Life is lived not by years, but moments of each day. Your integrity is revealed in the decisions you make and at the end, the legacy you leave behind speaks to the everyday moments and decision making process in your life. This goes for the ordinary private person to huge corporations, including our subject matter today; the USOE (Utah State Board of Education).
The legacy of the USOE might well be remembered as the poster child of governmental bureaucracy run amuck. You can see it in Utah’s dismal rankings on class sizes, to money spent per pupil, and the explosive stories of teachers sexually abusing students. These are but a few of Utah’s problem areas revealing how poor decision making skills impact not only personal lives, but the community at large.
I tried. I really did! I tried to figure out where to retrieve a comprehensive report from USOE that would contain all data for each year and after spending four solid months in my search, I finally gave in.
You won’t find two reports from USOE that are the same.
You won’t find two reports for the same subject with the same URL. (For example, a board meeting in one month will have 4-5 URL’s containing most of the same info.)
You won’t find two reports from USOE on one topic with the same data.
For every report from USOE there’s conflicting sources, conflicting data, and conflicting reasons why they’ve done what they’ve done.
Basic Stats for Utah Schools
Teacher Population
In the 2014-2015 school year Utah employed just under 33,000 public and private school teachers.
Feeding the Underprivileged
According to Christopher Smart’s report in the Salt Lake Trib (1/23/2014), Utah ranked “last in the country – again” when providing food for kids who are labeled as “food insecure”, which is alarmingly at 25% of Utah’s population.
Apparently, this is an ongoing problem for Utah schools for which they’re trying to come up with ways to rectify the situation by looking at how other districts around the nation deal with hungry kids.
Expenditure Per Pupil – Dead Last
With a limping economy, school funding nationwide saw another cut in federal funding (roughly 2.5%). As you might imagine this caused an even greater strain on the purse strings to ensure everyone got their fair share. However, in Utah, the slow economy didn’t translate into a decrease in the population, making the squeeze even more painful.
In a report from the Federal Government, Utah ranked dead last in the nation for expenditures per student in 2011 and 2012. See US Department of Education, pp. 2, 8-9; Revenues & Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2012
2011 expenditures per student –
Utah – $6,441
US – $10,667
2012 expenditures per student
Utah – $7,194
US – $11,004
Nationally, schools receive 89.8% of funding from state and local governments. The remainder (10.2%) comes from the Federal Government – p. 2, see report above.
In 2013 Utah raised their ranking standard by one place and came in at 49th place for expenditures per pupil, outspending Arizona by $274.
2013 expenditures per student –
US – $10,938
Utah – $7,223 – this is a $29 difference from Utah’s stats
Arizona $6,949
Student Population
2014 – 622,153 students enrolled in UT public schools
2014 – 1,069 UT public schools
2012 – 2013 SY – 612,551 students enrolled in public schools
2012-2013 SY – 1,044 UT public schools
2012 – 2013 SY 600,985 students enrolled in public schools
2012 – 2013 SY 1,072 UT public schools
State population data provide indicators of the relative demand for public education services and other public programs. From 2010 to 2011, the total U.S. resident population increased by nine-tenths of a percent (0.9%).
States with greatest percentage gains in population were –
Texas (2.1%)
Utah (1.9%)
Alaska (1.8%)
Colorado (1.7%)
Rhode Island and Michigan experienced population declines
Enrollment
In fall 2012, U.S. public school enrollment was up 0.4 percent from the previous year.
The largest percentage enrollment changes from fall 2011 to fall 2012 were in –
North Carolina (4.1%)
North Dakota (3.5%)
Utah (2.4%)
Tennessee (2.1%)
Student/Teacher Ratio & Median Class Size
As you can see with the data provided below, Utah ranks as one of the highest in teacher/pupil ratio, as well as having a higher than average class size.
Median Class Size – 27
2014 Fiscal Year State Student Teacher Ratio
22.10
2013 – 2014 School Year State Median Class Size
27.0
States with the highest number of students enrolled per teacher in public elementary and secondary schools in fall 2012 –
California (24.9)
Oregon (21.8)
Utah (21.6)
Washington (19.7)
Indiana (18.6)
Student Graduation & Drop Out Rates
2014 UT dropout rate 15% – 83% graduation rate
2013 UT dropout rate 16% – 81% graduation rate
2012 UT dropout rate 19% – 78% graduation rate
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) which is part of the National Board of Education, p. 10, cites UT w/ an 80% graduation rate for 2012
Teacher Misconduct & Licensure Action
If you look at stats for who faced licensure issues, you’ll find the USOE loudly proclaiming that out of the 33k+ teachers, less than two-tenths of one percent of teachers face licensure problems.
While that sounds admirable, as it should, the question remains why these teachers aren’t given the boot when they violate the rules?
Up until 2012 USOE had utilized an oversight committee to evaluate and provide recommendations on teacher misconduct cases. If a teacher had violated a rule or law, UPPAC (Utah Professional Practices Advisory Committee) would meet, evaluate, and then give recommendations to the USOE on actions that should be taken against the violating teacher.
More times than not, USOE would accept the recommendations given to them. That was until USOE decided to do an internal investigation on all of UPPAC’s cases from 2011 – 2012…
2012
Two teacher misconduct cases the school board was mulling over resembled an unending volleyball match. One month they’d meet in a special session and decide to suspend someone and the next month they’d bring the case back to re-evaluate. The following month they’d tell UPPAC to re-evaluate their recommendations and after doing so, the board would either reject it, or think about it some more.
In December 2012 USOE determined they should implement an oversight committee on UPPAC. This sub-committee looked at UPPAC’s case recommendations from February 2011 through October 2012 and charted who voted what and when. They also singled out if a member of UPPAC voted against the majority when determining what sanctions to take against a teacher’s license, and wanted explanations of why.
In this same report USOE also felt they needed to look at each and every teacher misconduct case themselves, and in doing so they needed a psychologist in on the decision making process when determining whether or not they’d accept UPPAC’s recommendations of their caseloads.
In addition to the 15 board members, the oversight committee (UPPAC w/ 9 members), the subcommittees overlooking UPPAC, and psychologists, the board also decided they needed attorneys to give legal input, legislatures to help with rewriting laws already established, and a special board committee to bring cases to them (USOE) so they could make better judgment calls on who should be axed from Utah’s payroll.
From the outside looking in, it seems USOE is nothing but a mess. As caseloads grow exponentially, more committees and oversight groups are instituted to be on hand to evaluate every hypothetical scenario you could imagine. The copious amount of paperwork can only bog down the system and leave more important issues hanging.
2013
A complete revamping of laws and rules for Utah teachers was written up which they believed would serve as a better guideline to make sound judgment calls.
This all led to further confusion for some cases because if a teacher violated a law before the new rule went into effect then it had to be re-evaluated, and the entire crew of committees, psychologists, evaluators, and attorneys would be hauled in to voice their expertise.
In May 2013 a Task Force Committee was formed to evaluate if decisions made by UPPAC were in accordance w/ USOE’s standards. The pyramid of bureaucratic red tape kept getting deeper, generating a profuse amount of paperwork on top of what they already had.
And while all this was going on, Utah saw more than 25 teachers who had been sanctioned by USOE due to sex scandals. See SL Trib article here.
Surprisingly, not all of these showed up in their reports.
2014
2014 was a banner year for USOE with all the time spent on striking one word out of a law to replace with another, i.e., ‘shall’ v. ‘may’. After one or two words in a new law were changed, the committees would all go through the entire process of reading, accepting, and giving it their stamp of approval again – while the people still waited around to see what, if anything, would be done about the bad teachers in Utah.
In August 2014 USOE and UPPAC decided against providing any informative information on teachers who faced misconduct cases. Their reports were filled with ‘case numbers’ instead of real names or the infraction. UPPAC’s newsletters dwindled down to two for the entire year.
2015
On May 7, 2015 USOE repealed all of UPPAC’s previous rules and regulations. For all intent and purposes, the oversight committee for determining teacher misconduct cases became defunct.
The new rules/laws went into effect May 1, 2015
None of USOE’s reports divulged names or type of misconduct. The Utah law to protect the identity of kids somehow translated into protecting identities of perpetrators.
Utah also enacted a law that all teachers must submit to a background check in addition to being fingerprinted.
The reason for all of this? Teachers who should’ve been fired on the spot were repeatedly given the kid-glove treatment. For instance, teachers who were watching porn on school computers during class were either given letters of warning, or if they were repeat violators, they’d sometimes be handed a brief suspension. We found this to be appalling. Also noteworthy is how a teacher can still be employed if he/she had been involved in a sexual relationship with a student.
??? How is this okay?
Still others who were guilty of physical or verbal abuse towards students, were found in the classroom and on Utah’s payroll. In one case, the teacher’s notification of suspension letter noted it wasn’t the first or even second time this teacher had been in physical confrontations with students.
As you can imagine, fur was flying in the local papers and school board meetings. These new laws will supposedly give stricter guidelines on what is, and isn’t acceptable behavior for Utah teachers. We’ll see how that goes. Keep in mind that during all this, USOE was lawyering up.
Contradictions Galore
One of the major problems I encountered during my research was the glaring exemption of who did what, and when. In all but five or so states in the Union, the public has a right to know which teachers have been fired from their jobs. Utah is one of the few that doesn’t openly divulge names of offending teachers. You can find lists of doctors, contractors, dentists, CPA’s, et al, in Utah who’ve lost their license, but not so with teachers.
We’re wondering why.
With that being said, it must be pointed out that while you can find info on actions taken against school employees up until August 2014, it’s a major pain. Unless you have gobs of time just waiting to be spent in life retrieving needed info is a nightmare at best.
While we’re not here to broadcast names of offending teachers, we also don’t believe the state has the right to keep the info from you, the taxpayer.
How It Works Then & Now
Minutes and actions taken at school board meetings are public and you can readily find those online. However, actions taken against a specific teacher are referred to as a ‘case number’ in lieu of a person’s name.
Because of this, no one would ever know if a teacher with past violations was at the school your kid is attending. The board lists the cases they reviewed and took action on which could include reinstatements, suspensions, probations, and revocations.
After months of searching online I finally found some info on teachers licenses’, but those were extremely limited. I’m posting the link here if you’d like to see if one of the teachers in your school has received a reinstatement. Beware, it’s scary.
The status of any teacher is only given to the particular school the teacher might be working at, and the school board. Wouldn’t you want to know if your child’s teacher had been suspended from another school for a sexual or physical abuse violation? I know I would.
The reason why the public should know is because according to USOE, a healthy chunk of suspended licenses are reinstated.
“Reinstatement of a suspended license is not automatic or guaranteed. UPPAC and the Board must both approve reinstatement following satisfaction of stated conditions and a hearing. Historically, 22% of suspended licenses have been reinstated by the Board. Revocation is permanent.”
Up until 2014, UPPAC has published the names of the majority of violating teachers via their monthly newsletters.
In 2013 UPPAC didn’t list any of their newsletters at all, and in 2014 there were only two; January and June. Although the newsletters published in 2014 stopped in June, they did publish the names of offending teachers up until May.
In 2015 a few memorandums and/or minutes from board meetings were published, but these only contained case numbers.
Why the state of Utah chooses not to be forthcoming in producing all info is anyone’s guess. Our theory is they feel more loyalty to offenders than they do for employers; i.e., the taxpayers of Utah and more importantly, the kids.
Investigations
According to a study performed back in 2003, roughly 10% of all students in 8th to 11th grade reported a teacher had sexually touched them at some point in their school years.
This is interesting in light of USOE’s claim that less than two-tenths of one percent of their teachers do this. It totally contradicts an October 2014 Power-Point Presentation given by USOE Atty. Carol Lear.
Here’s some of what she said –
186 teacher misconduct cases have been investigated from January 2012 to October 2014.
As of October 2014, UPPAC had 57 open cases they were investigating. We can only surmise these are in addition to the 51 cases they reported for 2014 already.
That just seems like a lot of people don’t you think? I found that 10 teachers had their licenses reinstated for 2014, bringing the total number of teachers in trouble down to 96.
Think about it –
There are 41 school districts in Utah and 96 teachers who have been in trouble for 2014, so if you live in Utah you have a better than average chance that at least of two those teachers are in your school district.
Ms. Lear also reported the resolution of cases up until October 2014 as follows –
13% of UPPAC’s cases ended in Letters of Admonishment
3% of UPPAC’s cases ended in Reprimands and/or Probations
19% of UPPAC’s cases involved sexual misconduct w/ a student
14% of UPPAC’s cases involved inappropriate boundary violations
Why the disparity? Why are only 16% of Utah teachers receiving a reprimand if they’ve violated boundaries? Why aren’t they being fired?
Porn on School Computers
According to just about every newspaper in Utah and the USOE, the biggest problems school districts are having is with teachers looking at porn sites while they’re at work.
Hello?
This is supposed to be against the law, yet teachers are given a slap on the wrist when caught. See report by Carol Lear above, SL Trib and Deseret News articles, as well as USOE’s website listing the rules of teacher misconduct laws.
What do you think?
Is it okay for a teacher to keep his/her job if they’ve broken the law by looking at porn when they’re supposed to be not just supervising, but teaching, your kid?
Who’s Doing What
Surprisingly, misconduct cases in Utah’s school system aren’t limited to just teachers. School principals, coaches, psychologists, and even counselors have also been guilty of improper behavior.
Infractions range from sexual abuse, boundary violations (i.e. giving booze to students), and physical abuse, to money laundering. They’ve also been caught showing up for work drunk, drinking on the job, selling school equipment for personal gain, and stealing items from classrooms (i.e. televisions and I-pads).
From 2012 – June 2015 we found that 32.7% of misconduct cases were for sexual offenses, as opposed to Ms. Lear’s report mentioned above stating 19%. I matched dates and case numbers to teachers as much as the info would allow, however, based on her numbers, I’m fully convinced my findings listed below are far from complete.
Additionally, the minutes from USOE on licensure issues don’t come close to the 25+ sex cases listed in local Utah papers for 2013. See December 2013 Salt Lake Tribune & Deseret News for example.
The Numbers; Who Was Punished For What
2012 –
Published report by USOE – 67
Published reports we found – 38
2013 –
Published report by USOE – 68
Published reports we found – 61
2014 –
Published Report by USOE to October 51
Published Reports we found for all of 2014 – 49
2015 –
As of June 30, 2015 – 15
Note 1: Actions taken & infractions won’t be equal as some cases are/were still pending at the time of the next published report. Additionally, some are listed as ‘unknown’ because USOE only gives case #’s as identification.
Note 2: In all reports for 2015 USOE chose not to provide any info on what misconduct infractions Utah teachers were guilty of, thereby leaving you, the taxpayer, in the dark. As of June 2015 when this report was written, no further info was provided by USOE.
Note 3: Reports published by USOE are flawed. Written comments by USOE in various reports from 2012 – 2015 show numerous contradictions and inaccuracies.
A. A report published on June 1, 2015 provided a table for May 2015 showing what teacher licenses were processed and for what reason. It should be noticed in the table that the column for ‘Licenses Suspended’ in May 2015 is totally blank. This contradicts their report for May 8, 2015 showing they had suspended one teacher.
B.UPPAC’s newsletter for September 2012 shows they had suspended 16 people up to that point for that year. Truth: they had suspended 19 by then. See UPPAC’s newsletters for 2012.
* I believe porn on school computers should be in the category of sexual infractions. USOE doesn’t seem to think this is a sexual incident, but I’m not sure how it isn’t. By default, the meaning of porn is sexual in nature!
UPPAC/USOE reported they had investigated 186 cases from 2012-2015. We found 110.
110 total suspensions/revocations
19 sexual
17 porn
32.7% teacher misconduct infractions are sexual in nature
17.2% sexual only
15.5% porn only
Why the USOE can’t give the same info twice is anyone’s guess and why they’re not reporting the names of violating teachers is a total joke. Do you want a pedophile teaching your kid? What about a drug dealer or someone with an explosive temper? These scenarios are what I found online and I’m not convinced I’ve scraped the bottom of that ugly barrel.
If they’re supposed to be role models, why are they behaving this way?
Leave a Reply