It’s easy for state lawmakers to say that local school districts should “trim the fat” from their budgets, but reduced state funding will require Lawrence and other districts to cut flesh and bone.

The budget cuts now being considered by Lawrence school administrators and board members are speculation. Members of the Kansas Legislature should not allow them to become reality.

Local school board members are doing what they have to do. They are looking at where they could make cuts in the district budget if the Legislature reduces school funding because of current revenue shortfalls.

It is not an idle exercise. Although Gov. Bill Graves has proposed certain revenue-raising measures that would help ease the budget crunch, none of those measures have passed the Legislature. Many legislators contend they will fight to the end against any tax increases, and they are giving tentative approval to the governor’s official budget which, without benefit of tax increases, makes deep cuts in many state programs including school funding.

It is not a game, and it certainly isn’t fun. Local school officials are looking at how to preserve the basic mission of the district to educate our children. There are no easy choices, and almost any cuts they make will draw criticism.

For instance, board members expressed support on Tuesday for plans that would raise or institute new fees for various services. Those might include charging some students for riding the bus and participating in extra-curricular activities. It also may include increased student fees for textbook rental and field trips. All-day kindergarten programs at five elementary schools might be dropped unless parents can pay fees to cover half the cost of those programs.

If state cuts materialize, such fees may be necessary, but such a system raises some concerns. Perhaps the most important issue is equity from school to school. Will one junior high have a cheerleading program because its parents are able and willing to pay while another junior high must drop cheerleading? Will one elementary school be able to take field trips while another is not, because money isn’t available?

Tuesday night, the board discussed a possible fee of $40 per activity at junior highs and $60 at the high schools. Many parents would be happy to pay that fee to preserve a sport or other activity at the school, but some students simply couldn’t afford to pay. It would be important to provide some kind of scholarship program to offset the fee for students who couldn’t afford to pay. Booster groups could raise such funds and some money might be available from local donors or the Lawrence Schools Foundation, but there’s always a danger that some school would be shortchanged or that some students would be left out. In that case, are there those who would say it is better to simply drop certain activities districtwide?

Perhaps even more important are the students who could get left behind because of the reduction of services such as all-day kindergarten, nurses, counselors and the WRAP program for at-risk students. Students bring an assortment of issues with them to school that have nothing to do with academics but must be addressed before they can succeed in the classroom. They may come from homes where no one is available to read to them or help with homework. They may have emotional issues or unstable families that have a disruptive influence on their lives.

Dealing with such issues may not be the central mission of public schools, but where else will these children and teen-agers find help? These services have evolved because they are needed to get students ready to learn and interact in a positive way with each other and the rest of society. They are not frills.

Legislators who are so bent on “no new taxes” to support education might consider whether constituents would rather institute fees than pay reasonable tax increases and what effect budget cuts will have on equalizing educational opportunities across the state. They might also consider the increased law enforcement and prison facilities that may be needed when a generation of disenfranchised students grows to adulthood.

Lawrence school board members are right to be looking at budget cuts now when they have time to carefully evaluate their priorities and programs, but legislators should be ashamed if they end their session with a budget that forces local school boards across the state to make cuts like those being considered in Lawrence.