educating, feeling like their job is to "handle" parents rather than respond to them.

I reached this conclusion based on the stories I read, parents I talked to, and this document:

Alpine School District Board of Education Code of Conduct

This document describes the way the members of the Board of Education are supposed to conduct themselves in regard to other Board members and the school District. Much of it is a useful description of how members of any public body ought to behave, and is to be praised and supported.

But there are a few things about this code that are troublesome. They are these points:

1.  Have the courage to speak your perspective and then when the decision is made support the Board and Administration.
Be accountable for policies and decisions made by the board.
Support the Board and Staff once a decision is made.

2. Achieve Unity and Trust
Show unity as a board.
Have faith in the administrators.

School Boards were set up to represent the interests of the people in the District in which they serve, to hold the District accountable to the voters and taxpayers. These points of the Code of Conduct suggest this role has been turned on its head in Alpine, and the Board is supposed to represent the District to the people.

I have a hard time imagining any other legislative body abiding by such rules. Requiring every member to be accountable for a rule or policy once a decision has been made undermines the representative role which Board members are elected to fill. 

If the legislature operated under this policy, representatives could not go back to their constituents and tell them how they had voted against such and such a bill. It would preclude them from responding to a constituent who asked for a certain bill to be introduced if it went contrary to recently-passed legislation.

How would our U.S. Congressional representatives feel if constrained by such a policy? How would you feel about how Congress operated if it was expected to represent the President's and Congress' wishes to the people, and not express dissent?

Board members should always be free to communicate their non-support of policies which pass a vote of the majority, just as they are free to communicate their support of such policies. If they can't communicate to their own constituents their dissatisfaction with a certain rule or policy just the same as their satisfaction, constituents can't know whether or not they agree with that individual and whether to re-elect them.

Trying to create unity is a noble goal, but hardly to be expected in a civic body. There should be dissent in a civic body. It's healthy! It shows that a variety of views are represented and considered in that body. Creating an illusion of unity by requiring Board members to act as though they agree with every policy doesn't help anyone.

Which brings us to the charge to have faith in administrators. Of course the Board members should have general trust in the qualifications and competency of administration, but the Board's role is to scrutinize everything administrators do in their roles as powerful government officials. They are to protect the interests of the voters and taxpayers from possible District overreach and misdirection. 

A school Board is supposed to function as a check on the power of the administration. James Madison said, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

In a school district, the Board is that auxiliary precaution. It is a principle, an abiding one, that no matter how good the people in government are as individuals, they must be watched and held to a critical standard when they wield power as public officials. In reality, administrators can only be made better by being accountable to a body that will hold their feet to the fire, in this case a Board.

Once again, reflecting on the state legislature or U.S. Congress helps highlight how mistaken it is to ask for elected representatives to trust the officials and departments they vote to fund and regulate. Can you imagine the U.S. Congress being asked to have faith in the administrators of the Federal Department of Education, or Defense, or State? Of course not. They scrutinize and reevaluate and say "no" to more funding and "yes" to good policy changes, as they should.

My third and final concern with the Code of Conduct is its failure to reference the families or voters of the District. While it directs the Board to honor and support the will of the administration or Board many times, it never mentions the people who elected the Board, and to whom the Board is ultimately accountable.

Having a Code of Conduct is a good thing to do. But this one could be greatly improved, and should be. The lines referenced above should be stricken from the Code of Conduct, and acknowledgement of the Board's responsibility to the voters, families and taxpayers should be added. 

On January 30, the Board will be discussing the Code of Conduct. If you feel you'd like to see changes as well - or if you like it the way it is - contact the Board and let them know your thoughts.

Further Information:
Read the Alpine School District Code of Conduct for the Board of Education.

Alpine District's explanation of the Code of Conduct: About the Board

Toward Openness and Accountability to Parents, from Fortifying Our Families.org

The comments under this blog post by Alpine School Board member Wendy Hart: 
Code of Conduct

What To Do:

Contact the Board and let them know what you think about the Code of Conduct. If you'd like to see any changes, let them know what those are. You can find the Board contact info here. 

If you'd like to find the specific Board member who represents you, check here. You'll need to click on each map until you find the one of your area, then match the Precinct number up with the corresponding Board member. (Wish there were an easier way; if anyone knows of one, please tell me.)

School Boards were set up to represent the interests of the people in the District in which they serve. They can only do that well if they know what you want, so get to know your representative - via email, or by attending a Board meeting and becoming acquainted - and stay in touch with them when the Board is handling issues that are important to you.