ASD MGT Study Final Slides

After reviewing the slides of the MGT report, here are some thoughts to consider:

• The majority of responses to their survey from in-person meetings were from district staff. Unfortunately, this means most of the in-person survey data gives very little real indication of how the voters in the district feel about a split. It also skews the data in favor of staying together, as most district staff feel a vested interest in the relative stability of less change.
• MGT failed to adjust their $200 million bond disparity issue. As pointed out in a previous blog post, MGT placed a $200 million bond on each district in each of the resulting options. Unfortunately, that means people are comparing a 3-way split - where a total of $600 million is added to the taxpayers burden - with a no split where there is only a total of $200 million bond (when the district actually tried to pass a nearly $600 million bond in 2022). This is misleading and if the board does not address and correct the misinformation, it calls into question the accuracy and legitimacy of the whole study because the public has been given false data.
• The summary points from the online survey pointed out that 33% said outcomes would worsen, but if you look at the data, 41% said educational programs would improve. Why did the summary point out the lesser negative number instead of highlighting that many parents feel outcomes would improve?
• The combined survey data is heavily weighted in favor of district staff. District staff make up a relatively small percent of the voters in ASD, so this survey is not a real indication of the general feeling of the public. Of course staff concerns should be taken into account, but what is the point of combining the two surveys when it obviously will favor the opinions of district staff?
• MGT appears to be recommending the board bring Option 2 to the ballot that would put Lehi and areas west into their own district. Any split would be better than no split, however, the data indicates that Lehi residents do not want to be part of the Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs district. If the district puts this option on the ballot, it is very possible that Lehi residents could kill the proposal, even if the rest of the district votes in favor of it.

Overall, the MGT study has been a major disappointment.

1. It misleadingly compared a $200 million bond in Option 1 with a $600 million bond in Option 4, making it appear much more financially beneficial to stay as one district.
2. The survey skewed results to favor the opinions of district staff over residents and taxpayers.
3. Many factors were left out of the study, including: needs of each part of the district in each of the options (new buildings needed, deteriorating buildings, administrative costs, etc)

In light of this, the preferable option moving forward is for city governments to create interlocal agreements to split the district on their own, as provided for in legislation passed this year. This would have the advantage of both making it easier to split because not all areas of the district would need to vote in favor of it, while also allowing communities to build something together. Cities would be wise to consider putting the Option 4 divisions on their ballots before the district puts forth an option that is likely to fail due to a skewed MGT report.

Big District = Big Admin Costs

One of the common arguments for proponents of large districts is that if you split, you have to double the administration. While there certainly would be a duplication of certain positions, not all positions would have to be copied to smaller districts, and certainly not at the same pay scale.

The Lehi Free Press recently published how 33 administrators at Alpine School District are compensated over $200k. This immediately begs the question just how many of these positions would have to be duplicated and at what pay scale for a smaller district. The reality is each new district would have a much smaller administration than the current district. Of course, the combination of administration for all new districts would likely be more than the current cost for one district, but not significantly.

Alpine School District published MGT report

 Alpine School District has uploaded the MGT report online for the public to view and has requested feedback in the form of a survey link. The division would be made according to state law.

Key points and takeaways:

• ASD currently has 92 schools: 60 elementary, 15 middle/junior highs, 10 high schools, & 7 special program schools
• The MGT report tends to emphasize the district's puppy dog side - the things that are going well - and minimizes the concerns that have many people across the district pleading for a division. The fact is, a district division is not a simple process and would require work on everyone's part. But the benefits of splitting (local control, more transparency, more community involvement) - and more importantly the consequences of not splitting (not passing a bond, distant representation, etc) - far outweigh the disadvantages of dividing.
• Money follows the student. Almost 2/3 of ASD's budget comes from the state and follows each student regardless of what district or how many there are. About a quarter of the budget comes from property taxes, and another 10% comes from the federal government.
• The report failed to mention key information like:
• How much property tax each city brings in to ASD.
• What schools are being considered for closure in upcoming years.
• Schools that are considered seismically unsafe.
• Areas where schools are beyond capacity and what/where school buildings are needed in coming years.
• Provisions in state law that require employee salaries and benefits (including tenure, accumulated leave) to be maintained for at least 1 year.
• What resources could be shared between the new districts?
• What redundancies in administration can be eliminated by having 3 smaller districts (assistant superintendents, curriculum specialists, etc)? 
• The $200 million dollar bond figure seems excessive. The new districts would not all have the same bonding needs. The east side would have some schools to fix up and/or rebuild, but $200 million dollars is just under half of the $595 million failed bond ASD proposed that would have built a high school, a middle school, and four elementary schools, in addition to major projects for several high schools. Some bonding will likely be needed, but not to the amount proposed here. And remember, whether the district splits or not, bonds will be proposed by the district to build and rebuild schools. A split is merely letting each side of the district decide what money they want to spend where.
• Once again, Option 4 is the most balanced and equitable option being considered. It allows communities facing similar issues to address those issues and not worry about what other communities do with their education dollars.

Legislature Updates District Division Process

 The Lehi Free Press reported that the Utah Legislature has updated the process for a district division. Key points in the article:

• "The bill requires a feasibility study, public notice and public comment with at least two open houses. If a new district(s) is passed, the formation of new school district boards, asset allocation, and special needs student protections are required. It also requires the existing school district to be dissolved when the new school districts begin providing education services."
• "The bill allows four different routes for a district split: the school district, a city or municipality, a citizen initiative, or an interlocal agreement between neighboring cities or municipalities."
• "The interruption for students with disabilities or those requiring special services was also mitigated in SB221 by the state legislature, permitting students to attend a school that serves students with disabilities within or outside of each school district boundary for five years."

We appreciate the work of Senator Keith Grover, a former educator himself, and the legislature and governor for passing this critical legislation that will ease the burdens that come from a district division.

Alpine School District Reconfiguration

 The Alpine School District Board has begun a study to explore possible reconfigurations. Here are some of the latest articles about this effort:

• May 9, 2023 - KUTV - Alpine School District considers reconfiguration study after parents file legal complaint 
• Sept 27, 2023 - Lehi Free Press - Alpine School District chooses firm to conduct district split study
• Feb 28, 2024 - The Daily Herald - Alpine School District board hears first presentation on new feasibility study of reconfiguration
• March 6, 2024 - KSL - Alpine School District hears options for potential district reconfiguration
• March 11, 2024 - KSL NewsRadio - Alpine School District meetings to provide public comment opportunity
• March 12, 2024 - ABC4 - Community members give input on Alpine School District split
• March 14, 2024 - KUTV - Alpine School District lays out six possible options for splitting
• March 26, 2024 - KJZZ - Parents weigh in over 6 proposed options to split Alpine School District

MGT and the school district board have presented six options:

1. Remain as one district
2. A 2 district split with Lehi, Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Fairfield, and Cedar Fort forming the west district
3. A 2 district split with Lehi staying in the east and the other communities the same as Option 2
4. A 3 district split with the West (Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Fairfield, Cedar Fort), Central (Lehi, American Fork, Alpine, Highland, Cedar Hills), and East (Pleasant Grove, Orem, Lindon, Vineyard)
5. A 3 district split similar to Option 4, but with Pleasant Grove in the Central district
6. A 3 district split with a Lehi only district as the Central option, all communities west of Lehi in the West and all communities east of Lehi in the East

It is the opinion of SmallerSchools.org that the best option on the table for all communities would be Option 4. This would divide the district in the most fair and equitable way, while providing each community the independence they need to care for the students in their district. 

A distant second place option would be Option 2.

If the board fails to put a split option on the ballot, or if the ballot question fails, the school board should at the very least increase the number of school board districts. However, this solution is extremely inadequate considering the massive differences in communities needs and funding options.

A final note, there has always been and always will be opposition to dividing the district from district personnel, including teachers. This is understandable, as it creates some uncertainty for their jobs. However, the benefits of splitting combined with the problematic consequences of staying as one, far outweigh these concerns. 

The main reasons for splitting Alpine School District are these:

1. The district is likely unable to pass another bond as one whole district. The price tag for a bond is enormous and residents often don't see the bond money in their neighborhood schools. Yet the need for a bond is great - new schools need to be built in the west and old, seismically unstable schools in the east need to be updated. Each side of the district feels that their tax dollars are being spent on the other side of the district.
2. School board districts are too big. Just to run for school board in ASD is a monumental task. First, the board district boundaries are enormous. Even state representatives at the legislature have fewer residents to represent than a board member in ASD. Second, because school board races are non-partisan, individuals running for board positions don't receive any funding help from a party. This makes it difficult for regular community members to run a successful campaign for office. Additionally, each school board member has to represent an average of 12 schools per board member. Can board members (who are part time) really get to know the needs and issues for 12 schools, including 1 or 2 high schools?

There are certainly other reasons to split the district, but these reasons are extremely important and cannot be ignored or addressed by any other process. A district division option MUST be put on the ballot this fall and the people should vote in favor of it.

Legislature looking at adjustments to district division process

KSL published an article: Bill could address major concern of Orem splitting from Alpine School District that addresses one of the main concerns about splitting Orem into it's own district - Several schools in Vineyard, Lindon, and Orem have borders that include areas in each of the cities. What happens to those students?

Utah law allows any student to attend any public school they wish - regardless of whether they live in the borders of those schools or not, so the answer to this question is - yes, students can continue attending the school of their choice.

However, there still may be concerns about families who have kids attending, for example, Oak Canyon  Junior High (in Lindon) and Timpanogos High School (in Orem), or about the transition period. That's where this bill comes into play.

From the article:

[Rep. Keith] Grover's bill would make it so that if the district lines are drawn in a way that puts a student — like one from Lindon or Vineyard — in a district different than where they live, they will be able to continue attending the school that they had been attending prior to any split that may happen.

"This bill will seek to clarify that, of course, those students will be able to continue to attend the schools they've been attending," Grover said. "We do not want to have any type of disruption to their education. That should be very, very seamless."

 

Utah Taxpayers Association supports Orem School District

The Utah Taxpayers Association released this statement about the proposed Orem School District:

"With the proper taxable property values in the proposed district and conservative estimates of state funding and federal funding, it is reasonable to conclude that an Orem school district would very likely have sufficient revenue to support itself without the need for a property tax increase. In fact, an independent feasibility study was conducted that came to this conclusion. By our own calculations, if higher taxes were needed, any near term increase would be very modest. If the cities of Lindon and Vineyard were added to the new district eventually as well, the tax base would be even stronger. Finally, in a smaller district that was Orem-centric, Orem taxpayers could better hold the new school board accountable for any proposed bonds or changes in tax rates."

"Orem taxpayers are justified in seeking more local control over their contribution to education, and the Utah Taxpayers Association urges Orem taxpayers to vote in favor of Proposition 2."

Several news organizations published articles on the statement:

KSL: 

"To come to this conclusion, the taxpayers association gathered information from a wide range of sources, including the Utah County assessor, Utah State Tax Commission, Utah State Board of Education and the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst."

The Daily Herald:

"Both the DEC feasibility study and the Utah Taxpayers Association came to the same conclusion, that a school district was feasible for the city. 

"While it appears some of the information comes directly from the DEC feasibility study, Cannon said, “We did the research ourselves.”

"Cannon indicated that he met with groups both for and against Proposition 2."