Small districts would better serve community

The Deseret Morning News has attempted to portray the growing movement to create smaller school districts as being driven primarily by selfish economic self-interest ("The School District Divide," May 15). This uncharacteristically naive view deserves a measured and responsible rebuttal. Unfortunately, a 600-word opinion article cannot do the subject justice.

When most — if not all — of the schools within a city are performing significantly below state and national averages, as is the case in West Valley, then the existing district is not serving that city. When the dynamics of a large district force the construction of monster elementary schools five to 10 times their optimal size, as is the case in West Jordan, then the growing areas are not being served by the existing district. When 1,000 families sign a petition asking to break from a district because of faulty curriculum decisions, as in Orem, the needs of the students and the common good are not being considered by the existing bureaucracy.

Elected city and county officials would be derelict to not look for a better way to serve the educational needs of their constituents.

Economy of scale arguments are out of place when nearly a quarter of the students in a district don't graduate on time.

What is the cost to the student and society when the education is insufficient to prepare him or her for life?

The economic arguments against partitioning the larger school districts are also fundamentally faulty on their own terms.

The assertion that the built-out neighborhoods are attempting to avoid paying for new school construction in the growing areas fails to consider that the older neighborhoods have aging schools that need refurbishment and replacements.

For example, Granite School District published figures indicating that Holladay (an older area) needs $59 million in school replacements — about 5.5 percent of the city's tax base. Growing West Valley City, on the other hand, needs about $148 million in new schools and replacements — or about 4.5 percent of that city's tax base. A bond to cover construction needs in both areas would be pretty close to the same in a large district or in two smaller districts.

How does a bond issue make it past the voters on Election Day? If the self-interest arguments are true, then the bond must promise something for everyone. Why would someone in Holladay or Millcreek Township vote for a bond to build schools in Magna unless there was something else in the bond for their areas? Which raises the question of whether Holladay really needs the $59 million. Is it just padding to entice the east-side voters?