Home > News & Events > 2009 News	Print View

The state of Minnesota needs innovative ideas to reshape government to be more efficient and less expensive. An idea put forth Wednesday by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and a group of legislators deserves study, but unfortunately falls far short of significant reform and may usurp local school board decision-making.

The proposal would require Minnesota school districts and charter schools to combine efforts to reduce costs, to pool their purchasing power to buy information technology, food services, supplies and equipment, operations, transportation and other goods and services.

Cooperation and sharing among districts should be encouraged, and has been. Many small rural school districts already share superintendents and could easily share. Under Pawlenty’s proposal, the state Education Department would create and maintain a list of preferred vendors for various shared services, whether that be paper, computer software or food services.

Parts of that may work well. Computer software purchased by a pool could be inexpensive and provide consistency among districts. So could also the purchase of computer hardware in bulk.

But food services? Aside from problems with union contracts, that system might work well in urban Minnesota where a catering company could provide efficient services in preparing and serving cafeteria food to numerous school districts. But try to make that work in northern Minnesota, where school districts are sparsely located and competitive vendor choices slim if they even exist at all.

A state-certified vendor of paper may also be located in urban Minnesota where districts can take advantage of economies of scale, but figure in transportation costs for paper from the Twin Cities to Bemidji and buying local might not be that bad.

Concentrating special education services might work well for small districts that can’t afford it, but it is occurring right now with Bemidji, a regional center, seeing a large number of special needs students transferring here for services. As a result, the district supplements its special education budget by $3 million or more a year. Will the state provide full funding to those districts providing pooled services? We think not.

And to have a state law forcing school districts to buy only from state-approved vendors takes away choices best determined by local school boards. The state would do better by removing mandates, not adding to them.

School districts need to cooperate and consolidate wherever possible, but Wednesday’s proposal barely scratches the surface.

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/articles/index.cfm?id=20630&section=Opinion