Topeka — Officials from some of the smallest school districts in Kansas said Thursday that legislators have already held out “sticks and carrots” to encourage consolidation.
But going a step further to reduce funding targeted toward the smallest of the small, they told the House Education Committee, would do more to harm rural lifestyles and the quality of Kansas schools.
“You need to get off the floor and on to the balcony. Get the big picture,” said Carl Helm, superintendent in the Chase-Raymond district. “When the rural school goes, so does the rest of the community.”
The bill, drafted by the committee’s chairman, Republican Rep. Clay Aurand of Courtland, incorporates some of the findings of a new legislative staff audit that reviewed the state’s efforts to reorganize school districts.
It would set a threshold that would reduce the amount of extra state aid school receive based solely on their size. The plan would affect 25 of the state’s 293 school districts that have fewer than 400 students and cover less than 200 square miles.
Aurand said he wanted to use financial pressure to get the districts to think seriously about consolidating, and that he didn’t want the state to have to force consolidation, as had happened in the 1960s.
“It’s an incentive before you get too much smaller,” Aurand said.
Auditors suggested two scenarios that Kansas could save between $18 million under the changes that Aurand mirrors and $138 million by consolidating districts that have fewer than 1,600 students.
Legislators are looking for ways to save state revenues, faced with a projected $416 million deficit in the 2011 budget which begins July 1.
Solomon superintendent Jim Runge said his district would be one of those that would be forced to consolidate under the proposal, but questioned whether the state would see any savings given the potential for increased transportation costs.
Runge said school districts were already moving toward merging because of the loss of nearly $400 in aid per student over the past two school years.
“Let the locals work this out. I don’t think you want to rip the heart out of a local community,” Runge said. “These are great schools. You should be asking yourselves how you make the larger schools like these.”
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.
Shardwurm (anonymous) says…
Sorry. It has to happen. Pleading doesn't create tax revenue I'm afraid.
rodentgirl16 (anonymous) says…
They should have a bake sale to create revenue! It'd be more productive than banning the substances in K2.
IllTeachYou (anonymous) says…
So the small districts don't mind reducing our budgets and forcing school closings, but they don't like it when their own budgets get slashed, and they have to close schools? Why is their town more important than my neighborhood, FFS?!?
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
"Why is their town more important than my neighborhood,?!?" === Good point, in a sense, but the problem is systemic underfunding, not smaller schools. When there isn't enough money to go around, educators are famous for circling the wagons and shooting inward at each other. Consolidation is inevitable, but needs to be planned, and consolidation will not save enough money to make a large difference in the overall picture. There are 450,000+ students in Kansas' schools. Unless lots of them leave the state or the public school system, the situation will continue to deteriorate.
eric1889 (anonymous) says…
The proposed bill may save money on teachers, administrators, and school buildings, but it will increase the costs of transportation. If you look at how Mr. Aurand plans to consolidate schools, you will see districts that will have children being transported for over 2 hours each day. The increase for transportation costs will more than offset the amount saved by closing schools. Additionally, many schools are choosing to consolidate on their own, but it is a timely process. Rural areas are not against consolidation, but they may be against their children riding school buses for 3-4 hours a day. Mr. Aurand cares very little about public education to begin with, as he as chosen to home school his. How does someone who homeschools placed at the head of the education committe. Kansas really is as backwards as everyone thinks.
gr3sam (anonymous) says…
Would you please just raise taxes a small amount on some item that everyone uses, so that all suffer some, but no one suffers alot, and give that $ to schools? Earmark that revenue solely for K-12 and make it hands-off for any future purpose so that we don't end up with another debacle like lottery. Remember that lottery was sold to us as a cure to education. Then, a short time later, the legislature robbed that money for other purposes!
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Gr3sam: Earmarking money is usually a bad idea and rarely works. Schools are funded via the state general fund (at least about 80%) and I bet Lawrence is like this too. Even if funds are dedicated, the legislature can do what they want with them and change the laws. The lottery was never sold as an educational measure, but this is commonly asserted. Another potential downside to earmarks: They can be used to limit funds, as in "I told you the tax on pop was for schools, but since it's now in decline, the schools will have to suffer more cuts." If you want to see the extent of the tax reductions made in recent years, read the following: http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/erosion_...
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/sales_ta...
Eric1889: Good point.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
Gr3sam: Earmarking money is usually a bad idea and rarely works. Schools are funded via the state general fund (at least about 80%) and I bet Lawrence is like this too. Even if funds are dedicated, the legislature can do what they want with them and change the laws. The lottery was never sold as an educational measure, but this is commonly asserted. Another potential downside to earmarks: They can be used to limit funds, as in "I told you the tax on pop was for schools, but since it's now in decline, the schools will have to suffer more cuts." If you want to see the extent of the tax reductions made in recent years, read the following: http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/erosion_...
http://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/sales_ta...
Eric1889: Good point.
avoice (anonymous) says…
A major problem here seems to be the conflict between providing public education for the purpose of having educated citizens, and providing public education for the purpose of supporting a community's economic viability. Perhaps the very practice of using public schools as real estate development tools is at the heart of both the ever-expanding monetary "needs" of school districts, and the ever-shrinking effectiveness of the education provided by public schools.
pittstatebb (anonymous) says…
Here is what I think a lot of people do not understand. Consolidating any school district does not save the state money (with a few exceptions). This is because the state pays for schools by the number of children. Doesn't matter what district they are in, they are paid for. The exceptions are the multipliers, large number of free and reduced, low enrollments, etc. Through consolidation, the percentages that a district has could be changed by gerrymandering rich/poor or small/big district together. But very little money is saved, see the 4% saving by consolidating roughly 1/2 the districts in the state. The only reason to force consolidation would be to justify cutting base state aid for each student. This would mean that Lawrence, Wichita, Topeka, and the JoCo districts (the largest districts that would not be consolidated) would lose a lot of money. This means that forced consolidation will NEVER happen. Because if it is not going to help the JoCo schools, it will not pass.
pittstatebb (anonymous) says…
@ Made in China
Here is Lawrence's breakdown of funding:
State: $5351 per student
Federal: $849 per student
Local: $5624 per student
So the state is paying less than 50% for Lawrence. Info from ksde.org
http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabi...
Above link has every district's breakdown.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Keeping children in a school bus for extended periods is a waste of young minds.
BobandAlice (anonymous) says…
Legislators need to hear from their constituents! Many of the legislators say they have not heard on the issue of increases tax revenues to support education. Rep. Owen Donohoe, District 39 (Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte Counties), told a group that none of his constituents have contacted him. Really? Could this be true? NO! I know many who have contacted him in support of raising taxes for education. People must speak out and speak loud and publicly!
Orwell (anonymous) says…
We need adequate funding for quality education statewide. Nothing harms the state more than aggravation of urban-rural distinctions.
Local schools are essential to the survival of small communities. How important it is to maintain a plethora of school district administrations I'm not so sure. We might want to focus on cost saving through administrative consolidation, not closing schools.
Orwell (anonymous) says…
We need adequate funding for quality education statewide. Nothing harms the state more than aggravation of urban-rural distinctions.
Local schools are essential to the survival of small communities. How important it is to maintain a plethora of school district administrations I'm not so sure. We might want to focus on cost saving through administrative consolidation, not closing schools.
lionbacker (anonymous) says…
Gr3, I am 100% behind you. We need to raise any and all taxes until our children are properly educated and schools are not closed. Tobacco, liquer, property and sales taxes could cure all of this. We need to pony up and save our kids future. Cant wait to here from all the Liberals bashing me. I know you just want to keep your money for your weed. Hell, lets legalize it and put a heck of a tax on it.