New WordPress Site

SmallerSchools.org and the Blog will soon be moving to a WordPress site at https://smallerschools.wordpress.com/

Please head over there for the latest research on Smaller Schools and Districts, plus information on the Alpine School District division of 2024. 

Former ASD Board Member Speaks About Split

Donna Barnes served on the Alpine School District Board for many years. Earlier this year, she spoke out in favor of a split for Alpine School District. Here are some of the key points she laid out:

We heard the term “economies of scale” several times in the meeting. Essentially, the term means the more you serve, the cheaper it is. As a board member, I heard this often and wondered how that broke out in actual dollars. I always heard we ran our district more economically than others, but I have not seen actual figures. The term “economies of scale” concerns business and supplies rather than schools and students. After an ASD board meeting, I often felt like I had attended a corporate meeting focusing on the bottom line rather than a school meeting focusing on student achievement. 

Speaking about the Jordan/Canyons split, she said:

I was aware of some of the angst during the split, but today, if an employee of either Canyons or Jordan were questioned about the wisdom of the split, they would agree that it was the best thing that could have happened. Today, Canyons and Jordan School Districts outpace ASD teacher pay by almost $10,000 annually. A substitute teacher in Canyons makes around $200 per day; the rate is around $100 in Alpine.

She concludes that "we have reached a point where the district’s size has reached a point of diminishing returns. I could name several instances where the district’s size has made decision-making slow and cumbersome."

https://lehifreepress.com/2024/03/19/opinion-asd-split-needed-now-bigger-is-not-better-especially-for-schools/

Special Session

Governor Spencer Cox has called the legislature into a special session to address the possibility of competing ballot initiatives. A bill has been sponsored by Rep. Brammer and Sen. Grover that would remove the option for the school board to put the issue on the ballot. This would mean the only options to split the district would be via a citizen petition, single-city, or an interlocal agreement. 

The best option for splitting the district should be with the local school board. However, given what has taken place on the Alpine School District board this year, it has become obvious that this presents a conflict of interest. Two board members (Ada Wilson and Mark Clement) have repeatedly and publicly stated their opposition to splitting the district. Yet they are also voting to advance a ballot initiative that they will be actively campaigning against. This is what is referred to as "bad faith".

The legislature should pass this legislation and Gov. Cox should sign it so voters can have clarity and honesty in the choices they will be deciding at the ballot box.

UPDATE: The bill passed unanimously out of committee, after comments from several people both for and against. Board member Julie King and several members of various city councils spoke in favor, while board members Ada Wilson and Mark Clement, among others, spoke against.

After an attempted amendment failed, which would have made everyone in the district vote on the matter, the bill easily passed both the house and senate. Read more in the Lehi Free Press article.

Large School Districts: What Does the Research Say?

Many people will ask what are the benefits of smaller school districts. Frequently, they bring up arguments for large districts and/or district consolidation like economies of scale. But a deeper analysis reveals that large school districts are not good for students or communities. "Researchers have long known that school-district size matters" according to AmericanProgress.org.

Here are some of the unique challenges facing large school districts that can negatively impact the quality of education:

1. Administrative Complexity

   According to the Education Commission of the States, districts over 50,000 students experience a "diseconomies of scale" (also see the AmericanProgress.org study). This can lead to inefficiencies and a slower response to the needs of students and schools. They claim that the sweet spot for school district costs is more than 25,000 students, but less than 50,000. A 2022 Performance Audit of Public Education Administrative Costs in Utah that found that "some of the lowest administrative costs per student are among midsize and large districts (i.e., those with student counts of 10,000 to 20,000 students)".

   
   Managing a large school district involves significant administrative complexity and, as The Social Science Journal states, "significant inefficiencies exist in large districts". As the number of students, teachers, and staff increases, so does the need for extensive bureaucratic processes to handle everything from budgeting to curriculum development. On the contrary, smaller districts are easier to manage, with less bureaucratic red tape. This can lead to quicker decision-making and more effective implementation of educational policies and practices.

2. Lower Equity and Funding

   Large school districts often encompass diverse communities with varying socioeconomic backgrounds. This can lead to significant disparities in educational resources and outcomes between schools in affluent areas and those in lower-income neighborhoods. Urban.org notes that "Research has shown that smaller school districts tend to be better funded, leading to improved educational outcomes."

3. Reduced Community Engagement

   In large districts, it can be challenging for parents and community members to engage meaningfully with school administration. The distance—both physical and metaphorical—between district leaders and individual schools can make it difficult for parents to voice their concerns and for schools to tailor their approaches to community needs. We see this in district consolidation, but it can also be seen in districts that grow rapidly over a short time - especially if the growth is not balanced over all areas.
   
   Smaller school districts tend to foster stronger connections between schools and their communities. This increased engagement can lead to higher levels of parental involvement and more community support for schools.

4. Lower Student Achievement

   Multiple studies have repeatedly found that "large school district size is detrimental to achievement ... in that it strengthens the negative relationship between school poverty and student achievement." Another study considering district consolidation concluded that "increasing district size has a negative effect on student achievement" and that "total district enrollment is negatively correlated with student achievement across all tested grade levels." This multi-state study found that smaller sized schools and districts "reduces the negative influence of poverty on school and district performance by as much as 70%."

   A California study also found that reducing school district size could be potentially important to educational reform. "Controlling for characteristics of the student population and other environmental factors, including class and school size, district size appears to hinder educational achievement, having its biggest impact on middle school student performance.

5. Bigger Districts = Bigger Schools

   “Smaller, more intimate learning communities consistently deliver better results in academics and discipline when compared to their larger counterparts. Big schools offer few opportunities to participate.” –  J. Matthews, Education Reporter, Washington Post

   A Clemson University study found that "school district size is the most significant factor in determining school size with consolidation/reorganization plans generally resulting in larger schools." While other studies then show that "small schools have very strong advantages" in safety, teaching conditions, academic performance, culture of connection and inclusiveness, learning choices and curriculum. And article from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance asserts that "one of the most effective ways to improve student achievement and curb school violence is to reduce the size of the nation’s schools."

Smaller districts can improve administrative efficiency, enhance equity, foster greater community engagement, and ensure better resource allocation. As such, policymakers and education leaders should consider the potential advantages of restructuring large school districts to better serve their students and communities.

ASD New Feasibility Study Slides

Alpine School District released the slides they are using at the 2 public comment presentations, and they continue to make the faulty assumptions we have addressed in previous posts.

Notice how they are continuing to exclude Granite SD from their averages to give the impression that the larger the school district, the lower the cost.

This perpetuates in the following slides:

Notice that if Granite's costs were included, it would increase the average Overhead for ~60k students to $2,354. Notice that this would throw off the comparison of the Overhead Used in Calculations. Why are they doing this? There is no explanation on the slide, and emails have been sent to ask for further clarification.

Where Did the Idea of Splitting Districts in Utah Come From?

The idea of splitting school districts like Alpine School District wasn't random. Former teacher and state representative, David Cox, was serving as a stake (a stake is a collection of congregations - aka wards) clerk in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1990s when the growth in Lehi was just starting to take off. As clerk, his job was to divide up the congregations and change boundaries for the stake to split into two. 

A lot of planning and considerations went into these decisions, and not every one was happy with them. Many people complained about how their ward boundaries were being redrawn. But the Church and its leaders knew that to accommodate the growth, they needed to divide, even though this would increase some expenses (duplication of services, offices, buildings, etc).

So why does the Church divide stakes? First, because it allows for many decisions to be made closer to the people. Second, it allows more people to be involved in their local wards and stakes. Additionally, when people become a number, lost in a sea of many, they are easier to become lost. To expound on a parable of Jesus, it's one thing to leave the 99 to go after the 1. If there were hundreds of sheep in a fold, there would be a lot more lost sheep and fewer shepherds. If the Church didn't divide their large congregations and stakes, it could not handle the growth it has experienced world-wide or even in Lehi, Eagle Mountain, and Saratoga Springs.

Recently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints updated their handbook regarding creating new wards and stakes. As pointed out in a post by Matthew Watkins on X, the new recommendations align all countries and allow for smaller wards and stakes to be created in the US and Canada. There seems to be a sweet spot between too small and too big, as the numbers have increased for those outside US and Canada.

This sweet spot also exists for schools and school districts. Too large, and people become numbers. Too small, and things become difficult and very expensive to manage.

ASD Board Meeting 5/28/2024

Deja vu?

Once again, the ASD board held a meeting to discuss reconfiguration, and once again, the same board members made the same points that we have been hearing. The east side board members refuse to consider that ASD isn't meeting the needs of residents. They accuse the city councils of thwarting the process, they hold fast to the idea that the MGT survey actually was representative of the public, and they dismiss the idea that a reconfiguration could address the unfair representation. Yet, they are the only ones wanting to put Option 3 on the ballot for the whole district to vote on - just so it can fail and then they will say "see, it didn't work".

Thank goodness for Julie King's measured, but pertinent comments to refute all the statements made by Wilson, Clement, and Beeson.

There were more financial computations, but all of them are still based on the faulty idea that admin overhead costs for large school districts (over 4K students) are correlated to size, instead of board decisions. More on that in the next post.

EDIT: Julie King summarized her feelings on the meeting. Also see the Lehi Free Press article about it.

Are Admin Overhead Costs Related to District Size?

Thanks to a June 2022 Performance Audit of Public Education Administrative Costs in Utah, we can have a much clearer picture of what admin overhead costs look like across the school districts in Utah. It can also help us more clearly see how those numbers might be affected by a district split, and raises question as to why Alpine School District is comparing a district split with other districts to estimate costs instead of using their own internal data.

The first point that needs to be made clear is that over 60% of administrative costs are at the school administration. In other words, if a district were to split, 60%+ of the admin overhead would remain the same, because a district split would not create or close schools or add any school administration.

The next major point is made with in explaining the graph below: "some of the lowest administrative costs per student are among midsize and large districts (i.e., those with student counts of 10,000 to 20,000 students)".

Each of the new districts in an Option 4 split would be well over 20,000 students. I highlighted Alpine School district in the graph below (it's the largest district in the state) as well as 4 districts that are much smaller than Alpine, but have lower admin overhead costs. Many people talk about economies of scale, but fail to acknowledge that those economies of scale are at play in districts of over 10,000, not just districts of close to 100,000 students. 

The last key finding in this report is that "Administrative cost spending per student among local education agencies (LEAs) is generally affected by the size of the LEA, and more directly, by local board decisions." In other words, really small LEAs (districts with less than 4K students or charter schools) have higher admin costs, but when it comes to large school districts (those with more than 4K students) the spending is influenced much more by local school boards, not the numbers of students.

All of this contradicts the methodology and numbers that were put out by Alpine School District at the May 14 meeting, where admin overhead costs of a split were estimated to result in massive tax increases. At a minimum, the information in this report helps us to know that the admin overhead costs we see today would stay relatively the same in a split, because most of those costs are school admin, not district admin. But it also demonstrates that mid-size districts have the potential to spend even less on admin overhead costs. So rather than assuming that any split will increase spending, we can have hope that costs could remain relatively the same, and if we have local school boards making financially prudent decisions, we could even see a reduction of admin overhead costs.

Assumptions Made by ASD Make a Big Difference in the Numbers!

The numbers presented to the ASD Board on May 14 should be studied very closely. Unfortunately, many people are unable or unwilling to take a deeper look, focusing on the conclusions made instead of on the assumptions that led to those conclusions. Let's look at 2 important points:

1. All the numbers in the presentation are based on ASD's assumption that smaller districts have higher Administrative Overhead Costs (AOC) than larger ones.
2. This assumption is contradicted in the presentation itself, especially if the numbers are being added up correctly.

Are administrative overhead costs more for smaller districts? Not according to the numbers in ASD's slide. See the attached chart, and note that there is no correlation between district size and admin overhead costs, at least for districts in Utah over 13,000 students.

Now note that Granite School District's costs were NOT included in the overhead average for large districts. If they had, this number would be $2,354, not $2,034. So on average, do larger school districts have lower admin overhead costs? No! 

Now do the math on all the groups. In the presentation, they said they took out the highest number of each group. But they only did that with the largest district size group! Don't take my word for it, add up the numbers themselves.

So for the rest of the presentation, they used this arbitrary average number to estimate costs for a split that make it about $500 more per student than what ASD currently operates at. Yet there are several of those smaller school districts (Weber, Tooele, Cache, Washington) that operate at similar costs to ASD. Why couldn't the 3 new districts continue to operate at or near this level?

What costs could we expect to see if we were under that assumption instead of the other assumption? If we use $1,935 (ASD's current cost per student) instead of the $2,470 used in the slides, that's about $500 less for each student. That means the East's deficit is only $3 million instead of $16 million; the West has a $20 million surplus instead of $8 million; and the Central has a surplus of $2 million instead of a $15 million deficit.

Calculations based on assumptions make a HUGE difference!

ASD Board Meeting 05/14/2024

The Alpine School board met and voted to advance only Option 3 for further study, since they are only allowed to advance one option. Here are the key takeaways:

• The vote was a close 4-3 decision, with the board members most vocally opposed to any split voting to advance the option. This begs the question that if they attempt to put an option on the ballot, what are they really trying to accomplish? Are they just actively trying to conflict with or sabotage the interlocal agreements? Confuse voters?
• The district also updated some of the errors made by the MGT study, similar to the errors and flaws pointed out in a previous blog post. Overall, it appears the MGT study was mostly a waste of district money, as the options and financial data was mostly provided by the district, and the survey was far detached from the reality of the voting public.
• The numbers provided by the district (especially all the increases in taxes) are suspect because many of them are speculative, since they will be decided by future boards. A lot of money could be saved by financially aware board members yet to be elected. What is clear is that taxes will go up, whether the district stays together or splits.
• Board member Julie King had some excellent comments (starting at 4:49:50) about how we can save costs. She points out that if the district continues to try to fight the interlocal agreements, this could cost taxpayers and hurt students. "If you bring the problems closer to the people, there's going to be a higher investment in resolving those."
• Board member Stacy Bateman said "it was this board's inability to recognize that representation is an issue and to not act on all of the things that we could that triggered the cities moving so quickly". She also stated that the inability of other board members to consider Option 4 sent a very clear message that "all board members were not in fact looking out for all areas". She continued, "Alpine does not have a monopoly on the extraordinary things that are happening in Utah" and that many smaller districts across the state are fully capable of providing quality education for their students. Not to mention that the resulting districts of a 3 way split of Alpine would NOT result in "small" districts (they would be the 6th, 9th, and 11th largest in the state).
• Board member Joylin Lincoln reminded that all options presented were financially feasible and that "I want us to move forward with kindness and working together". She also pointed out that if the district proceeds with an option that is in direct conflict with the community interlocal agreements, then that is sending a message that the school boar is not interested in collaboration.
• Board president Sarah Hacken incorrectly stated that the bond failed by 600 votes, when it was actually almost 7,000. She also stated that the East area would be disadvantaged in a 3 way split, but that's entirely speculative, and ignores the strength of the Orem area. It's unfortunate that the 2 Orem board members seem to be painting their community in such a bleak way. She tried to make a case for how redistricting affects representation, but her argument quickly dissolved when Bateman pointed out the fallacy that districting was the issue.

Four-city Council Discussion

A Four-city council discussion was held by Lindon, Orem, Vineyard, and Pleasant Grove yesterday.

The superintendent did a great job of providing information and not speaking for anyone else.

Regarding Board Member Ada Wilson's comments:
- "Keep politics out of the process" - Every decision made about a public institution is, by definition, political. Those of us who want to divide the district are doing so because we honestly and whole heartedly feel that it is in the best interest of the students. Ada can certainly believe that staying as a whole district is better. But when someone claims that only one side is being political, they are being subjective and prejudiced.
- Ada mentions that ASD is running a tight budget, but also claims that big school districts pay teachers more. Not according to a U of U study that found that ASD was one of the lowest paying districts in Utah, far behind most districts that are smaller. https://gardner.utah.edu/blog/blog-teacher-salaries-how-does-utah-compare/
Also keep in mind that a 3 way split would still produce the 6th (Central), 9th (East), and 11th (West) largest districts in the state (all over 24,000 students). None of the new districts would be "small". Overall, I do think ASD has done as good a job that they can, but the district is too large and a more reasonable sized district could do better.
- Unfortunately, our communities do not have the information they need because the MGT study was limited in scope, and has major questions. ASD has admitted that their numbers don't match the MGT study. More information is needed and fast.
- One thing I do agree with her on is that surveys/polling (real, neutral, scientific polling) would be helpful for cities making decisions.

Board Member Julie King's comments were insightful and demonstrate the collaborative, positive, and student-focus nature of the interlocal agreements.
- I'm glad some of the concerns with the MGT study were brought up.
- "Canyons and Jordan are phenomenal districts." I think this needs to be emphasized in light of all the "doom and gloom" being projected on the idea of a split. Both those districts are still doing fine, and both are paying teachers more than ASD.

One PG city council member talked about golfing instead of being part of the discussion. I hope the residents of PG hear that and vote him out. That's just lazy and irresponsible. We need people more engaged, not less, but perhaps that's indicative of how some city councils were caught napping on this. And in that light, it's been very beneficial to have the interlocal agreements that have forced the issue to be talked about in more circles.

Do We Trust the Community?

"It's obvious community members cannot be trusted to make the best decisions for students and education."

This was a comment posted today from someone who opposes any sort of school district division. And upon further reflection, perhaps this is actually getting down to the heart of the matter: Do we trust our local community?

Do we believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Or has the American experiment failed? Are we just sheep that need to be told where to go and what to do? Or are we educated individuals with varying opinions, but shared values like integrity, responsibility, and liberty? If we can't trust that communities can make wise decisions, then do we start down a path that nationalizes education, eliminates democratic voting, and returns government to authoritarians?

Teachers are wonderful. Doctors are great. Scientists are brilliant. Politicians are .... hopefully trying their best. 😉 And all can contribute to a beautiful, flourishing society. But no one is perfect, all-knowing, or incapable of giving bad direction. We should never blindly follow someone just because they are an "expert in their field". Truly, if the "experts" can't demonstrate to the public that something is good, it probably isn't. Good ideas should never be implemented by force and if the community is paying for it, they should also be trusted to lead or make changes to it.

It's not unhealthy to have rigorous discussion, serious disagreements, and even embarrassing mistakes. What is unhealthy is to relinquish our agency, engage in vicious personal attacks, or presume mal intent.

We in Alpine School District have the opportunity to come together, support each other, and make a decision that will benefit generations to come. By dividing the school district we are letting the communities grow and thrive through self governance. This is the right path forward!

David N. Cox - Teacher, Legislator, Statesman

My dad was into splitting the district before it was cool. 😎

I say that in jest, but with the recent news that several communities are going to be studying ballot initiatives to split Alpine School District into 2 or 3 new districts, I would like to take a moment to reflect on how we got here. I also wanted to take a personal moment to celebrate my dad, David N. Cox, who decades ago predicted that the day would come when:

1. Bonds wouldn't pass in Alpine School District, and
2. ASD would be forced to divide by the communities whose various needs weren't being met.

For over 30 years, David Cox was a beloved fifth grade teacher, especially at Lehi and Sego Lily Elementaries. Every year, instead of just lecturing about the American system of government, he had his class experience it by electing representatives, senators, and a president. Mr. Cox even dressed up as Thomas Jefferson to show them how the founding fathers felt it necessary to secede from Great Britain and create a separate, independent nation, where the local people could govern, instead of an executive ruling from across the ocean. For many of the students, those experiences developed a deep, lasting love for the freedoms we enjoy and the excruciating efforts it took to both bring them about and preserve them for generations.

Joining the Republican Party at a young age, David believed in the principles of limited, local government, the value of public education, and the responsibility of citizens to be involved and provide service when called upon. In 1998, the residents of Lehi called on him to serve in the Utah Legislature. He was hesitant, because it would require him to leave his family and students for several weeks during the legislative session, with most of his part time legislative compensation having to pay for a long term substitute teacher. But he knew that his experience as a public school teacher combined with his values as a common sense conservative were desperately needed on capitol hill.

As a legislator, Rep. Cox fought for more funding for public education and less mandates. He fought against taking diverting money it to private education through vouchers. On the transportation committee, he even sacrificed the home of his dreams to allow Pioneer Crossing to be built so the residents of Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain could have a faster route home than Lehi Main Street.

But the piece of legislation that was the largest investment for him was to help divide large school districts into smaller, more manageable ones. He had done extensive research on the subject and was passionate about the positive effects this could have for public education. This legislation enabled Canyons School District to divide from Jordan School District, which was the largest in the state. Today, both Canyons and Jordan are better able to pay for and care for their students, teachers and programs, and be more responsive to local residents.

Cox also supported various attempts from Lehi and Orem to form their own school districts. He knew there would be challenges, and being a teacher in the district himself, he knew that his own employment could be in a less secure position. But David Cox was a man of duty and integrity. He didn't make decisions based on what would benefit himself the most; he took a stand to do the right thing, even if it cost him personally – which it did, just not in the way he expected.

Unfortunately, various district administrators and board members over the years have mounted strong opposition, successfully thwarting every attempt to date. After 30+ years of teaching, Mr. Cox tearfully retired. Suspiciously, no school in Alpine School District would hire him again, even when facing a teacher shortage, likely because of his political positions. The silver lining was that this enabled him to pursue other teaching opportunities and spend more time with family.

As cancer took his health and eventually his life, he continued to advocate both for smaller schools and districts, as well as more education funding. In 2022, his last year, he supported both the effort to split the district AND to pass the bond to alleviate overcrowding. He surely would have been dismayed when the last bond attempt failed, had he lived to see it, even though he knew it would eventually happen.

Now those of us who live in Alpine School District have an important decision to make. Like our founding fathers, we can choose to forge a bold new path. We can choose local control and responsibility for our children's education. By creating smaller districts, we can choose to involve more parents and residents in the school boards and systems. We can make a meaningful difference in the lives of children who haven't even been born yet!

Let's get this over the finish line! Let's have the integrity of David N. Cox, a humble father, teacher, and statesman. Let's work together to create new, community-sized school districts that can help our students learn, grow, and face the challenges of the future.

ASD Board Meeting 4/30/2024

Alpine School District had a special meeting early today. Here are my notes as the meeting proceeded:

District administrative staff predictably recommended staying together. This is not surprising. The district will never support a split.

Board member Lincoln expressed excellent thoughts about how ASD has not been able to keep up with growth over the years, as she reminisced over her career on both sides of the district.

Although the MGT study was flawed, Wilson and Clements continued to rely on it to make their points. Wilson also claimed that Orem would be "isolated" in Option 4, which is not true - they would be joined by PG, Lindon, and Vineyard. When Orem's prop 2 was on the table, many individuals in all of these 4 communities expressed support for exactly that kind of district.

King expressed how important it is that 9 city councils (dozens of elected officials that are more closely elected by the public) unanimously recommended what is basically Option 4. She also noted how the central area would be the 6th largest, the east would be the 9th largest, and the west would be 11th largest (but fast growing) districts in Utah - they would not be small districts. She expressed concerns with the MGT financial data. There were differences that King said make it look like the district is changing the numbers to look worse for a split.

Hacken said Option 4 is already on the ballot, which is not technically true. Thankfully, Bateman clarified later that the cities are only studying it at this point. 

We are grateful that members Hacken, Lincoln, King, and Bateman asked for Option 4 to continue to be studied.

It's obvious that Wilson and Clement are unwilling to split the district. It will be up to the other board members to pursue this in good faith.

Bateman brought up how unequal representation has been for the west side. Overall, each community should have multiple representatives, not one or two. 

In conclusion, both Options 3 and 4 will continue to be studied by the school board. See also this article from the Daily Herald on the meeting. 

So it begins...

The Daily Herald reported today that several cities are taking steps to potentially put a district split question to voters. Essentially, this would be Option 4 from the ASD/MGT presentation. Key takeaways:

• Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Cedar Fort and Fairfield appear to be intent on putting the issue to the voters. This makes sense because they are the ones desperate to build new schools, and it has become obvious that waiting for all of Alpine School District to agree to pay for the new buildings is wishful, but unrealistic thinking.
• Lehi, American Fork, Alpine, Cedar Hills, Highland, and the small part of Draper that has been part of the district are all moving forward to study the issue and potentially ask voters to approve. This post from a Lehi City Council member has more information. Also see this Lehi Free Press article. 
• Orem, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, and Vineyard are watching the situation carefully as noted in this post from Lindon Mayor Lundberg, and this recorded meeting with Orem and Lindon city councils.

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.