Listening in on the Education Interim Committee meeting held on May 21, I am struck, once again, by the continual contradictions expressed by certain legislators. Two not-so-shining examples reared their heads in this meeting.
But first, some background. Item 4 on the committee's agenda was a discussion of class-size reduction. Two legislative auditors presented a brief summary of their December 2007 audit of school district use of class size reduction money. The auditors reminded the body that it reduced any reporting requirements for districts in 2002. The auditors were able to track fund uses for 18 districts and found that 100% of the money had been used on teacher salaries. The auditors also noted that the class-size reduction has been underfunded for three of the last seven years and not funded at all for four of those seven years.
The auditors made at least one very sound recommendation–allocate class-size reduction money based on need rather than the current system which gives the money to all schools based on enrollment. This means that schools with declining enrollment and charter schools, which cap their enrollment at a set number, receive the funds despite a lack of need.
Now to the examples of less than clear legislative thinking: In response to the audit recommendation, one legislator suggested that legislation is needed to ensure that districts use the money to meet set targets or they can't participate in the program. This legislator is also known, however, for pushing unlimited open enrollment for schools. How schools are supposed to open their doors to all while still maintaining classroom targets was not explained, and the contradiction in these positions was not questioned.
A second legislator suggested that charters with enrollment caps should still get class-size reduction money because they "make tough choices" in order to keep class sizes small. Actually, charters set their enrollment in their charter application, allowing the schools to plan every year for the exact number of students that will attend. Charters are also able to avoid providing expensive extras, such as football teams, and send students who want those programs to the local district school. District schools, meanwhile, are expected to be open to any and all who want to attend at any time during the school year and still have workable class sizes.
The sheer audacity of these legislators who regularly and publicly announce their assumptions that all districts are misusing class size reduction funds while actively advocating for charters to receive the funds despite their already smaller class sizes–and therefore lack of need for the funds-- is appalling.
District schools will never be able to institute enrollment caps. And charter school funding needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. But fiscally responsible legislators should be working to ensure that limited class size reduction funds are used by schools with the greatest need, and proposing legislation that assists with class size reduction without also advocating for greater class sizes through other legislation.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
I attended the Children's Justice Center Program and Utah Prosecution Council's Children's Justice/Domestic Violence Conference this week and came away amazed.
While the entire conference was fabulous, one of the most moving speakers was a survivor of domestic violence.
This woman described her experiences, part of which was captured on videotape by her then 13-year old son, at the command of her ex-spouse. The horrific moments captured in that tape were just a snapshot of her existence.
Despite all that she endured, this incredible lady came to a room full of 500 strangers to share her personal story. Her courage in the face of all that had happened and all that she continues to do was inspiring.
It was also informative. As she described her daily life, many in the room asked the common question, why stay? She explained how the abuse built over time, beginning with many attacks on her self esteem so that, by the time the abuse became physical, she did believe to some extent that she was at fault. She also explained the desire to keep her family together. Anyone who has ever contemplated divorce can understand the myriad emotions that such a decision raises.
Then she explained how hard it was to leave. Not because of a desire to stay, but because of the many risks involved. Leaving an abusive situation, without any information about how or whether a victim can be protected, is a frightening process. The presenter noted that it takes the average victim seven opportunities before she will leave the relationship.
Perhaps the most distressing point of the presentation was a picture the presenter showed that her son had painted. She explained that her son loves art and has always drawn pictures of animals and other bright things. After his father was sentenced to prison for his abuse of his mother, he drew a very dark picture with a small spot of light. He explained to his mother that the small light area was the little corner of his life where he feels safe.
Domestic violence, including teen dating violence, is a widespread issue that needs ever more attention and resources. No woman, child, or man should have to experience what the presenter and her children endured.
While the entire conference was fabulous, one of the most moving speakers was a survivor of domestic violence.
This woman described her experiences, part of which was captured on videotape by her then 13-year old son, at the command of her ex-spouse. The horrific moments captured in that tape were just a snapshot of her existence.
Despite all that she endured, this incredible lady came to a room full of 500 strangers to share her personal story. Her courage in the face of all that had happened and all that she continues to do was inspiring.
It was also informative. As she described her daily life, many in the room asked the common question, why stay? She explained how the abuse built over time, beginning with many attacks on her self esteem so that, by the time the abuse became physical, she did believe to some extent that she was at fault. She also explained the desire to keep her family together. Anyone who has ever contemplated divorce can understand the myriad emotions that such a decision raises.
Then she explained how hard it was to leave. Not because of a desire to stay, but because of the many risks involved. Leaving an abusive situation, without any information about how or whether a victim can be protected, is a frightening process. The presenter noted that it takes the average victim seven opportunities before she will leave the relationship.
Perhaps the most distressing point of the presentation was a picture the presenter showed that her son had painted. She explained that her son loves art and has always drawn pictures of animals and other bright things. After his father was sentenced to prison for his abuse of his mother, he drew a very dark picture with a small spot of light. He explained to his mother that the small light area was the little corner of his life where he feels safe.
Domestic violence, including teen dating violence, is a widespread issue that needs ever more attention and resources. No woman, child, or man should have to experience what the presenter and her children endured.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
