This is in rebuttal to your recommendation of a Yes vote recommendation on Constitutional Amendment 2:

The editorial’s central logic is flawed: simply “following the process” does not mean a proposal deserves approval. Persistence is not the same as merit, especially when the consequences for children and families are so significant.

We repeatedly hear, “The people of St. George want this.” That has not been my experience as a parent. When this legislation moved through committees last May, the parents present, including myself, overwhelmingly opposed it. Those speaking in favor were political figures, not families currently relying on public schools. That distinction matters. School-aged children make up only about 17% of St. George’s population, and a majority of those children attend private schools. Why should those not using the system drive decisions that will directly impact the families who do?

The editorial briefly acknowledges “short-term deleterious effects,” but for many of us, those impacts are anything but abstract. My incoming kindergarteners, already registered, will attend their school for one year only to be displaced the next, while their older sibling remains. This kind of disruption is not a minor inconvenience , but rather a significantly destabilizing event for children and families. We raised these concerns with legislators and offered constructive feedback, but they were dismissed.

After more than a decade of effort, there is still no clear, public plan for how this district will operate. The bill’s authors gave themselves just one year to make the district operational. If the goal were truly to build a high-quality, resource-rich school system, it would not be rushed together under such uncertain conditions.

This is not about process or persistence. It is about whether this proposal genuinely serves the children it will affect. Right now, it does not.

ANA NOLAN

St. George