OCR Text |
Show evidence regarding the truth of ttiis statement, does it sound like a recommendation recommenda-tion for reorganization of administrations rather than consolidation of school facilities'? fac-ilities'? It is obvious that the Senators Sen-ators who insist that they are urging reorganization rather than consolidation are either not telling the truth or are not aware of the facts. It is conceded by Dr. Talbot Tal-bot that no appreciable sav ings will result from reorganization re-organization of administrations. administra-tions. It is obvious that if we were just settling this state and had no existing school facilities facil-ities the consolidation of school facilities would save immense sums of money. However, consolidation at this time will simply cost more money in requiringthe abandonment of existingfac-ilities existingfac-ilities or, more likely, will bankrupt our school system by depriving us of state funds while at the same time offering of-fering such unpalatable alternatives al-ternatives to tlie voters as to make it likely that no future bond issues will be passed. 1 urge each of you to write letters to the members of the State Legislature urging them to reject Senate Bill No. 85. Very truly yours, F. S. Prince, Jr. . sounds great until you come out of the clouds and consider con-sider the practical results. What would be the effect on existing schools? Ask the citizens of Tabiona that QUESTION. The fact is that all the small schools depend heavily upon the necessarily existent exist-ent small school funds. The State Board refuses to make these funds available to secondary schools where another secondary school within the same district is located within 30 miles and a school has less than 425 students. Thus, since reorganization reorganiza-tion would place the three Summit County high schools in the same district, and since they are within 30 miles of each other and each have under 425 students, the necessarily existent small school funds would be lost. This amounts to over 130,000 per year. Losing the funds would mean that the school boards would have to consolidate school facilities. Since, as shown above, no two towns would vote for a new facility in the third town, any new facility would have to be located in a no-man's no-man's land away from all three communities. Such a construction program pro-gram would mean the com-plete com-plete abandonment of six existing small schools and their replacement at taxpayers' tax-payers' expense. The only conceivable rea- Letter Explains Position Editor Park Record Park City, Utah 84060 Dear Sir: As one of the citizens in Park City who have been active ac-tive in analyzingand ultimately ultimat-ely opposing reorganization of the Summit County School Districts, I have been asked ask-ed on many occasions for concrete reasons why I have taken this position. Without going into the innumerable in-numerable criticisms which should be leveled at the Boren Report, upon which the move for consolidation is based, and without analysis nf onnallv vQliH roQQnnQ whv will not be built. If the bonds have been sold prior to the passage of Senate Bill 85, the funds obviously cannot be used for purposes other than those described upon the sale, i.e. for the purpose of building a new secondary school in Park City. On the other hand, a new secondary school could not be built in Park City because be-cause Section 53-11-2, Utah Code Annotated, provides that any building program which exceeds $20,000 in costs must be approved by the State Superintendent, and the rules of the State Board Drohibit the SuDerintendent other school districts should oppose consolidation, I would like to set forth a few of the principal reasons why the people of Park City School District should oppose this legislation. Pursuant to Senate Bill 85, all school districts within a county shall be reorganized into a single school district where the average daily attendance at-tendance of a school district within that county is less than 2,000 students and each high school is located within 30 miles of another highschool. The sponsors of the bill claim that the purpose is to reorganize (consolidate administrations) ad-ministrations) rather than to consolidate (consolidate school facilities). This is simply not true. If the only purpose were tore-organize, tore-organize, the criteria of less than 2,000 students and 30 miles between schools would not be used. The two criteria are used because the State . Board feels that schools with less than 2,000 students which are located within 30 miles of an alternate school should be closed. As you know, the Park City School District has recently re-cently passed a bond issue for $3,000,000. This bond issue was passed pass-ed for the purpose of building build-ing a new secondary school in Park City. Park City has purchased land for this new school, worth perhaps as much as $buu,uuu, ior $80,000. The people have supported the project as evidenced by their affirmative vote. In the event the Summit County Districts are reorganized into one district, this school from approvinganewfacility where secondary school students stu-dents can be transported to an existing secondary school within 75 minutes. The State Board has the power to select the bus routes, and you can bet they would select routes which would make it possible to reach Coalville or Kamas within that time. If the bonds have not been sold prior to the passage of Senate Bill 85, they certainly certain-ly would not be passed by any bond attorney because of the constitutional question of whether the entire community commun-ity can be forced to assume existing liabilities of one or more pre-existing school districts. (The bill provides that all of the people of Summit County will assume Kamas' $700,000 bonded indebtedness.) indebted-ness.) Thus the bond election would necessarily be a nullity. nul-lity. In this event, any new bond issue would have to be approved ap-proved by a majority of the voters in the county rather than by a majority of the voters vot-ers in the Park City School District. Can you imagine the voters of Coalville and Kamas voting vot-ing for a bond issue which would impose upon themselves them-selves a pro rata part of the liability incurred to build a new secondary school in Park City? Neither can I. I can't imagine Park City residents voting to approve a new facility in Coalville or Kamas, and I am sure the people of Kamas and Coalville, Coal-ville, respectively would stand with us. In short, consolidation son for a legislator to vote for consolidation would be on the basis of money savings. However, savings in the salaries of a couple of superintendents su-perintendents and ten school board members will not be very helpful in offsetting the costs of prematurely replacing replac-ing all of theexistingSummit County schools. Even if new centrally located lo-cated facilities were constructed, con-structed, and ignoring the improbability of voter approval, ap-proval, thebuildingcostsand the unconscionable waste through the forced abandonment abandon-ment of existing facilities, the transportation costs alone would be significantly more than the salaries of the two superintendents and the ten board members. The sponsors of Senate Bill 85 say that they are speaking of reorganization, not consolidation. The State School Superintendent, Dr. Talbot, in his recommendations recommenda-tions to the State Board of Education relative to the consolidation of schools, said that "Attainment of better bet-ter education programs at lower cost is generally more closely tied to school consolidation con-solidation than to school district dis-trict reorganization." The Boren Report, which was the basis for the State Board's recommendation of reorganization and consolidation, consol-idation, says, If the legislature legis-lature determines not to support sup-port reorganization, it must recognize that it is granting tacit approvaltothe spending of millions and millions of dollars in additional funds to house and educate children in duplicate facilities." Ignoring the total lack of |