Reader comments
My view: Don't blur the church-school lines

Mike | 8:11 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

There is one part of the letter that disturbs me. It is the phrase, "I am told". Facts are facts. Hearsay is not admissible in court, nor should it be the basis of an opinion. Praising the actions of those with whom you agree is expected. Finding fault with the actions of those with whom you do not agree is also expected; however, expecting us to agree with you deserves facts, not hearsay.

BBKing | 8:16 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

Having worked with public education in other states, the church-state issue in Utah is interesting.

I think we get paranoid in Utah because the LDS faith is so dominant but in other states, this kind of stuff happens all of the time. It is not uncommon to have school board meetings and ministers representing congregations of thousands will show up and weigh in on issues that affect their church members.

She should worry less about this issue and more about what is in the best interest of the neighborhoods and children. And to be balanced, do other churches have opinions? A question to ask herself, if a baptist minister approached her and said something about a school boundary, would she ignore him? Run away from him just because he is a church leader?

I think she is being overly dramatic and clearly does not fully understand her role in supporting the community when it comes to education. She should work collobaratively with school board members in other states to see how they would handle such issues. I think she would be surprised by what she learns.

Dennis Lisonbee | 8:49 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

I spend a great deal of time each year in California on business and have visited some of the leading schools and school districts in Southern California. One common denominator of each successful school and school district is that they include all the local organizations in the process. The ministers of each community are invited to take an active part in helping all the children of the community to succeed. A simple common sense approach.

It seems the author of this article wants it both ways. When she agrees with someone she wants to include them in the process, when she disagrees with someone she wants to exclude them. A typical political ploy.

I think it is time all local ministers follow the lead of other successful school districts and get more involved in the process of helping the children in their flocks succeed academically. Perhaps that is what it is going to take to raise the standard of education in Utah to an internationally competitive level.

Comments continue below

Fredd | 9:30 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

The letter writer makes a good point. School boundaries should be geographical. If that happens to coincide with ward boundaries fine. If not the church is free to restructure ward boundaries. It is not the school districts place to align schools with wards. Think about this. Lets say you gather local leaders together and the LDS and catholics disagree on the boundary. LDS are 80% of the population. Who do you align with?

BBKing | 9:46 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

Fredd, the answer is you agree with the 80%. This does not reflect an LDS bias but if it were 80% of the LDS thinking the Catholic plan was the best, you would support the 80% of the LDS who think the Catholic plan is better.

I think the better idea in all of this is education reform. Economies of scale argue for massive school districts to receive great prices. At some point a school district reaches a tipping point. Smaller school districts allow for greater local input.

Provo is likely not too large so then the next step in reform comes into play. They should have an expanded policy on open schools. If everyone is fighting to get their students, or in this case church goers, into one school, maybe that argues for reform in the other schools. What could other schools learn about serving their students if two Provo School District schools had to compete for students?

I think we are slowly getting away from artificial boundaries limiting competition.

Fredd | 10:59 a.m. Dec. 18, 2007

BBKing: The correct answer was neither! You align in whichever way is best for the school/students. What's good for the churches is irrelevant. And if parents lobby on behalf of their church then you ignore them too. FYI, my example clearly set up the two entities as having separate opposing views based on religious boundary issues. The point being you can't favor one religion over the other. So 80% of the LDS could not support the Catholic plan or it would be the LDS plan! No antagonism intended. Just trying to illustrate the potential pitfalls of consulting church leaders even if you consult all of them.

JJWilson | 1:03 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

I am on the Ogden School Board and over the past 18 months - two years we realigned our school district based on where children live. With input from our city offices who helped to determine where all children lived based on census records. No religious input, just the facts. We are creating more neighborhood schools.

BBKing | 2:27 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

Fredd, the point is that when 80% of the parents want something that is what they should get. If one can find an overtly discriminatory reason to not do it then that wins the day. Otherwise the 80% get it.

Several years ago Dan Jones did a poll, that was tied into identical polls taken in all 50 states. Utah had the distinction of the least tolerance for religion in the public square. This means that when church or religion shows up outside of church more people freak out.

This is a complete non-issue in 49 other states. Examples could go on for weeks about how it is such a non-issue. In Utah we take the other road.

I have watched churches have input in other states. Only in Utah is it some sort of crime.

Fredd | 4:14 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

BBKing: I want to emphasize no animosity intended! But if the 80% (I'm going to leave names/labels out) get their way and it divides the 20% into different schools vs church boundaries then you did discriminate. Our system of government was designed to protect minorities not to ensure majorities get their way. Utonians are sensitive to religious issues. Other states have dry laws, blue laws, etc. I don't live in those but I imagine people not religious complain there too.

Anonymous | 4:42 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

I attended a Board meeting where Mrs. Packard was "corrected" for mis-representing the meeting between the district officials and Church/Community leaders. She was told at that time she was misrepresenting the intent and content of the meeting, a meeting by the way that she did not attend. The Board of Education and district officials have visited with numerous groups and allowed much public input concerning boundaries. While no plan can serve all interests, they have worked with integrity to listen to all voices, even (gasp) Mormon ones.

Fredd | 9:28 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

GASP! No government entity should seek input from officials of an organized religion on any government action. if the members of the government entity belong to a religious organization then their judgement should be infused by the values of that religion. that is the input religion should have in American society. To go to officials of a church, as Utah public officials do at times, is wrong. If (I'm not bashing) Mormons have to run to their "official" leaders to determine if something is good, ethical, or reasonable then they should not be elected officials as they lack judgement. To me, if an elected official stands up and says, " I oppose this liquor license because it is against my values and the values of the perople I represent." i can respect that. but when elecyed leaders in our state legislature take proposed legislation to the church BEFORE public review to see if it is okay, then they abdicated their responsibility.

BBKing | 10:38 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

Fredd, well spoken and no offense intended.

When it comes to groups representing community input and NOT controlling a situation but being heard, what if a baseball league asked the district to rezone? What if a boy scout troop? What about BACA (Bikers Against Child Abuse)?

I did not get from the article that the LDS church designed the school zones per se, just advocated they follow congregation boundaries. I see no wrong in that input, as I would not oppose any other group having input. That takes place every day in political life.

It is very common to work with religions in many aspects of every day life. Many churches are involved in preK and after school programs. Many are involved in foster care. Many hospitals are run by churches, and receive government Medicaid and Medicare, and definately advocate policies to elected officials.

I would not treat a church any worse, or better than the next group.

Having some close friens who are not anti-religion just very cautious about this issue, I understand your concerns. I don't agree, but I understand and respect them.

Fredd | 8:59 a.m. Dec. 19, 2007

BBKing--It would be nice to be able to consult the widest variety of groups and give equal wieght to their concerns. But I don't believe that is the case in this state. There is an 800lb orilla in the room and I think great care has to be taken to avoid the perception the gorilla is in charge. If the gorilla was asked what are your ward boudaries and other organizations were asked objective data collecting questions it would be fine to poll everyone possible. But in this case meetings and discussions were held with the gorilla.

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.