Small Schools Safe from Consolidation?

The State Senate Tuesday tabled SB 23, which would have put the teeth in last year's school consolidation law. And they tabled it pretty convincingly, 25-10.

Last month I commented on Huron lawyer Rodney Freeman's argument that the law failed to provide any real enforcement mechanism. At the time I thought it was just too good to be true, and that if the argument did have any merit, the Rounds-Melmer-"local control when we don't want to pay for it" crowd would get the Legislature to straighten out the language pretty quickly. What happened? Could more than two thirds of the Senate really be making a stand to protect Conde, Oldham-Ramona, and our other small rural schools from the governor's axe?

District 8 Senator Dan Sutton (D-Flandreau) suggests that the arguments that sold consolidation to the Legislature a year ago may have worn thin. In a discussion with visitors from Madison yesterday, Sutton and his District 8 colleague Rep. Dave Gassman (D-Canova) addressed one key justification for school consolidation, cost savings:

Sutton said that opponents [of school consolidation] haven't seen any proof of lower education expenses.

"When we ask the question, 'Where is the savings?' they can't give us an answer," Sutton Said.

According to Sutton, some school consolidations have had salary savings offset by other increased expenses such as transportation. Gassman also said parents can find themselves paying higher out-of-pocket costs for transportation when a larger school district is created [Chuck Clement, :District 8 Lawmakers Discuss School Consolidation, Tax Changes," Madison Daily Leader, 2008.01.16, p. 1].

Now don't get too comfortable, my small-school friends. 'Tabled" doesn't mean dead, just mostly dead, and "there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead." But for now, well, keep your fingers crossed!