The consolidation of Kansas school districts is a perennial favorite during any discussion of trimming the state budget.

The state’s current budget crisis once again is focusing attention on that option, fueled by a new report from the Legislative Division of Post Audit. The audit report released this week looked at reducing the state’s current 293 districts to either 266 or 152. Its scenario to reduce districts to 266 would result in 50 fewer public school buildings and 230 fewer teachers in the state along with a savings of $18 million. The more drastic cut to 152 districts would eliminate 304 schools and about 1,500 teachers and administrators for a savings of $138 million.

It should be noted at the outset that school consolidation is no cure-all for the state’s budget woes. Even a savings of $138 million is only about a third of the $416 million projected budget gap legislators are trying to close. Additional costs for transporting students and building new schools also would offset initial savings.

So it isn’t a short-term solution. Is it a positive long-term strategy for the state?

Financial realities already have caused a number of districts to move forward on consolidation plans of their own this year. The audit also points out several other places where consolidation makes sense.

Key among those are six instances in which districts already are sharing schools. One district will operate the high school, while the other operates a middle school or elementary school. In some cases, both districts will have an elementary school. It makes little sense to maintain two administrative structures for two districts that already are so closely intertwined.

However, there are legitimate concerns. The audit notes valid issues about ensuring proper representation on school boards in districts that cover a large geographic area and how districts would share existing bond debt. However, it largely dismisses concerns about reduced student achievement and concludes that increased transportation costs will be small compared to how much consolidated districts would save.

In an impartial study, it all makes sense. But how much time will some children have to spend riding the bus to school? Will communities become disengaged from education when their schools close? Will dropout rates increase? Will the economic impact on already struggling communities be worth the savings from consolidation?

Combining efforts makes sense for a number of Kansas districts, and the Legislature is right to provide reasonable financial incentives to districts willing to move in that direction. Perhaps broadband technology will provide distance learning options that keep students closer to home.

The new audit presents some interesting information but it also raises difficult questions. While Kansas would benefit by reducing its number of school districts, lawmakers shouldn’t rush into a forced consolidation plan thinking it will significantly ease the state’s current financial crisis.