Reader comments
John Florez: Utah should streamline educational governance

Ed | 7:28 a.m. March 17, 2008

The current governance structure is not a flawed one in its' current established form. The problem is that NO ONE wants to take responsibility, when push comes to shove, for decisions made that affect the greater good. For example, the JSD split. The powers that be that pushed this legislation through at the state level did it knowing full well the acrimonious nature of the future split and knowing that there would be a huge additional cost to the taxpayer due to the creation of an additional school district. Whose fault is that? The Legislature and people on the eastside who wanted their own little "kingdom". Well, they got it and now all of us are upset about the cost charged to every other school district in the valley. Who is taking blame for it? No one in charge is, that's for sure. Is it the fault of the State Board of Education? No, because they (ultimately) have to answer to the Legislature. What we need are new legislators.

Chuck | 7:44 a.m. March 17, 2008

Actually the ONLY way to accomplish what you are saying is to divide up the big districts into community based districts, preferibly no bigger than than one high school and its feeders schools. Virtually every complaint you listed happens because the district is too big and has to defend itself.

Ed, the acrimony with the Jordan district split comes BECAUSE of the kingdom protecting within the district office. The are far more politics in the district office than even the legislature!

Tom | 8:24 a.m. March 17, 2008

Bloated governance is a good boogeyman and rallying cry. Never mind that when compared to districts nationally, Utah does extremely well in terms of % of budget spent on administration. Not to suggest every idea proposed is worthless, but perhaps you're addressing the wrong problem. I agree local control is a good thing--although recently, legislation has been moving more decision making to the Hill.

It's a barrier that can be overcome, but one of your suggestions ("A three-member state school board selected jointly by the governor and the Legislature"), would violate our current constitution, which requires the board be *elected*, not *selected*.

Comments continue below

Von | 8:58 a.m. March 17, 2008

Even though Utah may be on the low end in terms of administrative expenses, the organizational structure is terrible and set up for finger pointing. In the end, no one can really be held responsible for results (or lack thereof).

The state should be fully responsible for setting the objective standards to be met. The state would also be fully responsible for equitable funding statewide, including a certain funding amount for every student, with an increase in the per-pupil amount for certain student characteristics (special education, poverty, rural, etc.)

Local entities would be responsible only for focusing on how to best teach children. In my ideal world, every school would essentially be its own charter school administered primarily by a board of parents. The board would hire a principal, who would have full control of the budget, including hiring, firing, and compensation of teachers. The money would follow the child, so failing schools would shut down and quality schools would be in demand.

Teacher | 9:08 a.m. March 17, 2008

I agree that much of the district staff is unnecessary. Beyond maintenance and human resources not much else is really needed. Curriculum specialists often get in the way with their need to justify their position.

On the other hand it would be counterproductive to have the parents in charge. Every parent wants a "special deal" for their child. Every parent wants and "easy 'A' " for their child. Every parent absolutely "knows" what is the best educational model. In a class of 30 it would be like have 30 bosses.

Lew Jeppson | 9:25 a.m. March 17, 2008

The public education establishment needs real competition to give it incentive to change. No competition - no change. I don't understand why guys like Florez think good intentions are enough. They aren't. I favored vouchers as a way to bring about competition. The solution may well be to privitize education. No way, you say? Well, what's your solution?

Tim | 9:28 a.m. March 17, 2008

What the editorial fails (as usual) to mention is that the bloated governance structure is held in place by massive over-regulation. Every year dozens of NEW laws are enacted to regulate public education. Each NEW law requires district and state people to insure compliance. The cure is actually quite simple. Get rid of about 95 percent of education-related law, strengthen Community Coucils (real local control) and let the great teachers of Utah do thier job.

Teacher | 9:53 a.m. March 17, 2008

Tim

You're right on. Get rid of all the micro-managing requirements put in place by our pointy-headed legislators. A SMALL community council could hire the principal and determine the curriculum. You would need a central (state) office to set compensation and certification requirements etc. Allowing each school to set compensation would result in "rich schools" having all the best teachers while those schools in depressed areas which really need excellent teachers would be left out.

Lionheart | 10:29 a.m. March 17, 2008

Finally a Florez column I can agree with since he seems such a nice and sincere fellow. Since we are not going to have a voucher system to pressure the public education cartel, this column proposes some possible alternative solutions. Any attempt to work on public education is a move in the right direction.

Credentials? | 11:29 a.m. March 17, 2008

What are Mr. Florez's credentials? He writes 90% of the time about education. It seems he has read the 20-year-old Nation in Crisis report and may have served time on a Board of Education, but does that make him the expert he pretends to be?

Utah Math Education Hurting | 9:14 p.m. March 17, 2008

Most people became aware that something was wrong with math education when some schools and dictricts stopped teaching times tables and arithmetic of fractions.

However what many people may not realize is that math education at the secondary level has been hurt too. Subjects, Geometry, Trig, and College Algebra have been gutted to various degrees too. The more challenging parts have been discontinued.

In Calculus for example, a friend of mine who substitute teaches was told when teaching Calculus at Clearfield high not to teach the proof of why integration by parts works. He was told that they prefer to teach the methods of Calculus, but not the proofs.

This makes for a shallow math education. We need to improve math education in Utah.

re Credentials? | 11:29 a.m. | 9:15 p.m. March 17, 2008

I know a lot of people with supposed credentials that haven't a clue. People with credentials, people with math education degrees will swear that teaching kids times tables and how to do arithmetic by hand is old fashioned now that we have calculators and that math education should be focusing on higher level consepts.

Yet at the secondary level, these same education professionals have gutted math in a way that teaches just the methods of the higher math, but no longer teaches the whys, why do the equations work? why are the facts we are giving the kids true?

It seems the only common denominator that the supposed people with credentials in math education have is to dumb down the math.

I've had enough with people who claim to know more that me because they have a credential. Common sense is under rated.

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.