It's simplistic to say that Utahns refuse to pay for education. They refuse
to give school administrators, who have not gained their trust, a blank check.
The poorly articulated bond issue simply stated, we need the money so give us
half a billion dollars and trust us to use it wisely.
Why do we think we can just follow tradition and succeed here? Why aren't
we building campuses that be cheaply remodeled to convert an elementary school
into a middle school as the youth demographic changes? Why aren't we
designing buildings to better handle e-learning for lectures, where teachers
then spend their valuable time teaching individuals rather than giving static
lectures? We can do so much better, the literature is out there showing what
approaches and programs work, yet we refuse to change.I have no
problem funding schools, but I refuse to hand over a blank check when the board
gives no vision. I could find almost no information on how the board planned to
use the money wisely. What I could find tended to show they were 25%+ high in
their average building costs compared to most schools. Nothing was reassuring.
Hence the voters said no.
Why did it fail? Utahns are simply unwilling to pay the price to educate their
children. It is a form of dishonesty.
I didn't think we had much of an option on this one, we have the greatest
growth in the valley and kids need classrooms. The east side didn't want to
help fund the west's growth even though the west was there when the east
was growing, and now the west side doesn't either. I think we could
consider other options for school construction, since we know in 30 years when
areas mature the district may have to sell some properties off like they are
doing on the east side. Couldn't we consider temporary schools, we have
thousands of kids already in portable classrooms, so why not build entire
schools with that same idea. Construction would be much cheaper and the district
can more easily sell it off - or construct more permanent structures later on.
@beehive801, Jordan district voters more than likely would have approved a
smaller bond. I know that I spoke with several voters who were supportive of
the idea of bonding for schools in the district, but the size of this bond was
just too much for them. A smaller bond most likely would have passed.
Jay Evensen: I realize it is difficult for you to objectively analyze this
situation since you live in the Jordan District, but it is hardly fair to pin
the blame on Canyons District. You write the "Jordan District deserves a
strong dose of sympathy. Seven years ago, the Legislature dabbled with the idea
of allowing just about any city, or group of cities, to form their own school
districts as a way to improve education. The Jordan District became the guinea
pig and, as it turned out, the only victim of this idea."If
anything the results of Jordan's failed bond election validate the very
necessity and reason for east-side communities to form their own school
district. They are willing to pay for their schools (approving a bond in 2010);
Jordan District isn't (rejecting its bond in 2013). Voters in both
districts spoke and got what they wanted. I might add, too, that
Canyons continues to pay the bond debt from Jordan's 2003 bond even though
it realized only one new elementary school out of $281 million. Why should
Canyons continue to prop up your communities when you are unwilling to pay your
Just curious, what is wrong with mobile classrooms or year round schools?I read a statement by a proponent of this bond saying if the bond
isn't passed these would be the alternatives.Okay, so what.
.... were my thoughts in response.
I don't have any personal stake in this just a few questions.Could have shaved $15 mil off this list and let the ATC go after their own
funding for the Sandy campus. Did the JSD apply for any grants or
other funding sources rather than trying to do everything on the backs of the
taxpayers? Did you truly need to attempt this large bond amount all
at once? Why not incrementally since much of it is based on growth which is an
"Only real and radical statewide education reform would give it the tools
necessary to deal with its growth. But it might be easier to try grabbing stars
from the sky.'Given the "anti-education" attitude of the
state legislature it would be easier to grab stars than to have "real"
changes made to reliably fund education in the state of Utah.
Re: "Only real and radical statewide education reform would give [Jordan
District] the tools necessary to deal with its growth."Translation -- "since the real people of Jordan District have made it
clear they won't subsidize 'educators' plans for gold-plated
bloat, go after spineless, mindless politicians in the state legislature, and
see if they'll inflict that bloat on the whole state."Seems
like media elites aren't listening very hard to the obvious lessons of this