A plan floated this week to reorganize local school districts across the state could be one of the more contentious issues tackled this year by the Kansas Legislature.

Rep. John Bradford, R-Lansing, has come up with a measure that would cut the number of school districts in Kansas by more than half. He’s carefully calling his plan a “reorganization” rather than “consolidation,” which still stirs bad memories from the 1960s when the state forced the elimination of hundreds of small school districts.

Bradford told the House Federal and State Affairs Committee that his plan would reduce the number of districts to 132, from the current 286 and leave 99 of the state’s 105 counties with a single district. The goal of the plan is to reduce administrative and other costs related to operating so many individual districts.

Any county with fewer than 10,000 public school students would have just one district. Counties with more than 10,000 students could have multiple districts, but each district would have to serve at least 1,500 students. Half of the state’s districts now have 550 or fewer students, and 69 have enrollments under 300. Because of its total number of students and the size of its smaller districts, Douglas County wouldn’t be affected by the plan, Bradford told the Journal-World on Thursday.

Reducing costs is a hot topic when it comes to K-12 education in Kansas, and Bradford estimated his plan could save the state about $173 million over 10 years. Some of the savings would come from selling unnecessary equipment and administrative buildings, but most would come from reducing the size and support costs for administrative staffs. The revenue from selling property would be a one-time gain, but Bradford estimated the ongoing savings would be about $16 million a year, based on data compiled from a statewide survey.

Bradford emphasized that his plan wouldn’t close any schools or eliminate any teaching positions. It also will leave it up to one-district counties to decide whether they will maintain multiple school boards, although having more than one board per district wouldn’t seem to promote efficiency.

Although the plan doesn’t call for closing any schools, some legislators said that combining districts likely would lead to school closures down the road. That is the only way to realize significant savings, they say.

The House Federal and State Affairs Committee agreed this week to sponsor Bradford’s plan as a bill. The plan is worth a look, but it is sure to raise concerns in rural counties that want to preserve their schools and as much local control as possible. Closing schools is never a popular notion, and unless people are convinced the plan will produce long-term, ongoing savings, it likely will be a tough sell across the state.