Kansas has 34 school districts with enrollments of fewer than 200 students — 34 reasons state lawmakers and policymakers should not shy away from the issue of school consolidation. But even voluntary mergers can be difficult. After hearing the pros and cons of a proposed merger by the Eastern Heights and West Smith County school districts in north-central Kansas earlier this month, the State Board of Education tabled the districts’ request that local voters go to the polls on a consolidation, effectively canceling an election planned for today.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
27 Comments
The Kansas legislators are both cowards and fools. They whine and cry over providing tax dollars to schools but they are too afraid of not getting re-elected to force these small school districts to consolidate. Even in those districts where the people are smart enough to vopte in favor of consolidation, the legislators have created laws that make it difficult. Why? There has to be many legilators that read this blog. Is the real answer that the legislator’s real job is to take the easy route to get re-elected?
The Kansas legislators are both cowards and fools. They whine and cry over providing tax dollars to schools but they are too afraid of not getting re-elected to force these small school districts to consolidate. Even in those districts where the people are smart enough to vote in favor of consolidation, the legislators have created laws that make it difficult. Why? There has to be many legilators that read this blog. Is the real answer that the legislator’s real job is to take the easy route to get re-elected?
Think 1st: There are valid reasons in some cases to NOT consolidate small school districts. For example, geography and driving distances … additional busing expense might cost more than savings.
Eliminating a school district might mean closing a high school in some town with a long tradition. Eliminating a school might effectively eliminate the small town its located in.
Many of these small Kansas schools educate some of the best students in Kansas perhaps because of smaller teacher/student ratios, lots of recognition from their communities, etc. These students feed into the many colleges and universities of Kansas.
My western Kansas uncle bragged ofsending his kids, my cousins, to a big eastern college … Ft. Hays!
Back in the history of Kansas, all Kansas counties elected a County Superintendent of Schools. If we returned to that system, we would have only 105 school superintendents, one for each Kansas county. That would eliminate probably ten or so school district offices in Sedgwick County alone and perhaps 200 school districts state wide.
The state school board has no right to ignore local control. They are either for it or against it.
It appears they are against it.
I agree with JWink. Get rid of these Superintendents. That would free up alot of money to go to eduacating the kids not letting someone double-dip an exorbinant amount of money for a job that could be CONSOLIDATED.
There are two fundamental problems with Kansas:
1. Kansans believe the government should subsidize communities with failing economies.
2. There isn’t enough money in Kansas to subsidize communities with failing economies.
Kansas’ public schools are a shining example of the welfare state. They exist less to educate children than to provide people with a place to work that they otherwise would not have.
Taking away two-thirds of the school districts would send the state’s economy into a tailspin immediately. Maintaining the status quo will prolong the process some, but the result will be the same. Eventually, Kansas will run out of money to keep this great Ponzi scheme going. More businesses and people will leave and the argument that Kansas is a great place to rear children will fall on deaf ears.
The sad reality is, there are no good solutions. Kansas is just one of those states that failed to grasp the brass ring. William Allen White was writing the same stuff a hundred years ago. Things haven’t gotten better. They won’t.
If you’re young, take advantage of the cheap and accessible education and sell what the taxpayers of Kansas bought you on one of the coasts. If you’re old, think about retiring somewhere like Texas, Nevada, or Florida where the state doesn’t siphon off nearly seven percent of your income every year. If you’re somewhere in between, enjoy the ride while it lasts, but have a Plan B. You’ll need it!
Recovering Ranch Hand, you still need to recover from shoveling bull$h!+.
Please cite evidence for your statement, “Kansas’ public schools are a shining example of the welfare state. They exist less to educate children than to provide people with a place to work that they otherwise would not have.”
“Kansas has 34 school districts with enrollments of fewer than 200 students…”
Do you want the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago style?
Your cite says *nothing* to support your contention that schools only exist to provide jobs for those who aren’t capable of working anywhere else.
Your cite says *nothing* to support your contention that schools only exist to provide jobs for those who aren’t capable of working anywhere else.
I didn’t say that the schools provide jobs for those who aren’t capable of working anywhere else. I said they provide PLACES for people to work that they would otherwise not have. In other words, if you shut down two-thirds of the school districts in Kansas, a lot of people would have to move — many of them to other states — in order to find work.
Since the state is funding the schools there is a state-wide interest in fostering efficiency. This is especially true since we provide more money per child to small districts than to larger ones.
They need to find the balance between size and transportation. The idea of keeping a school in a town just ‘for old times sake’ must be discarded. Instead, strive for the distance/enrollment balance. It might be that K-6 will be in one town, 7-9 in another town, 10-12 in another (or something like that). It also could be that there would be multiple K-2 (or the like) for the little kids and then consolidate at a higher grade.
The fact is that it is expensive to run a school with very few students. That burden is shifted to the taxpayers in larger districts.
I think the first part of the discussion should be an analysis of the numbers (not just because that is what I do either).
There is certainly a large fixed cost of having a school open, regardless of the number of students. Then there is a variable cost for each student enrolled. Transportation must also be taken into account, (but there are many technologies, like IDL, videoconferencing, etc. that can help with some of that now).
However, I disagree that it should not be a purely economic decision to consolidate. We need to look at the overall best interest of the students as part of the equation, too.
Same as Greenburg faces…they will likely have to close up shop in many small towns…and YES, they will have to move. Heck, the towns are viable..how would the schools be.
You have to have a TAX base and POPULATION base. Even with a bunch of kids, you still have to have PROPERTY to tax. If the state continues to pay for these many small schools, they are subsidizing the continued system.
Some or many of these little towns simply have no reason to exist anymore. They will have to be abandoned and moved together. Eventually….
Greensburg has a decision to make now. Looks like many have already taken the move, and moved on.
Same as Greenburg faces…they will likely have to close up shop in many small towns…and YES, they will have to move. Heck, the towns ARENT viable..how would the schools be.
You have to have a TAX base and POPULATION base. Even with a bunch of kids, you still have to have PROPERTY to tax. If the state continues to pay for these many small schools, they are subsidizing the continued system.
Some or many of these little towns simply have no reason to exist anymore. They will have to be abandoned and moved together. Eventually….
Greensburg has a decision to make now. Looks like many have already taken the move, and moved on.
I would expect everyone that is pro-union to be pro-small town/school with the same reasons for each.
Recovering Ranch Hand stated earlier “Kansas’ public schools are a shining example of the welfare state. They exist less to educate children than to provide people with a place to work that they otherwise would not have.”
Despite his backpedaling, he’s still wrong on a few counts.
First, in his initial post, he did not differentiate between small or large schools – he just simply and simplistically stated “Kansas schools . . . ”
He’s produced no evidence to support his statement.
Second, in his [ladep ladep] reply he assumes that there are more folks working in the local school than who are employed collectively by any other employers. Again, no evidence to support the claim.
Last, RRH stated that if you shut down two-thirds of the school districts in the state, those employees would probably have to move out of state to find work.
Doesn’t that apply to *any* business? If you lay off 2/3 of their employees, don’t you think some of those folks might also have to move away?
Of course some consolidation will have to occur, and some smaller districts around the state have reached out to neighboring small districts to work toward this end. Those who send their kids to smaller schools pay a price in terms of fewer choices of teachers and fewer course offerings.
Transportation has been a major barrier to consolidation; having kids on a bus for an hour or two each way, each day, is tough on the kids as well as district diesel budgets.
It seems like some of you would rather just get rid of all small towns and force everyone to move into a metropolitan area. That doesn’t sound like an American ideal to me.
Prayers out to the folks in Greensburg; they’ve a tough row to hoe ahead.
OK, I’ve picked a few towns large and small, rural and urban. There is a really good web site called city-data.com that comes up when one Googles the name of a town.
In Greensburg (pre-tornado), education is the third most common industry for males and the fourth for females. In Salina, education is the fourth most common industry for males and the second for females. In affluent Overland Park, education comes in seventh most common for males, but second for females. Even in the “land of designer milk and honey,” fully 13 percent of women work in educational services.
“Second, in his [ladep ladep] reply he assumes that there are more folks working in the local school than who are employed collectively by any other employers,” CSA writes.
No, I didn’t assume that. I DID assume — and correctly — that removing a big hunk of government cheese like the public schools would kill small towns and cripple larger ones. Anyone who has studied Kansas for as many years as I have knows that the school district is the largest employer in many small towns and among the top employers in even the largest, most prosperous towns.
No, I don’t want to get rid of small towns, but if they can’t pay for their own services, why should people who live in towns that can be forced to make up the difference?
If you lived in rural areas, you would understand why consolidation is not something anyone rural really wants to do.
Nobody wants to have the interests of their small district put down by the bigger ones. Sometimes smaller IS better.
RRH, looks like you’ve found an interesting source in city-data.com .
So, because some towns have a number of folks employed in education-related jobs (any difference between K-12 and post-secondary noted?), they’re automatically a “shining example of the welfare state.” Gotcha.
And your most egregious statement – that those schools’ priority ISN’T to educate kids, it’s to provide jobs for folks in those towns – is no less than an insult to anyone involved in education – parents, teachers, kids, administrators. Shame on you.
As far as small schools not paying their own way – how did the larger school districts in KS rank in terms of efficient spending?
From the Standard & Poor report: “Other districts with a 100 percent rating were Arkansas City, Ashland, Brown County, Deerfield, De Soto, Dodge City, Gardner-Edgerton, Great Bend, Halstead, Kismet-Plains, Lansing, Leoti, Lyons, Newton, Osawatomie, Rolla, Shawnee Mission, Waconda and West Elk.”
“Six districts with a 99 percent rating were Durham Hills, Olathe, Hays, Blue Valley, Scott County and Valley Center.”
Here’s a breakdown by enrollment, from http://www.governor.ks.gov/news/NewsRelease/2007/nr-07-0619a.htm(sorry for formatting issues)
Rolla Morton 212Ashland Clark 217Burlingame Osage 351Deerfield Kearny 362Waconda Mitchell 365West Elk Elk 445Leoti Wichita 501Brown County Brown 684Durham Hills Marion 706Kismet-Plains Seward 731Halstead Harvey 735Lyons Rice 904Scott County Scott 961Osawatomie Miami 1,235Baldwin City Douglas 1,407Lansing Leavenworth 2,197Valley Center Sedgwick 2,504Arkansas City Cowley 2,941Hays Ellis 3,060Great Bend Barton 3,211Newton Harvey 3,731Gardner-Edgerton Johnson 3,782DeSoto Johnson 5,090Dodge City Ford 5,947Blue Valley Johnson 19,736Olathe Johnson 24,225Shawnee Mission Johnson 28,667
True, no districts with enrollments under 200 made the 99% – 100% efficiency list.
Neither did most of the larger districts, either. This data doesn’t seem to support consolidation as a cure for inefficient spending in education.
Why do you find it necessary to become so defensive, CSA? It seems to me that if the public schools were doing such a bang-up good job, they wouldn’t need apologists like you. Remarks like mine would be laughed off as the maniacal rantings of one who exists at the margins of decent society. Clearly, however, I’ve struck a nerve.
If Kansans were so enamored of public schools, thousands would have marched on the capitol when legislators refused to grant schools an even bigger piece of the pie. Of course, we know that didn’t happen. What did happen was a bunch of school districts pooled some of their “scarce” tax dollars and sued the legislature. The result was predictable: a bunch of tired, old hacks who couldn’t make it chasing ambulances or robbing widows ruled that the funding level for public education was unconstitutional. Even though they “won,” the school districts continue to squirrel away your tax money in preparation for the next time Topeka doesn’t buy each one of their superintendents a new Crown Victoria. But it’s for the kids. Riiiiight!
Hmmmm…. I think Ranch Hand is more correct than most of you are willing to admit. Even though there is a clear “close the public schools” bias to what was written, the points are valid.
The biggest arguement I hear about closing small schools is… THE JOBS!! I wish I had a quarter for everytime someone said, “we are trying our best to revive our economy” (read pissing in the wind) “and now you want to close our schools”? How are we to survive without our schools and the jobs they provide?”
The typical small town whine. They dont want to CHANGE anything, god forbid. They want to keep doing what they are doing, regardless of its success or lack of success. They do NOTHING to change the quality of life, to welcome newcomers who are NOT straight white christians with two point two kids.
It isnt that there isnt enough MONEY in Kansas to keep the small towns alive, it is that there arent enough PEOPLE in Kansas to keep small towns alive.
If the rural towns do not make their community an attractive choice for PEOPLE, all the business in the world wont make their population increase.
No subsidy, school or otherwise, will make these little towns survive if they continue to insist on making buggy whips in the face of automobile culture.
In otherwords, they need to change or they will die. Their choice. And guess what choice the MAJORITY of them will make? To not change. With the accompanying result of death.
And yes, without their schools, most of these towns will die. In my neck of the woods, the biggest employer in the county is the county owned hospital. Followed by the school district, the county itself and the city.
WHy do we chase “jobs” in economic development? Because with think “jobs” will keep or increase the population of our community. How’s THAT working for us. These little towns are below the water mark for drawing major employers.
They HAVE to hang on to their schools. And hospitals. And other county and city employement. There are few private sector jobs. And as for their quality of life being good enough to draw city dwellers?
Hehehehhe. I hear a lot of TALK about that, and our “low cost of living”. How is that actually working for us as a state?
So these little towns are mostly being kept alive on life support from government handouts. Talk about a socialist economy. MOST of the people in town with jobs work for the government in some form or fashion. And the rest of them who farm generally live off government subsidies.
Raise your hand if you think THAT is a viable strategy for community growth or success.
The decisions make 20-30 years ago killed these little towns. Their quality of life decisions today are sealing their fate.
So get ready kansas. You who live in viable communities will foot the bill for the demise of these small towns. You will either pay to keep them on life support, or you will pay the cost of shutting down the western half of the state.
And all the while, no one wants to talk about water out here…
More head in the sand economic development, courtesy of the people of kansas.
A business niche I think at least small communities could find profitible – ‘local’ tourism. By this I mean a good bed-and-breakfast with some nice amenities coupled with some places to visit over a weekend or just a day or two mid-week. You traveller would not come from Chicago or New York but from Wichita etc.
For example, I am planning out short economical jaunts I can take with my munchkins. Z-Bar, Circle K, Cosmosphere come to mind. So, instead of staying at the cookie-cutter ‘WalMart Motel’ I could stay someplace with character. Meanwhile, I spend money …
Ben, with all due respect, that “local tourism” card has been played endlessly out here with little or no success.
Your post confirms the point made by tourism experts, including the ag tourism guru hired by scott allegurcci. Most “day trips” or short trips are made within 80 miles of home.
80 Miles? Hehehehehe. It’s 120 miles from WaKeeney to Salina. WaKeeney wont even draw from Salina according to research. And look at the population within 80 miles of half the state. How many visitors with how much money will that bring?
Crickets chirping.
Little towns have been sold a bill of goods on “tourism”. And I mean really…
How MANY times will you go to the hand dug well in Greensburg? Most of the time, if you’ve seen one ball of twine, you’ve seen them all.
The kind of tourism that is most popular is interactive and participatory. But like usual, these little towns are making tourism buggy whips. They keep promoting things to SEE instead of things to DO.
I guess you go with what you’ve got, and if you have nothing interesting to DO, you promote second best, which is something to SEE.
And again, how is that working for these small towns?
crickets chirping.
ksfarmgrrl, I think you’re right that tourism isn’t a viable basis for small-town Kansas economies.
If a couple can telecommute, though, and would like to raise their kids in the relatively crime-, pollution-, and drug-free small town atmosphere, then perhaps there’s a niche worth exploring. Maybe. [cue Springsteen]
RRH, I don’t know why you hate public schools so much that you equate them with the welfare state. I worry because I do have kids in the system; I’ve volunteered in their classrooms, know several of their teachers personally, and your mis-characterization of schools as being unconcerned with student learning was completely counter to what my friends, relatives & I have experienced.
ksfarmgrrl, you said that small towns often state, “How are we to survive without our schools and the jobs they provide?”
Not the jobs they provide . . . but very few people want to live in a town that doesn’t at least have a grade school.
CSA, with all due respect, READ the testimony in the legislature. Read the ltte’s that were written on the subject around the time of the school finance issue in the courts.
Indeed no one wants to live in a town without even a grade school. I agree. But you dont hear the home townies say that. You just hear them whine about jobs.
And for all the piss moaning and sighing about economic development in kansas, they could provide “no work” jobs (a la sopranos) for these little towns and STILL get off cheap.
Heheheheh. And THAT is about how effective all the rural economic development programs in kansas really are.
I just love sebelius and her comments yesterday in D.C. about a “new” approach to rural economic development.
More process. No results. If she is such a hot “economic development” governor, she and her merry band of joe harkins worshipers certainly have NO results to show for all their process.
Kansas… where process trumps results everytime. If we LOOK like we are doing something, then we must really BE doing something.
How’s that workin’ for ya kansas?