Devoted Reader Mike D. wonders why schools should struggle to stay open when no students are around:
Even as Elk Grove becomes the fastest growing big district in the country, the state's overall student enrollment is leveling off and as many as half of California districts are seeing enrollments fall.
The consequences can be dire for school districts. The principal source of school funding is money the state gives districts based on how many children are showing up each day, and the state gives districts more money than the direct costs of educating each student.
That mismatch is a good thing for districts like Elk Grove, which can use that money to enhance programs, and a very bad thing in rural and urban districts with declining enrollments.
For every 30 students these districts lose, they lose more revenue than the cost of the single teacher needed for that class. To make up the difference, programs need to be cut even though demand for them may not have gone down with enrollment. Sports teams are sidelined, class sizes balloon, and schools are closed.
"It's almost paralyzing," said Steve Morales, the facilities director in South Lake Tahoe who has wrestled with the enrollment numbers and still can't figure out how to keep all the programs running, even after closing two schools and seeking a local tax increase.
It is paralyzing, but it also seems unavoidable. If the district loses population, especially school-age population, struggling to keep a school open seems like a bit of a waste. I admit I'm not an expert in this area, though, so if anyone has an opinion to share, let us all know.
Posted by kswygert at November 14, 2004 02:47 PM