Characterizing the smaller-school-districts issue as an east-west battle is a petty distortion of an important matter that deserves serious consideration. If one truly looks at the reasons smaller school districts are needed, the matter runs much, much deeper than "east side, west side." It is really about more effectively meeting the needs of local constituencies, whether east, west, north or south, through better governance.
Parents, teachers and lawmakers on both sides of the Salt Lake Valley, as well as Utah and Davis counties, began looking at the possibilities of forming smaller school districts in Utah several years ago because they deeply care about public education and were seeking a greater voice in their neighborhood schools. Those reasons for supporting smaller, community-based school districts continue to be valid today.
For instance, in the most recent Dan Jones poll conducted as part of the feasibility study for Sandy, Midvale, Cottonwood Heights, Alta and Draper, 56 percent of respondents said the Jordan District in general is too big, and 89 percent want to vote on the creation of a new school district.
Seventy percent of residents said they are hoping a smaller school district will bring more local control, 66 percent are hoping for more communication with their district and 62 percent want to bring the school board closer to constituents.
If the issue were all about an east-west divide or an effort to avoid paying for west-side schools, then why did the east side of Jordan School District vote in 2003 to help carry the $280 million bond to build 22 new schools mostly on the west side, $196 million of which is just now being issued (partly at the urging of east-side leaders) to ensure those bonds are not prohibited by a vote to create a new district?
If it were really all about who pays for whose schools, then why are east-side representatives pushing for an equalization fund for school capital facilities or stressing the need for school impact fees in trying to help our neighbors to the west manage their growth?
No one wants to leave their fellow citizens to "fend for themselves." We have simply recognized that size matters, and with 69,000 and 80,000 students, respectively, the Granite and Jordan school districts clearly have grown too big.
Jordan is one of the 50 largest school districts in the United States. Jordan and Granite may be among the best managed large school districts in the country, but they still qualify as mega-districts with all the bureaucracy such organizations bring. Thomas Jefferson said government closest to the people governs best. This principle may apply more acutely to school districts than any other form of governance.
The desire for school districts of more reasonable size is by no means a matter of geographism. What this is really about is: 1) the ability to achieve a greater voice in education, including more parental involvement, less disenfranchisement in the process and better cooperation with civic organizations and governments; 2) a desire to gain the educational improvements intrinsic to smaller districts, including higher graduation rates, smaller achievement gaps, more money for classrooms, a focus on smaller schools and possibly smaller class sizes; and 3) the ability to equitably address and properly prioritize unique, and sometimes conflicting, needs of various school district constituencies, whether those needs be new schools to relieve overcrowding, remodeling and renovation or special educational programs.
If these are the benefits, who wouldn't want a smaller district - either east or west?
---
* KELVYN H. CULLIMORE JR. is mayor of Cottonwood Heights.
