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.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Good points here. Going all the way back to the 1960's, when we went from 1,000+ districts to slightly more than 300, this debate has evolved. Consolidation of government entities is always controversial. Attempts to turn this into a big money saver will likely be futile. Since 50% of the budget goes to teachers, getting them off the payroll is a way to save lots of money, but will it improve the overrall system or just change the structure and travel times to school? We shall soon see, but this probably won't go anywhere this spring. Kansas has one of the better state-wide educational systems in the USA. Let us hope, in the name of 'efficiency' it is not seriously damaged by desperate attempts to avoid the legislature's duty....providing adequate funding for all children, regardless of where they live and learn..
kansasmutt (anonymous) says…
No better time than now to nip it in the bud. Why put it off when the issue is at hand and all that money that will be wasted while waiting ? Do it now and plan for the future. Smart idea now means smarter savings in the near future.
volunteer (anonymous) says…
For the smaller school districts that attract and keep teachers and other staff despite paying them ten percent less than, say, Lawrence does....and whose students are achieving well on the multitude of tests we nowadays require...let's not muck things up by forcing consolidation on them.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Well there is one thing to be said for consolidation done properly - money is saved. In the long run that is money available for other school districts. You know, like it or not, public funding tends to be a zero sum game.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…
I think there are flaws in the study ... not the least of which is that it understates or ignores transportation and new building costs, and that the closing of a school in a small town will reduce property values and economic activity that will reduce revenues from within the district. Perhaps there is not an easy way to quantify it, but there definitely is a real cost to having children spend more and more hours of their youth riding a school bus rather than engaging in studies or in after-school play and recreation. Aggressive consolidation ultimately kills the small towns whose schools are closed, and we need to be honest about that.
This is grim stuff for rural Kansas.
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
See:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...