Reader comments
Jordan Board takes stand against split

cpp45 | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Kim Horiuchi is absolutely correct. Splitting the district will be best for both the east and west side of the district by letting each side meet their own unique needs individually. If a split doesn't occur, and assuming the nearly $1 billion in bonds needed passes, the east will subsidize the growth in the west by $400 to $800 million once the bonds are all paid off, yet they will still have the oldest schools in the district. If the bonds don't pass because the east side voters don't want to invest that kind of money with little in return, then the west side will be in a world of hurt with little ability to build the schools they need. Clearly dividing the district and letting both sides self determine is a good idea for everyone involved.

No She's Not | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Kim Horiuchi has only been on the Board for less than a year and doesn't have a clue about what is best for BOTH the east and the west sides of Jordan School District. She only cares about Cottonwood Heights. That is a huge disservice to all students and patrons of the school district. Also, there is NO WAY a billion dollar bond on the west side will pass, especially when their taxes will double or perhaps triple over night just to maintain the current levels of service. As an east-side taxpayer, I plan to vote NO on this issue. My concern is for all students, not just those living in my east-side city.

John | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Thank you Ellen Wallace for turning your back on the children and parents in your district. While you constitutents will honor their commitment to pay their share of the $281 million on bonds to build new schools, not a dollar of those bonds will be spent to address the issue of aging schools in your area. The reality is that it is the Jordan School District that is responsible for this tragic situation. I cannot imagine any parent, east-side or west-side, not supporting a new school facility being constructed to meet the growing number of students. Likewise, one would hope that all residents, east and west, might take to task the Jordan School District for having children in buidings that lack proper fire protection, access to the Internet, or air conditioning. What a cheap political ploy on the part of Ellen Wallce to initially vote for neutrality and then in the 11th hour change her vote. I would hope her constituents will remember her legacy. Has anyone taken note that during all of the debate about a new district and the inequities, there have been no solutions, only obstructions offered by the Jordan School District.

Comments continue below

Jordan | 10:10 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Thank you Jordan Board of Education for taking a stand on this issue. Too much has been said about money and control and not enough about students. The reality is, if the district is split, nothing changes for the average student--same teacher, same classroom, same school. Above-average and below-average students lose because a smaller district cannot offer the same programs as a larger one.

Bottom line is we would spend millions of dollars and cause serious disruption for something that would have neutral or negative impact on students. This east-side resident will be voting "no."

Good For Ellen Wallace | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Ellen Wallace has served on the Jordan school board longer than any other member (13+ years). At least she is open minded and willing to admit when she's made a mistake. She seems to be in the minority on the Board when it comes to thinking about what is best for kids and for teachers. I applaud her for having the courage to oppose this vote. I too will vote no.

John | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 18, 2007

This east side resident will be voting yes as there will be a major change of direction for a new district. The study conducted on the feasiblity of a new district did in fact provide funding for above-average and below-average students. The new district will still be the 4th largest in the state. Compare the relationship between the Jordan School District with its patrons and those of the Murray School District. Murray has only 7,000 students and provides a full spectrum of courses as well as demonstrating the ability to work with the community it serves. Face the facts, the real issue is a mammoth district of 80,000 children that has lost touch with students, teachers and patrons. With a smaller district a superintendent would be able to visit and know each school as opposed to third level subordinates. Once again, no solutions but obstruction. Huge is not better.

Magic Mirror | 12:00 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

I like how on some comments that they just know a new district will not be able to afford the same programs they currently have! How do they know this do they have a magic mirror that can see into the future. I have a child in the Magnet Program for gifted and talented children and have been assured the current programs will stay in place.

You are Kidding Yourself | 12:15 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

John, your expectations of a smaller and "better" district are ridiculous. The east-side city mayors, especially Mayor Cullimore, have promised the moon. The reality is that you all have unrealistic expectations. The law is completely flawed and I imagine will be changed again in January. Murray does NOT offer a full spectrum of courses. Their teachers go to Granite and Jordan for professional development classes and their students go to both districts for special education, applied technology, etc...and the list goes on. They are simply too small to offer any kind of "full spectrum." And John, what makes you think a new school board in an east-side district won't be out of touch? And by the way, if you view of a "better" districts is the superintendent visiting schools then perhaps you are out of touch. A good school is a partnershp between teachers and parents -- not whether or not the superihtendent makes an appearance there on a regular basis.

headthread | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

After perusing all the comments relative to the board's revisiting of the school district split issue, it seems appropriate that we support those issues that the feasibility study pointed would be better served by a smaller district. This is a question about money and span of control. The patrons in this district are close to 400,000 and the students 80,000. Projections are that student population by 2015 will be in the 115,000-range. This is too big to continue in the present mode, and the timeliness is now to split the district. The smaller student population and the less geographical area would bring an element of local control back to both the east and west sides of the district. Within the Board of Education, there is a 4-3 split, and Ellen Wallace is not even voting to support the area she represents. There is a lack of cordiality and civility among certain members of the board pointed at other members of the board, which is not becoming of this organization. The civility control is in the hand's of the board president, and if he doesn't exercise it, there is no control. The flip-flopping on issues is almost anarchy.

Jordan | 12:35 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

John: better check the facts you're facing. Murray District outsources many of its advanced and special education programs to Granite or Jordan District. Murray does not have enough students to fill them, nor enough money to fund them and the infrastructure they require on their own. Their students can attend the Jordan/Granite District programs only if there is space available after the district's own students are accommodated.

Magic Mirror: Better get it in writing. Proponents of a district division are promising smaller class sizes, higher teacher pay, remodled/new school buildings, expanded programs, and on and on. The fact is, costs will go up in a smaller district and they will have difficulty just maintaining what they have (especially on the west side). A new school board will need to decide where to spend money and what programs will be saved when budget realities hit.

Oh brother | 12:40 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Ellen Wallace isn't supposed to vote for just the area she represents. A school board is unique in that it represents ALL students, not just those in a specific precinct. At least Ellen understands that, unlike a a few other members of her school board. This should have been a 7-0 vote -- a vote for kids -- not a vote for the city you live in. I strongly oppose th district split and am not willing to take a huge risk the legislator has granted from ridiculous legislation that only furthers their own agendas.

Anonymous | 2:04 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

John,

Murray is very close to cutting Music Programs. I wouldn't say smaller is better.

Steven Jarvis | 2:24 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Larger school districts afford more choices and services. That happens to be why States besides Utah are looking to combine small less-efficient Districts into larger ones. Instead we are looking at breaking up an extremely successful District and expect after shattering it that each chunk will operate as well as it did before.

Services are going to be lost to one part or the other part of the District. Languages and some AP course options are being offered by the District currently by Video/Audio links connecting High Schools so that one teacher has enough students to teach to justify keeping the course. We also have some very specialized education services on either end of the valley that will be no longer available. Who gets to use the Tech center? Who doesn't?

While ALPS and magnet programs should be intact Special education and Secondary specialized programs are what is at stake. Do most people voting on the issue actually know what services the District currently offer?

Bill | 2:26 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Thanks Ellen, for doing what is right, not what is politically expedient to appease the snobs in your area.

Oniel | 4:23 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

I see two things that will result in split districts...
1.Higher taxes
2.Loss of options for kids.

No one can present a plan of what a smaller district would look like. I don't want to gamble with my kidï¿½s education just because someone says it'll be better in a smaller district. Show me the details and how it will be better. Across this nation the trend is to consolidate even districts larger that Granite and Jordan. Shouldn't we be about maximizing our limited resources and less about knee jerk control issues?

I also think that Board of Education members should be elected at large and not from precincts. Larger districts should elect from the complete district not by areas or precincts alone. In the case of Granite and Jordan, Board members need to be franchised with constituents from the Wasatch mountains to the Oquirrh mountains. At large elections would make that more realistic.

Chuck | 9:34 p.m. Oct. 18, 2007

Steven,
They are not talking about making a small district, like those being consolidated elsewhere. After the division, all three or four districts will be bigger than Utah's average, which is bigger than the national average. They're just trying to keep them a manageable size.

This is NOT a District Issue | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

This entire issue is not related to the size of the District. If people want more local control, that needs to occur at their local school, not at the district level. If parents want more local control (at least that's what all the east-side mayors are telling us), then that happens with involvement in the school's community council or PTA. It's too bad the kids are the ones caught in the middle of this political selfishness.

John | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The entire board, superintendent, business administrator and others should just resign. We need fresh new faces, and people who will listen to us.

Steven Jarvis | 6:25 p.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Chuck,

Jordan has the district managed extremely well, being divided into sectors as it is and having everything networked. Splitting isn't going to help what is already working.

It would make more sense getting involved at your local school then getting involved at the district level. Dividing increases costs simply by replicating services like payroll or personnel department. This split just makes no sense at all.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.