012918 Educating Our Young in a Rural Area.

Rep. Rick Holman

Last week, I attended the meeting of the Interim Committee assigned the task of studying North Dakota's public-school funding. We were given a lot of numbers; numbers of students, school size, salaries, operational costs, etc. Looking at the numbers from the whole state, we were shown increases in many areas. Listening to the success story given by the big picture, I could not help but compare the big picture to what is going on in rural North Dakota.

Just over 40 years ago when I was working in the Mayville-Portland school system, we had a graduating class of eighty-one. There were five high schools in Traill County, Clifford-Galesburg, Hatton, May-Port, Hillsboro and Central Valley. Last spring's graduation had a number that reminded me of that 1976 May-Port class. When I totaled the graduates from the four Traill County districts (May-Port CG, Hillsboro, Central Valley and Hatton), the number of graduates for the whole county was the same as just one high school forty-one years earlier, eighty-one.

We're seeing the same thing happening in our state that is happening worldwide. A population shift from rural to urban. Rural areas are seeing decreasing populations numbers and less school-age children. The larger communities are growing. Places like Fargo, Bismarck and Williston have seen dramatic increases in school enrollment which makes it look like the whole state has had increases. In rural areas, however, we have to deal with less children in our schools. This shows up in class size, course offerings, extracurricular opportunities and the number of employees. Because much of state funding is tied to enrollment, budgets must be reduced, class offerings dropped and extracurricular offerings altered. In some cases, taxes will have to be increased. A required class with twenty students a few years ago may now have fifteen, but still requires a full-time teacher. The building constructed for 300 students now has 200, but still has the same operational costs. School buses cost more to purchase and operate but the routes are the same length.

North Dakota has a history of giving extra money for rapid-enrollment grants to places like Williston and West Fargo but for schools with lowered enrollment, the current formula pays per student on the previous year. That does nothing for a steady decline. Every student decrease removes almost ten-thousand dollars of state funding from district's annual budget. Those costs must be made up somewhere, with increased taxes or lowered services, i.e. educational opportunities.

This problem has no quick solution. Putting all costs of education on the local school district creates huge inequities between districts that are property rich and those that are not. Putting all the costs of education on the state can also have negative consequences in a state that relies on a fluctuating commodity market for its operational costs.

I like our small schools. Earlier this year at a conference, I heard a school superintendent make the statement, "We want our graduates to be choice ready." I think that even though some of our rural schools don't have the huge list of extra opportunities available in Fargo or Grand Forks, they can offer small classes and a close connection to the community. A benefit not to be overlooked. If our local schools continue to have our students ready for whatever education and work choices they seek, we must support them.

On the Education Funding Committee, I'm not sure we will come up with any solutions to deal with the differences between our rural schools and the larger urban districts, but keeping the discussion going is important.

One additional factor is worth noting. The next census is in 2020 and will surely reflect the rural to urban shift we are experiencing and require that a redistricted legislature show the same balance. More representation will be given to the areas of growth resulting in less representation for those who live in rural areas. Stay tuned.

Rep. Rick Holman, ND District 20