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.