Opinion: Legislation is needed for equitable school district modifications
The November voter approval of two interlocal agreements to reconfigure Alpine School District triggers the creation of three new districts. Critically, one district forms by default, without a direct vote from constituents on its establishment. Utah's recent legislative session, with the passage of Sen. Keith Grover's SB188, purportedly aimed to streamline school district modifications. However, a closer look reveals the bill sets a treacherous precedent for equitable education across the state. This legislation, rather than ensuring fair district divisions, lays the groundwork for potentially devastating divisions driven by financial self-interest, leaving vulnerable communities behind.
The core issue is SB188's failure to address the vulnerability of disadvantaged areas during district splits. With Jordan, Canyons and now Alpine as stark examples, it's clear that these divisions are often fueled by wealthier areas seeking to separate from those with greater needs. This isn't just an Alpine problem; it's a statewide threat.
The current legislative interest in dividing large school districts in Utah is noteworthy. The Legislature seems to be intent on stripping large districts of their power, potentially to ease legislative initiatives. Large district reconfigurations could lead to a shift in the dynamics between school districts and the state Legislature. This context is important alongside the recent wave of legislative actions affecting education at every level, including classrooms.
To prevent future inequitable school district modifications, Utah needs legislation that establishes clear, objective standards to assess the potential harm of a district split. Current Alpine School District board member Ada Wilson has identified criteria to determine a district reconfiguration's viability for all affected areas. Such benchmarks include studying the age of school buildings, poverty and student transiency rates, projected enrollment declines, number of students receiving nutrition assistance, required tax increases to maintain services, English language learner and special education student enrollment, and the cost of essential infrastructure of any potential new district. Only then can we determine if a proposed split will significantly disadvantage potential new school districts.
Furthermore, SB188 fails to guarantee the fundamental right of all impacted citizens to vote on district modifications, regardless of the initiation method. In a Senate Education Committee hearing on the bill, Sen. Kathleen Reibe noted this is a concerning oversight that should be addressed. The bill also neglects to reinstate the ability of school boards to place such modifications on the ballot, despite Rep. Brammer's promise in the June 2024 special Senate session that this was a temporary measure. This broken promise undermines local control and democratic principles.
Finally, SB188's elimination of mandatory reimbursement for implementation costs to the reorganized district is a consequential injustice for those left in the remaining district. Those who vote to leave a district should bear the financial burden of their decision, not saddle the remaining, often less affluent, communities.
This isn't just about the current Alpine District reconfiguration. It's about protecting every student in Utah from the potentially devastating consequences of inequitable district splits. SB188 falls drastically short of this goal. The Legislature must act swiftly to create new legislation which ensures fairness, transparency and the protection of our most vulnerable communities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
H-2A visas for white South African workers have surged 1,300% since 2011
The country's H-2A program has grown in popularity as a response to farm labor shortages. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of applications for H-2A workers increased by 72%, according to a new analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Screenshot taken Nov. 15, 2024, GAO official YouTube channel (Credit: Ben Felder / Investigate Midwest) Every year, hundreds of thousands of foreign workers come to the U.S. to fill temporary agricultural labor shortages through the H-2A program — a system first introduced in 1986 to address shortages in farmwork. From 2011 to 2024, the use of the program grew more than 400%, with nearly 90% of visas going to workers from Mexico. But the fastest-growing group is from South Africa – and predominantly white, according to private and federal lawsuits. While South Africans consist of only 3% of the program, their numbers have climbed by 1,300% according to data from the State Department between 2011 and 2024, and the rate of increase far outpaces any other nationality. The rapid rise has collided with legal scrutiny. Since 2022, the Mississippi Center for Justice, a law firm focused on advancing racial and economic justice, has filed seven lawsuits on behalf of Black farmworkers in Mississippi, alleging they were paid less than temporary workers from abroad who were mostly white men from South Africa. Each of those lawsuits were settled out of court with significant compensation and back pay, according to attorney Rob McDuff, who represented the plaintiffs. The latest case, filed in May, is still pending. 'This is the latest version of an age-old problem in America, in terms of the treatment of Black farmworkers,' McDuff said. The Department of Labor, under the Biden administration, conducted its own investigation following those initial lawsuits and found 44 additional agricultural employers in Mississippi to be in violation of the H-2A program's law. By 2023, the department's Wage and Hour Division had recovered $505,000 in back wages for 161 workers whose rights were violated. Employers were also required to pay an additional $341,838 in civil money penalties. The South African Chamber of Commerce in the USA, a non-partisan, independent organization and business association, promotes the work program to its citizens. After the lawsuits, the organization worked with the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa to make the H-2A program more inclusive and diverse. The federal government tracks the country of origin for visa holders, but does not collect data on which businesses hire those workers. Agricultural companies in the southeast host the largest number of H-2A workers in the nation. Because South Africans speak English and their growing and harvest seasons are the opposite of North America's, they make attractive candidates. 'You can get any nationality you want in H-2A, and we chose South Africans because their English is better,' Joel Brown, a farmer in Missouri, told Farm Progress. 'There are a lot of large farms in South Africa, and some of these guys are coming off those farms.' This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal trial alleging illegal racial gerrymandering in Tampa Bay Senate seat concludes
The front of the federal courthouse in Tampa on June 12, 2025 (Photo by Mitch Perry/ Florida Phoenix) A panel of three federal judges is now weighing whether a Tampa Bay state Senate district created in 2022 was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering. A four-day trial over the district concluded on Thursday afternoon and judges must decide whether the constitutional rights of voters in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties were violated when the Legislature created the Senate district in 2022 that crossed from St. Petersburg over the water to Hillsborough County. Florida was sued by three voters who are represented by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law. The plaintiffs allege that the Legislature's plan to connect Black populations from parts of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties violated their equal-protection rights by unjustifiably packing Black voters into District 16 and removing them from nearby District 18, reducing their influence there. The defendants, Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, have denied that claim, saying that the maps were lawfully drawn up and previously approved as legally sound by the Florida Supreme Court. But the defense's arguments go beyond refuting the plaintiffs' claims. Indeed the defense went on the offense both before and during the trial to allege that the ACLU of Florida's lead attorney in the case, Nicholas Warren, worked behind the scenes with Democratic House and Senate staffers to try to get a partisan map approved. To bolster that argument, attorneys representing the state called Matthew Isbell to the stand (remotely) on Thursday, their last witness. Isbell is a Tallahassee-based data analyst and consultant who has worked with Democrats and Democratic-affiliated groups over the past decade. Text and direct Twitter messages between Isbell and Warren were displayed to the court showing how both men hoped that the Senate would adopt a map that kept Pinellas County intact and separate from Hillsborough County. Warren drew his own map that kept the two counties separate and introduced it before the redistricting committee in late 2021, without identifying himself as being a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, who was chair of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment at the time, subsequently sent a memo to all 40 state senators accusing him of violating Senate rules by not disclosing that he was with the ACLU of Florida. Warren testified earlier this week that he drew the map on his own personal time and resources, and that the Senate forms that needed to be completed to appear before the committee did not require an individual to list his employer. Isbell testified on Thursday that he believed that the GOP-majority Legislature's motivation to split the city of St. Petersburg up was motivated by partisan politics, an allegation that attorneys for the Florida Senate president's office have strongly refuted. After Isbell's video appearance concluded, the closing statements began, starting with the plaintiffs. Warren declared that 'race predominated in the drawing of the district.' In terms of direct evidence to back up that statement, Warren played a video clip from a November 2021 committee hearing. The excerpt shows Orange County Democratic Sen. Randolph Bracy asked Senate Committee on Reapportionment staff director Jay Ferrin why the newly proposed Senate District 16 district had to cross from St. Petersburg over into Tampa Bay and Hillsborough County. Ferrin replied that it was to comply with the Fair Districts amendment in the Florida Constitution, specifically the 'Tier 1' standards which provide protections for racial and language minorities. Bracy then asked Ferrin if there was a way to configure the district to comply with the Fair Districts amendment and still keep the two countries separate. Another video exchange showed Pasco County Republican Danny Burgess,telling Bracy that Senate 'staff' had said keeping the counties separate wasn't possible, because it would lead to a 'significant number of voters who would be disenfranchised.' At the time Burgess was the chair of another Senate committee that also dealt with reapportionment. Ferrin agreed with Burgess, saying it would result in a'wide diminishment' that would ultimately disenfranchise Black voters in Pinellas County. Bracy followed up asking how much the Black vote would be diminished by if the counties were to remain separate. Ferrin replied 'close to 30%,'and added that such a reduction 'would constitute diminishment.' That comment, Warren said in his closing, revealed that race placed a major role in why Senate District 16 was created. The defense came back with closing statements from the two attorneys representing their side: Daniel Nordby, who was representing Ben Albritton in his official capacity as president of the Florida Senate, and Mohammad Jazil, who was representing Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd. Nordby said the plaintiffs had to prove that race was a predominant factor in the creation of Senate District 16, but that they fell short. 'Plaintiffs have not come close to doing so,' Nordby said. He emphasized how Ferrin had recognized the constitutional requirements for drawing up districts – which is that districts should be compact, and when possible, utilize existing political and geographic boundaries. Ferrin did, Nordby said, noting that Ferrin used important boundaries such as I-275, the Hillsborough River, and 22nd Avenue North in St. Petersburg, a major artery, when configuring the Senate district. Nordby acknowledged that race was a consideration, because 'it had to be,' noting that to ignore that would be ignoring part of the state constitution. Nordby also dismissed the three alternative maps drawn up for the plaintiffs by Pennsylvania State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan that keep Hillsborough and Pinellas counties separate. And he then addressed the peculiar situation regarding Warren, saying, 'This case is an odd one.' Nordby asserted Warren had essentially 'laundered' his map through the alternative presented during the trial by McCartan. He also questioned why none of the lawmakers that plaintiff attorneys had indicated could be witnesses in the case – Sen. Darryl Rouson, House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell and most notably former Bracy, the 'alleged lynchpin' for the plaintiff's case, never showed up. Bracy was a scheduled witness but failed to appear earlier in the week, much to the disappointment of the ACLU attorneys. When contacted by phone on Tuesday by a representative from the three-judge panel, Bracy said he hadn't seen the subpoena until that very day and said that he had already told plaintiff attorneys that he did not intend to show up. Burgess and Rodrigues cited legislative privilege in declining to appear, according to the court. Representing Byrd,Jazil said all of the proposed Senate maps that the ACLU had presented during the trial were examples of partisan and racial gerrymandering, and cited his text messages to House and Senate staffers involved with the reapportionment process. In response to their closing arguments meanwhile, Daniel Tilley, another attorney with the ACLU of Florida, noted how no lawmaker had testified. Tilley said all of the attention focused on Warren was a 'contrived kerfuffle' that found no evidence to support the idea that members of the Senate were influenced by his map. It was, he surmised, a 'spectacular failure.' During the four-day trial there were hours of detailed descriptions by experts that dealt with how to draw legislative districts that were logically configured and not oddly shaped. The Florida Senate District 16 seat is held by Rouson, who resides in St. Petersburg. Several Tampa-based constituents in the district complained earlier in the trial that he was not as accessible to meet in Hillsborough County, though defense attorneys said he has district offices in the county in Tampa and Brandon. The three-judge panel that will decide the case includes two of them who are Trump appointees. The panel was led by Andrew L. Brasher, who serves in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Accompanying him was U.S. Senior District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell and U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Barber, both of whom serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Brasher and Barber were appointed by Trump during his first term as president in 2019. If they rule in favor of the plaintiffs, their hope would be that the Florida Senate could create and approve a new map of the district in time for the 2026 election. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump policy bill could bring $160 million hit to state budget
Section D subcommittee chair Rep. Bill Mercer, R-Billings, outlines the Section D portion of House Bill 2 during the second reading floor discussion on the budget for the next biennium on March 22, 2023. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan) Changes outlined in President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill impacting Medicaid expansion, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and taxes could be a $160 million hit to Montana's state budget, according to an estimate this week from the Legislative Fiscal Division. Legislative Finance Committee members met this week and, among numerous topics, heard a report from the Legislative Fiscal Division on impacts of federal legislation. A couple of Democrats described the potential reductions as 'staggering' and 'frightening.' Trump's tax cuts would reduce revenue from the taxable income of Montana by $122 million, said Josh Poulette, with the state's fiscal division. The changes could mean 'either less general fund coming in or more general fund that needs to go out,' Poulette said during the finance committee meeting. Additionally, if the federal bill was signed into law in its current form, the state would be on the hook for more than $26 million in SNAP benefits if it was to keep the program running as it is now. Legislators heard the report Tuesday, and at the meeting, the committee discussed potential dates for a special session of the Legislature to address the reductions should one be needed. Trump's bill could be signed into law soon. While speaking with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Thursday, U.S. Senator Steve Daines said lawmakers in the Senate are trying to get it on the president's desk by July 4. Daines also said the Congressional Budget Office is wrong in its forecast of revenue projections and that the bill will 'make some of the largest cuts, true spending cuts, to this runaway spending from the federal government in American history.' The biggest direct hit to the state's budget would be the reduction in taxable income. It means the state would have more than $120 million less in its general fund because the law changes deductions. SNAP would become more expensive because the state would be required to provide a match. The federal government currently pays for the cost of all SNAP benefits. 'This would be tied to the payment error rate of the state. So essentially, the feds do a backward looking error rate calculation for SNAP, and they've got historical data on that,' Poulette said during the meeting. 'Montana's error rate has hovered in that 78% range over the years. That would equate to Montana having a 15% match requirement that would come out to a cost of about $26 million additional state funds per year.' Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, could see 27,000 people dropped. Medicaid covers about 13% of all workers in the state. The Montana Legislature this session approved an extension removing the Medicaid expansion sunset date. One of the big changes the federal bill makes is increased work requirements to be eligible for benefits. Montana already has this law on the books, but it's never been enforced, and the Biden Administration did not approve the state's request to add the stipulation. Most people on Medicaid expansion already work, and in Montana, the number of people who are enrolled in the program and work is 72%. Another 7% are caretaking, 2% are retired and 10% are acutely ill or disabled and have serious barriers to employment. Poulette also said there is 'essentially a ban' on new taxes on medical providers. Those taxes are often pumped into the Medicaid program, he added. Rep. Connie Keogh, a Missoula Democrat and a member of the committee, called the impact to the budget 'frightening' during Tuesday's meeting, while Rep. Paul Tuss, D-Havre, said during the meeting the numbers were 'staggering.' Gov. Greg Gianforte's office did not respond to a request for comment. However in a recent 'Leave Us Alone' podcast episode, the Republican governor did speak on the topic. 'If you believe in limited government, the best way to produce that is to limit the amount of money government collects,' Gianforte said. 'Let's leave it in the people's pockets.'
