Pressure for the Kansas Legislature to provide more money for the state’s K-12 public schools has prompted renewed interest in forcing consolidation of some of the state’s smallest school districts.

Consolidating districts is one way some legislators hope they may be able to minimize or eliminate the need for tax increases to boost school funding to a level that will be acceptable to the Kansas Supreme Court.

The choice between raising taxes and consolidating districts will be a tough one for many Kansas legislators, especially those from rural areas that are losing population and feeling the effects of a slow agriculture economy. People in those areas don’t need a higher tax burden, and conservative legislators have fought hard against any tax increases.

On the other hand, most communities consider hanging on to their schools as a matter of survival. The closing of the last school building pretty much spells the beginning of the end for a small town.

Simply consolidating school districts probably wouldn’t save the state much money. Some administrative costs might be reduced, but the real cost savings probably come with the elimination of buildings to heat, cool and maintain. Even though transportation costs almost surely would rise because more students would have to be bused from longer distances, there probably would be a net savings.

The real cost is to the vitality of the towns that lose their schools. It’s hard to measure the impact, but it’s all negative.

Many conservative legislators continue to hold out hope that they can address the education funding and fairness issues outlined by the Kansas Supreme Court without raising taxes. Legislators want to make school districts more accountable for the funding they receive. Some even imply that they might try to redefine the “suitable” education for which the state is required to provide funding. It would take a lot less money to fund only the basic academic subjects without including subjects such as music, debate, drama or art.

It’s hard to talk about increased efficiency, however, without talking about consolidation. Even a plan that calls for some tax increases may include either orders or incentives for some smaller districts to merge. It won’t be a politically popular move. In fact, one legislator told the Journal-World this week that he doubted there was sufficient “intestinal fortitude” in the Legislature to approve a school consolidation measure.

Without consolidation, without new tax revenue and without dumbing down the state’s educational responsibility, it’s hard to see a resolution to the school finance dilemma. Something has to give.