“You are not allowed to wear that shirt standing next to the enemy of public education, we are a body corporate, you do not represent this board!”

"As an individual board member, you have no authority,  we are a body corporate, you are only a board member when the board is in session"

The Utah School Board Association (USBA) has indoctrinated new school board members into believing that they do not have authority outside of a convened school board meeting.

See blog link to new board member orientation process:
What Really Happen at the December 1, 2012 -USBA Orientation

In the picture above, I am standing next to Representative G. Hughes, following a press conference this past summer.

After I posted this picture on Facebook, several school board members told me that I could not wear a shirt identifying myself as a school board member because as an “individual” I have no authority. They went on to say that I cannot wear that shirt, standing next to Rep. Hughes of all people, he is the enemy of public education”

USBA did a presentation to the Salt Lake City School Board this past Monday and again repeated the mantra “as an individual you have no authority…we are a body corporate”.  The board president reminded everyone, “that is state law”.

This amendment will help clarify that false indoctrination:

“Notwithstanding a local school board’s status as a body corporate, an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.”

HB 250 Local School Board Amendments — Draxler, J.

This was the subject of in the Legislative Task Force on Education in August 2013.

Here is a short version of what occurred:

Article Follow Up: School Board Maverick Stirs Teacher Debate at Legislature (Tribune)

Here is a more in depth account on the hearing:

What Really Happen at the August 27, Task Force Meeting? (video)

Soon after winning the election in 2012. Columnist John Flores wrote an excellent article explaining where a school board member’s proprieties should be placed:

New School Board Members Can Make A Difference (Deseret News)

There are multiple examples throughout this blog, documenting the constant assault leveled at the authority of an elected member of the school board, all in the name of “body corporate”.  I’ve cited a couple of silly ones above.

Tami Pyfer – Utah State Board of Education, Chair -attending the School Grading Working Group

The manner and results of our new school grading system does not match the legislative intent. This is one of the things I learned this past Thursday, while participating in the school grading working group chaired by Senator Stuart Adams (Senate sponsor of SB 271 School Grading Amendments [2013]).

I was particularly intrigued with the presentation by Frank Anderson of Timpanogos Academy. Mr. Anderson demonstrated that the current manner in which school grades are calculated, utilizing the “complex Algorithym” from “R” program has a flaw that does not accurately reflect a school’s ability to move “low performing students forward”. This in turn, skews the proficiency data and artificially drops the overall scores of a school. The discussion then turned to a static or more normative approach in school grading. There was a commitment from USOE to follow up with evidence that he presented.

Here is a link to his PowerPoint presentation:

Anderson Presentation

We also agreed to forward the following recommendations to the legislature:

• Define High School as a school that includes grade 12 and does not include any grade lower than 7; or grades 9 through 12 of a combination school.
• A school that is designated as an alternative school will be exempt from school grading
• The State Board will assign two grades to combination schools
• A school will not be graded on writing as indicated in the original bill
• College ready will be determined by ACT scores (how subjects are weighted is still unresolved)
• If a school does not have 95% of its students for testing, it will drop a letter grade as opposed to an automatic F.

Other ideas I am proposing:

• Two letter grades for all schools: #1 Overall Grade #2Grade based on student growth. Or some other way to measure student growth within a school.
• The state will provide funding for additional FTE for an Elementary School that receives an F letter grade.  The FTE will be in the subject or subjects that the school needs help in. The FTE can then rotate through out the classrooms when that particular subject is being taught.

Link to an op-ed I wrote some months ago, stating my position on school grading:

Clara: Educators’ Pessimism Doesn’t Help Students (Tribune)