Splitting districts could be short-sighted

When I read articles about potential splintering of the Granite and Jordan school districts, I flash on a lapel pin worn by a former state special-education director that said, "All means all." It nicely captures the philosophy behind public education.

Now some east-side communities are considering opting out of their respective school districts to form their own. A new study commissioned by leaders of Holladay, South Salt Lake and Salt Lake County found that opting out of the school district would mean more resources for fewer students in those east-side communities. Those who would remain in the Granite School District would very likely be saddled with higher taxes to cope with growth. As Taylorsville Mayor Russ Wall cautioned in a recent Deseret Morning News report, "There's nothing positive that can come out of this for the city of Taylorsville."

Worse, it grates against the historical purpose of public education, which is we're all in this thing together. It means that people in east-side neighborhoods help pay for school construction on the west side because that's where the growth is. It means everyone supports the program because today's students are our future leaders and work force. The benefits of a well-educated population are well-documented. All means all, indeed.

Could public schools be better? Of course. But the answer isn't opting out. It's better governance and meaningful parental involvement.

One of the most oft-heard arguments for opting out of the school district is more parental involvement and local control. I'd venture I've attended a few hundred school board meetings during my journalism career. People tend to ignore the vast majority of issues that come before boards of education. Even decisions that hit people where they live — sizable property tax increases — go unnoticed until the property tax notices arrive. How would this phenomenon change in a smaller school district?