During this week’s Park City School Board meeting, the board was discussing policies related to discipline on buses. During that conversation they discussed whether this policy decision should be lumped in with other policy considerations to increase bus ridership. They specifically mentioned discussing a current rule that requires families to pay a couple hundred dollar fee to ride the school bus, if the family lives within close proximity to school.

I have written before about a resident who has been working with the school board to try and have this policy changed, so that more students could ride our school buses for free. It makes sense for a number of reasons:

• If we can have fewer parents driving to schools, it helps alleviate traffic bottlenecks around our schools
• School buses are generally safer for kids than private cars
• Many school buses have a lot of empty seats on them currently. It makes sense to utilize that space, if possible
• It sort of “fits” with the concept of our free public bus system

It’s really encouraging that the school board is both looking to increase ridership and that they are open to discussing the policy for kids who live close to schools. Just seeing the traffic backed up around Jeremy Ranch Elementary School during the last snow storm, made me both fear for our kids’ safety and reminded me that if we could even take just a few cars off the road, it would be an improvement.

Kudos to the school board for following through and I truly hope they find a way to fill the buses.

Last week, I wrote on changes the Park City School Board were considering to their process for making policies. Currently, the board has a stated requirement that a bevy of people will participate in their policy decisions. These people include everyone from school board members, to the public, to teachers, to staff. The changes desired by the school board will limit that committee to board members and administrators. I felt that cutting people like teachers out of the process could be extremely detrimental to creating good policies in certain circumstances.

However, after this week’s school board meeting, I wonder if I could be wrong about that. In a lead up to their discussion about changing decision makers on policies, they were discussing a number of specific policies they would like to put into place. For each policy, they discussed whether they should have a sub committee involved to craft a better policy. For instance, they talked about school bus policies and which people from our community should be involved in making a policy regarding poor behavior on buses. Should a subcommittee include administrators involved with transportation? Should it involve parents of children who are bused? Who are the right people to be involved given the specific case. In effect, should a sub committee be formed to make the perfect policy with people who have the best knowledge over the subject matter.

I say yes.

From discussions happening during the most recent school board meeting, it sounds like the current policy committee, supposedly made up of a diverse group of people, isn’t really cutting mustard. If the school board was able to form a perfect committee of perfect people to discuss every policy, every time, I think that would be preferable. That said, the teacher’s union, according to comments during the meeting, is concerned that these sub committees are not mandatory. So, it would be possible for the board and administrators to pass most policies unilaterally and only for committees at specific times. The school board stated that they were more than willing to work with the teacher’s union to find good language that would define when a sub committee would be put in place.

In my view, sub committees of experts is a great idea. If there is a change to a no-idling policy at schools, include environmental experts on a sub committee. If there is a change to school start times, bring in experts on children’s sleep patterns. It sounds great… if they can pull it off.

And therein lies the rub. If the school board changes the policy committee to include only school board members and administrators, but brings in experts, community members, teachers, or whoever is the best to help define policies in our community, at least 70% of the time, then this change will be a huge win. Better policies will be made for our kids.

However, if in future years, most policy decisions have reverted to being made by a select group of board members and administrators, it will be huge loss.

Personally, I think the school board have made a very high hurdle for themselves. I think it’s very similar to when the Summit County Council decided that they would determine whether each and every tenant in the Boyer Tech Park fit the description of being a “tech company.” In the heat of public discourse, they welcomed that responsibility; however, eventually the reality of making decisions about every tenant set in. They got out of that business as fast as they could.

Entropy suggests that the same thing will happen with the school board. The board has a chance to prove me wrong. Forever, they can ensure that the right people are involved on sub committees for every policy decisions. They can invest the time and effort in courting those people. They will have to be willing to wait on those people to hash out a decision. They will need to be willing to go with the sub committee’s recommendation, especially when it doesn’t jibe with their own world view.

They’ve set themselves (or their new policy committee) up for an almost impossible task: assemble the perfect group for almost every situation. However, if they achieve it, we will all be better off.

I hope the board finds a way to make it work… and a way that will continue to work in perpetuity. If they do, my initial comments on the matter will most certainly be proved wrong. Our decisions about policies will be made using better information.

If not, and the board “forgets” that the general rule is to form subcommittees of experts, our worst fears will be realized. We will have lost an important process where a balanced group of decision makers such as teachers, staff, and community members, make some of the most significant decisions regarding our kids. In its place will be an insular group of decision makers that may not reflect either our community or our students.

That would be a huge loss.

One of the charges against the School Board during this year’s bond election was that they were too insular. They didn’t take into account the public’s views and generally pushed through what they wanted from the outset. That was one of the chief problems that led to this year’s failed school bond election. So, it may not be surprising that they are planning on an equally insular action. They are planning on limiting the voices required to make policy decisions.

Currently, for school board policy decisions, all items must be approved by a committee of:

• The Superintendent
• Two School-level Administrators
• The Associate Superintendent or Teaching and Learning
• The Associate Superintendent of HR
• The Associate Superintendent of Student Service
• The Associate Superintendent of Business
• One or two school board members
• Two members of the public
• One licensed staff member
• One classified staff member

On Tuesday, the school board will vote to change that. Should it pass, the committee required to approve policy changes will be:

• One or two school board members
• The Superintendent
• The Business Administrator
• District Legal Council (as necessary)

So why does who decides policies matter? Policies are at the heart of what occurs at our schools. Policies encompass everything from bullying to out of district travel. Policies define everything from drug testing to curriculum. In effect, your child’s day to day experience in school is defined by policies.

And what does the school district want to do? They want to limit the voices who are deciding on these policies. No longer is it a broad range of teachers, citizens, and school district personnel deciding on the policies that affect your child. It is 3 people and a lawyer. Crazy.

Generally it is considered that more voices are better. More voices lead to … More input. More discussion. More ideas.

Otherwise you have complete group think. And in this case it is Administrator Group Think. As I think back to my school, can I remember one school administrator’s name? No.

What I do remember are the teachers. Mrs. Ashby taught me how to behave in school during the first grade. Mrs Casselman taught me a love of learning about other cultures when we exchanged letters with kids in Ireland in fourth grade. Mrs Birch taught me a respect for all living thing (as well as science) in fifth grade. Mrs Fornee taught me about music throughout elementary school. Mr Harmon taught me how to think critically by competing in debate. Mr Warkentine taught me to be a man throughout high school, both through Civics and sports. Mrs. Nelson, my Calculus teacher, taught me (and my friends) how to be good humans through example.

Can I name one Superintendent or Business Admin throughout my 18 years of school? No.

Now, I’m sure they provided the budget and came up with the “curriculum” I was taught. However, what do I owe my “life’s experience” to? The teachers I have had. My parents raised me… but my teachers RAISED me.

The fact that teachers and the public will have less say on policy decisions at Park City Schools raises a huge red flag for me.

This is the sort of decision where we need to hear from the school board why they want to do this. Then we need to hear from teachers, PTO members, and parents about the repercussions of this.

I know that the School Board is responsible for making these decisions but in this case it’s not just a simple decision “to let the band go play in Elko.” This has far ranging impacts on every child within our schools.

I hope the school board takes a step back and reconsiders making a hasty decision.

h/t to the multiple people who wrote and suggested this topic.

note: I updated this story, as the original version didn’t have the right tone