Vote ‘No’ on Aug. 1

Pyrrhus, the ancient Greek King, defeated the Roman Army numerous times, but he suffered such heavy internal losses of his troops that ultimately he destroyed his entire civilization.

The story told by the Greeks was meant to teach the following lesson: Do not let pride blind you, because ultimately, you will destroy everyone around you.

Wilson patrons and parents of USD 112, you might have won a battle, but the losses will be so great that everyone will lose the war.

The war is not internally, north or south, Wilson vs. Central Plains or Claflin. The war is against those in the government, education officials and interest groups who do not want to see small rural schools in Kansas survive.

Everyone needs to wake up and see the bigger picture — the war started years ago — and USD 112 and small rural Kansas schools are losing every day, every minute.

As a building and district school administrator, parent of a USD 112 student, local taxpayer and Kansas State University doctoral research student focusing on the issues of K-12 rural Kansas schools post-consolidation, I often struggle with my conflicting feelings on these issues. However, I can’t keep silent.

The idea that dissolving the USD 112 school district by a yes vote, and then the Kansas State School Board and other governmental entities will allow each community and school to reorganize and stand independently, is not only ludicrous, it is not supported by any current educational data, state law or political ideology.

Kansas is one of the few remaining states in the country that allows districts of any size to remain open without forcing them to consolidate or merge. Many states have regions and super-districts of thousands of students where local control is the nearest city or population center miles away. Less than 10 years ago, a similar plan for super-districts was proposed in the Kansas Legislature. On paper, it is not cost-efficient to operate districts of less than 100 or 200 students, and therefore, they are on the chopping block.

However, efficiencies aside, small school districts in Kansas have the ability to create special opportunities and unique bonds for students. On paper though legislators, political pundits and educational officials are not seeing the many benefits of small districts, only the cost savings. If there was a momentum to allow reorganization, current law would support the creation or adoption of new districts in small communities each year. There would be hundreds more school districts in every rural Kansas community. There is simply no governmental support from the legislature or the Kansas State School Board for small districts to be left open and be created.

By trusting state control over the founding principle that is unique in American education of local control, you are trusting an official in Topeka who does not understand the unique needs of central and western Kansas rural schools to make decisions that directly affect your children.

If they make decisions on our boundaries now, what about more decisions later on — curriculum, local policies, daily procedures, graduation requirements, teacher qualifications, school programming, mill levies and tax rates, facility management, local traditions, rituals and everything else.

Local control works in communities because it is not a one-size-fits-all approach to education. It understands the unique needs of their respective communities and trusts local officials to make decisions, policies and procedures that fit their community needs, even when they are unpopular but necessary.

It is frightening to me, as an educator, for someone in Topeka to make the day-to-day operating policies that will guide my child’s education without any input. Children are more than data points on a sheet and the only people who can see that are those who see their faces when they walk into a school building each day and know their names, their parents and their unique communities.

If you are not a patron of the USD 112 school district, you should be very worried about the precedent for state takeover and loss of local control for all Kansas students whenever a decision is unpopular at the local level. Let us not forget that the beginning of this problem came in the 1960s when legislators and education officials in Topeka forced consolidation on communities with minimal input.

When we become faceless communities for those in Topeka to make decisions for, we all lose.

The problems USD 112 and every small, 1A school district in Kansas face are not small. Yet, disorganization votes and the state deciding where our children attend school should scare everyone.

I encourage all sensible people who believe in local governmental control and decision-making to vote no on Aug. 1. Denise Schmidt, MS, MSE, Ed.S. Claflin