This isn't a unique idea. A lot of large districts nationwide are toying with decentralization or forms thereof. Seattle, Houston, San Francisco, St. Paul, Boston and Chicago have experimented with ways to give more power to principals and local schools. In San Francisco, parents can choose which public school their children attend, with few restrictions. Public schools, in return, have begun specializing in areas such as college preparation or the arts in order to attract students.

A USA Today story last April said this trend is because, since 1932, public school enrollment has doubled nationwide, while the number of districts has gone from about 127,000 to 16,000. Large institutions tend to get bloated and unresponsive.

I'm not sure whether any of the Utah cities mentioned above will actually form their own districts. Orem, for instance, is finding it still would have to pay for bonds in the old Alpine District if it left, which might negate any other savings. In the meantime, it's no coincidence that cities along the east side of Salt Lake County are so interested in the idea. They've been caught in a demographic taffy pull that has led Jordan and Granite districts to close east-side schools as the student population shifts to the west.

Would west-side districts have the ability to raise money for new schools on their own? Would smaller districts lead to greater inequities? What about the money needed for special needs, such as English language training?

The answers to these questions, too, are matters of choice. Even people with a tight grip on the idea of traditional public education can see how even just looking at a radically different grip can lead to improvements.

---

Jay Evensen is editor of the Deseret Morning News editorial page. E-mail: even@desnews.com