With the proposed school district boundary changes, the state Legislature has already involved itself in the voting. Further, there are indications the state may get involved to equalize funding between and among various school districts, both old and new.
The end result may not be at all what many folks imagine for their neighborhood schools.
If the goal in redistricting is to provide more local control, exactly the opposite will happen if the state gets involved with the money. Just ask the citizens of other states such as California and Texas, who have already seen this happen. Their local control has diminished.
California staged a property tax revolt that brought in state control of school monies. While taxes may have been out of control, the end result was not at all what people had in mind.
In Texas, huge disparities in school funding created unfairness over educational opportunities; many rich districts acted uncaring. This led to what some call the Robin Hood law. The state, some say, robs from the rich districts to give to the poor.
While this equalization helps students in poorer districts, some Texans are very unhappy that the state stepped in as manager.
Here in Utah, the true reasons behind the wish to split up area school districts may travel far beyond simply the idea of smaller districts and more local control.
There are issues of race and class, as well as growth and funding, among others. And with a large school district broken up into one with greater growth and one with lesser growth, money will remain an issue, no matter where one finds the control.
And spending and education do go together. A Volkswagen budget does not create a Cadillac education, and an uneducated populace hurts everyone, no matter the neighborhood, no matter the property address.
Every student deserves an equal opportunity to a great education. And splitting a district with the result that somehow some students get less, is downright wrong.
Some Utah school districts are huge, especially compared to some others. While there may be some savings in an economy of scale, the move toward smaller districts actually risks losing local input, losing local control.
And if they split off this chunk, or that chunk, into a nice small district, and then have the state come in to manage an equality of capital funding, local communities will be the losers.
If local control is truly the issue - local schools, true community schools, with local area governance - each and every school district and each and every citizen would be wise to carefully consider how to provide an equal education for every student, without inviting the state to step in.
Far better than breaking up large school districts would be to take the districts we have and use them to give every parent and every community local control, and to give every student an equal educational opportunity.
California blew it. It did not consider the unintended consequences of its property tax reform movement. The richer Texas school districts blew it, too. They did not bother to think of the bigger picture of equally educating all Texas' kids. Utah should do better and not give economic control of local school districts over to the state.
No matter your place in the citizenry - as a parent, a retired person, single, in school, homeowner, renter - be careful what you wish for. You may not get what you want.
---
* NICK BURNS is a host each week for KRCL's "RadioActive." When not on the air, he is the director of Globe Student Media and a faculty member at Salt Lake Community College.
