This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
As I get ready to head for Sioux Falls Lincoln to judge my favorite extracurricular activity at the Silver Bowl Debate Tournament (yahoo!), I come upon a report in my one of my "Gerry Boxes," the vast repository of readings and musings that a certain erudite neighbor and ex-legislator shares with me:
A study by the Rural School and Community Trust finds that school consolidation makes it harder for rural schools to recruit kids for extracurricular activities. Kids forced to ride the bus or drive from their hometowns to schools farther away have less time to commit to basketball or debate or theater. They also face greater competition for spots on the teams.
Governor Rounds and the big-town advocates of consolidation (like Senator Dave Knudson [D-Sioux Falls]) insist that bigger is better, that consolidation is good for education. But this report and a wealth of other evidence argue that small schools can hold their own and offer advantages over their big counterparts.
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
1 day ago
I agree with your sentiment, but it seems to have worked out well for Oldham-Ramona and Rutland. They didn't consolidate, but they did combine their athletics. Without that combination, they wouldn't have been able to have adequate numbers for athletics at all.
ReplyDeleteNow, O-R doesn't have a one-act production because they don't have enough interest to form a cast.
No one-act in O-R? That's disappointing: LouAnn had gotten those kids to a strong level. Are O-R's numbers down overall this year?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Elisa: Big schools do have advantages in their numbers. And if the folks in Oldham-Ramona decided they needed to combine with another school to give their kids more opportunities, I wouldn't stand in their way. But they should make that decision, not Governor Rounds and the Legislature.