New Years Resolutions

Lest you think from my previous two postings that all on Capitol Hill are teaming up to destroy public education, I must include those bills that I think are very encouraging.

HB 65, sponsored by Rep. Arent, is titled “College and Career Counseling for High School Students”. It calls for an additional appropriation to increase the ratio of counselors to students by offering grants for schools to hire and train interns. These interns are to be masters degree candidates in Guidance Counseling. Here again, the need for counselors is great but an unfunded mandate would be unacceptable.

HJR 2 is a resolution sponsored by Rep Poulson, titled “Joint Resolution on World Class Curriculum”. Budget constraints and a focus on grading schools on student achievement have resulted in questioning the value of electives such as art, physical education, and other non-tested subjects. I believe in the benefit of a broad curriculum, including literature, history, foreign language and technology and welcome this reaffirmation.

Another resolution comes from Sen. Jones: SCR 5 “Concurrent Resolution Encouraging Parental Engagement in the Education of Children”. It recognizes the impact that parents can have in helping their children succeed, as well as the policies of the State Board of Education, local districts, and schools that encourage family engagement in education.

While such resolutions do not bind the state to action, they are important affirmations to principle.

Backpack Education Funding

There are more ways to cut funding to education than by sending education money to non-education entities. It can also be done by diverting the revenue up stream. Each time there is another tax credit offered to corporations or individual tax payers from their income tax, the source of education funds is more choked off.

Keep this in mind each time you hear tax credit discussions during the legislation. They are often used to stimulate an industry (such as recycling projects) or to give relief to those in need (such as families of the disabled). Tax credits are different from tax deductions. Tax credits are subtracted from the tax bill rather than from the income on which taxes are calculated. Tax deductions reduce tax revenue a little, tax credits reduce tax revenue a lot.

In this post, I will focus on “backpack funding” (No, the legislature is not buying backpacks for the kids to carry their books home!) This is the name used for a concept of how education funds are spent. The term “backpack” is applied because it provides that students each receive a finite credit for their publicly-funded education. They then take the funding with them where ever they go.

The current bill that proposes this concept is HB 123, titled “Education Savings Accounts” sponsored by Representative John Dougall. Instead of credits or vouchers in a backpack, Rep. Dougall proposes in his bill that each high school student receive a savings account, receiving the funding for each year of his or her secondary education at the beginning of that year, starting with 9th grade. For each class that the student attends, certain amounts of money are deducted from the savings account. Public schools would receive their established per class fee; online class providers could set their own fees. Students would also be allowed to enroll at any public school they want and public schools would not be allowed to charge higher fees for part-time students than for full-time students.

The maximum that a full schedule could cost would be $6,400. If a student’s SEOP determines that he will graduate early, he can access funds for future years as well. However, when the money is gone, it is gone and the student is on his own if he hasn’t earned a high school diploma by then.

It looks like public schools would not receive class funds for any released time instruction, such as seminary, internships, or courses at Applied Technology Colleges or concurrent enrollment. It allows students to apply money from their accounts for class fees normally charged for courses at their high school, so I suppose it will cover fees such as the choir robe rental fees, lab fees for chemistry, band instrument rental, etc. My high school daughter had about $200 of fees for academic classes this year that came out of our pocket. If she decides to participate in the International Baccalaureate program, my out of pocket fees will be higher still. If high school fees are now to be paid by public education funds, $6,400 won’t go as far as it used to.

In addition, students would be able to apply money from these accounts to “fees, deposits, or other charges” for activities sponsored by the school or district. That means they can apply these funds to football uniforms and equipment, golf green fees, drivers education, or cheerleader expenses. If you hate fundraisers like I do, it may sound welcome but imagine how these will soak up the account!

There are a number of additional problematic sections in this bill.
* It is not clear whether students can be charged for participating in extracurricular activities if they choose not to charge it to their “savings account”.
* It definitely would affect eligibility for extracurricular activities (for example, sports), and I wonder if the schools’ response will be to discontinue some of them.
* It creates a complex banking responsibility for the State Office of Education to track and invoice financial information for every student and each class they take, following up on class eligibility and remitting quarterly payments to every school and eligible course provider. They also must give each student access to online information about the balance of his or her account. This would become a whole new, massive department in the State Office.
* It also removes funding for Electronic High School, concurrent enrollment or school-sponsored ATC courses. Each participant interested in online courses or classes offered at colleges would enroll through the individual course providers and the State Office of Education.
* Students eligible for these accounts include those currently in public and private schools, as well as home schooled students – many more than are currently funded in public schools now.
* Finally, all these changes are to be implemented by July of this year.

There is no fiscal note attached to this bill; too much of its cost is unknown. There is also no indication that this sort of reorganization of Public Education will benefit students’ education. While it claims to provide greater choices for education, the financial strains on public education would certainly result in fewer choices and/or poorer quality in its offerings.

Funding Education

The new legislative session already well underway and I have some catch up to do. I am working with the Utah PTA as Education Commissioner so my focus has been on education bills. That is no narrow focus by any means.

It is a well-known fact that public schools in Utah are cash-strapped. Education for Utah students is funded at the lowest level in the United States. What we are able to do with the funding we get is amazing! The lowest level of funding might result in lowest level of student performance but our students are doing much better than that.

The legislators point to a statistic that the percentage of Utah’s tax burden committed to education is at a level that is fifth in the nation. If this is a surprise, we should also bear in mind that Utah’s birthrate is highest in the nation. The surprise is that we aren’t investing at the highest level in the nation.

The State Constitution put education as a high priority. Revenues from all income taxation are required to fund education. So education funding is greatly affected by changes to the laws regarding income tax.

Of particular concern is HB 299 (Rep Dougall) “Tax Revisions”. This bill lowers the income tax rate from 5% to 4%. The impact to the education fund would be to reduce it by $53.8M (that is “M” for million dollars!) in 2013. Legislative Fiscal Analysts added that in 2014 and on-going, the fund could be reduced by $215M. The bill was amended so that the rate is changed from 4% to 4.6%. The Fiscal Analyst hasn’t recomputed the impact to education or the general fund but there will be still be a substantial hit.

Next time you hear someone say that Utah's low funding is a result of large families, don't believe it. That is a "red herring." If we really dedicated income tax revenue to public education -- without all the special interest tax credits!-- we could fund education at almost twice the level.

Without the support of income tax revenue, schools would have to turn to local property tax. The most hated of all taxes is property tax. It particularly burdens the older home owners on a fixed income and creates big inequities between rich and poor communities. No one likes to pay taxes but everyone benefits from a strong and vibrant system of public education.

Shared photos

I tapped on the shoulder of a stranger with a camera last evening and asked if he would send me photos of the protests. He did. So I have some photos of the events I described in the post below.

People Will Stand Up --- Even in Utah

A revolution at Tahrir Square in Egypt sparked similar protests against Gadafi in Libya, and now in Saudi Arabia, and even in Kuwait. Perhaps these people gave courage to the hundreds of people who converged on the Capitol Building this evening, the last day of the Utah State Legislative Session.

Carrying signs calling on the Governor to veto HB477, to recall the bill's sponsor, and some other actions less to the point, the people eventually poured into the Capitol Building itself. Some had drums, most had flashlights, all were singing or chanting. The chants went from "Ve-to!" to "Our House!" and ever back to "This little light of mine." The rotunda was filled with the sound of their protestations and it was stirring. A few of the legislators moved with confidence before the crowds, smiling and waving. Most others were tucked away in their closed Caucus Room.

The crowds worked their way up the stairs. They were not allowed into the House or Senate Chambers but chanted out side the doors before moving upstairs to the fourth floor.

At the time, I was awaiting the end of the dinner recess in the House Gallery babysitting the bags and computers of the other PTA Legislative Advocacy Committee members. I turned to the visitors on my left and leaving the supplies in their care, I went out in the hall to see the action.

I tried to take a few pictures with my mobile phone but it isn't a very good camera. Heading back to the south Gallery door, I noticed that the crowds had arrived at the north Gallery door and the security personnel were holding them back. Then I found that the door I had come from was now locked. A few others were in my same situation when we noticed that the north doors were open and people were beginning to file in. We slipped into the group and a few who were anxious to be disruptive were quickly removed.

Rules in the Gallery are that visitors must be seated, no signs and no outbursts. No one however stopped them when they began to sing softly. Sometimes in harmony. I believe that the Republicans who were caucusing across the hall were waiting for them to leave before they began to appear. A couple of the Democrats on the floor made their own sign that said, "We voted NO!" and that brought a cheer from the gallery.

Finally the rest of the legislators wandered in and Speaker Lockhart brought down the gavel to call the meeting to order. When a couple of people called out to disrupt the meeting, The Speaker called them to order but suffered a slip of the tongue, "I will kill --- clear the gallery if necessary." It served to ease the tension; the disruptions stopped and the work of the House went forward --but very circumspectly.

The protests went on in the rotunda for a little while but from the gallery, we couldn't hear much of it after that. My hopes are that the sounds of their voices will not fade away over the next few months. I heard an indication that they won't; a group of people have already filed a referendum on HB 477 with the Lt. Governor's office.

Tahrir Square -- Utah style.

The Governor who Wouldn't Govern

The GRAMA bill of 2011 is HB 477. It exempts electronic communication of legislators from being open to the public and increases the fees for obtaining copies of records that are open to the public.

The Legislature passed HB 477 like a rushing wind and created a series of tornados in its wake. The response came not only from the news media but protesters arrived at the Capitol to express outrage, both at the content of the bill and the method it was carried out.

The people turned to their best line of defense against this breach of government transparency. The tool that gives the Executive Branch of government balance with the Legislative Branch is the Governor's veto power.

When Governor Herbert hesitated to answer the demands for a veto of HB 477, the legislators who signed on as co-sponsors of the bill called upon the Governor to keep his promise to support this legislation. Governor Herbert was in a quandary. If he vetoed the bill, that would anger the legislators who thought he had signed on. If he didn't veto it, he risked anger from voters.

Amid the tumult, the bill sponsors called it back in for an amendment. The amendment changed the date that it would take effect to mid-summer and required that the topic be studied in interim study sessions.

This gave the Governor an out. It wouldn't become the law for four months and maybe people would forget about it by then. He signed the bill. In doing so, he took himself out of the issue. Whatever happens or doesn't happen by the effective date in July, he has no veto power. He has taken himself out of the balancing act.

Unfortunately for him. the outcry didn't subside so he felt he had to explain himself. He claimed that the legislature would override his veto, resulting in a "bad law". How is that different from what we now have? He has signed what he called a bad law. It is just as possible to change any part of state law as it is to change this bill. It is, with his signature, the law.

If the Governor is cowed by the strength of the legislative leadership from vetoing what he admits is a bad law, there is no balance of power in state government.

The Governor should govern. If he is not willing to do so, we need someone who is.

Planning for Migrant Workers

The bubble up process for legislation is unpredictable because some bills seem to have the skids greased for them. I think I understand the feeling of having a bill that is still number two on the agenda while bill after bill is placed in front of it. I remember the feeling watching older kids cut in the lunch line.

I have some concerns about one bill that went from a boxcar to legislation awaiting the Governor's signature all in four days. The sponsor is Representative Sandstrom; it is HB 466, Migrant Workers and Related Commission Amendments.

On March 1st, its text was made public. It was introduced in the House and send to be heard in the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Standing Committee. That is the only place that the public is able to testify in favor of or opposed to the bill and on March 3rd, it received its hearing. On March 4th, it was read on the House floor and passed unanimously without many questions. It was then rushed to the Senate for a vote and passed with only one nay vote.

In a nutshell, the bill sets up a relationship with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon, such that migrant workers could apply in Nuevo Leon, have a background check and be granted an H2 visa to work in the United States. They would be chosen based on the needs of businesses who apply for migrant workers to fill jobs here. The bill also calls for a commission to evaluate this arrangement.

There are many good things about this bill and I hope it is as good as its sponsors say. At the same time, I have a few concerns.

I remember hearing about a program similar to this in a state in the Southeast. I don't remember details but I think the jobs that were being filled were in the logging industry. The workers were brought into the states and sent to remote logging camps and kept in squalid conditions. They had no means of personal transportation or communication. Their wages were held by the company but exorbitant fees for their participation in the program were deducted till there was little if anything to be held for them. Information about this situation came out when one worker escaped and traveled north to New York City and found a relative who was working and living comfortably without documents. The reporter pointed out the irony of the worker who tried to come the "legal way" and found himself a virtual slave as opposed to the illegal immigrant who could provide well for his family illegally. I fear this program could easily turn into indentured servitude, especially if the Mexican partners can skim fees from the wages that workers receive from their US employers.

The program might also be abused if businesses here advertise for unskilled laborers and are instead sent skilled workers. The business then finds that they have valuable human resources and move the skilled laborers into positions, displacing US citizens who cost more to employ. This brings wages down for all the other laborers and keeps our unemployment high.

Finally, I hope that there are safeguards in place that this cannot become a form of state-sanctioned human trafficking. I would like to be certain that the work of the Commission that evaluates this program includes watching for how women are involved as migrant workers.