(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Sept. 15, 2014)
This school district consolidation issue is one of those hot button topics that on its face seems simple, if you don’t look at it very long or critically.
It’s one that you can toss around a gubernatorial campaign pretty easily, again, if you don’t look at it very long or critically.
Start with the most comfortable presumption that everyone wants his/her kids or grandkids to be within walking distance–or maybe a short bus ride—of their school. And, they want that school to have smart teachers, a good library and school lunches and probably even a good football team for those Friday night games.
And…this is the tough part…nobody wants to pay much in the way of taxes, either to the state or local property taxes, for those schools.
But, consider that like building cars or growing milo, there are economies of scale. Chances are good that Henry Ford didn’t turn a profit on the first Model T that came off the assembly line, and you don’t see much milo planted in the family garden to provide feed for the dog.
Look at Wichita’s Unified School District 259. It had last year 46,494 pupils, 2,960 classroom teachers and 6,351 employees in total. That’s 8.2 employees per pupil.
Now, look at western Kansas’ Logan County Triplains USD 275. It last year had 97 pupils, 12.5 classroom teachers and 27.5 employees in total. That’s 3.5 employees per pupil.
Hmmm…
Those are the extreme ends of the spectrum, one district where the administration can buy books and computers and desks by the truckload, and one where a single cook can hand-carry in all the bread needed for the day’s lunch sandwiches.
Would melding Triplains with a handful of other districts get the pupil-employee ratio higher—that economies of scale business? Probably, but then, how long do you want the kids to ride a schoolbus in the morning and afternoon?
If it costs more per pupil for Triplains to teach its kids, who should pay that extra cost? The state? Local property taxpayers? Be careful which choice you make…especially if you are running for election this fall.
But, there are considerably bigger districts that share a single county. Look at Shawnee County with five districts. Any chance they could be consolidated to more efficiently use staff and resources? Probably. But, again, be careful about saying that out loud.
Now, there are efficiencies possible. Previous state-level task forces have suggested—and some districts have adopted—plans to consolidate some of that back-office stuff like insurance and bulk buying of school supplies and such that the Friday night football fan wouldn’t notice.
But at some point, when the state budget is stretched tight, and local property taxes are as high as taxpayers are willing to go, the whole consolidation issue rises again. Forced consolidation is a political powder keg. At some point, continuing to send money to districts that have high per-pupil costs and to send less to bigger districts where more voters live presents a problem, too.
And…don’t forget that some city-dwellers aren’t happy with use-value appraisal of agricultural land for tax purposes. Use-value essentially sets the value of an acre of land at what it produces in revenue for its owner, not its market value. That means the property tax valuation per pupil of those largely farmland districts is lower than that of a strip mall or a factory or utility plant, or most homes. Also, don’t forget that most Kansans now live in cities and at some point, those city-folk are going to want to eliminate that ag-boosting use-value appraisal so those rural districts are going to have to raise their mill levies.
School district consolidation? This goes a lot of different ways, doesn’t it?