If one holds on to a fashion item long enough, it may very well come back into style.

Take, for example, wide ties -- they went completely by the wayside at one point in favor of razor-thin models, but now they are the norm.

Such is the case with smaller schools in local communities -- the tables have turned their way in terms of viability and effectiveness.

It's called decentralization and evidence of the value of that concept is all around us in other areas of endeavor. The computer age has made it possible to take advantage of the inherent effectiveness of smaller units of organization. In essence, amalgamation is becoming passé.

Unfortunately, in our state, it appears educational "theorists" and their supportive "commentators" somehow are missing the boat on this clear and emerging concept.

At the same time, parents seem to understand it completely. That's why so many of them are seeking smaller schools and the more personalized atmosphere they provide.

In that sense, the "experts" that are behind the times are those calling for bigger schools, higher levels of busing and threats to localized schools.

We agree with those who say hysteria should not be the reaction from those who oppose massive consolidation of schools in Arkansas.

We do feel those stressing the value of the local school are indeed willing to face the issue and work with others for meaningful (and realistic) change.

What has been disheartening is the lack of respect shown by our urban friends in their comments concerning our rural schools and communities.

One writer said "local community values" is merely a code phrase for Friday night football. Others simply have poked fun at our "ridiculous" belief that there is intrinsic value in our rural way of life. This seems especially strange considering Arkansas always has been a rural state and remains so even today, despite widespread movement to areas of higher population concentration.

Here's a portion of an editorial that appeared in a larger newspaper, which has been hammering at rural interests in issue after issue:

"Does anybody really think little Booger Holler is going to be able to offer its kids substantially the same education that's available in the state's biggest, richest school districts? Or is this all about just fielding its own football team."

Get the picture?

Parents in small districts appreciate the family involvement, personal accountability, improved student discipline and overall participation in school activities. They correctly don't want to see these concepts threatened by "amalgamated" school districts.

And, believe it or not, many small districts compare very favorably with large districts in standardized test results.

In summary, those of us in small towns are indeed interested in quality schools and we are open to various avenues of improvement, but we would appreciate not being ridiculed as being ignorant yokels only concerned about basketball, football and other non-academic concerns.

One of our favorite authors, Wendell Berry (of rural Kentucky) is critical in one of his essays of the concept that the only successful people are those who leave the local community to serve what he calls the "national economy".

Berry posits the "strange" idea that the local school traditionally serves a socialization process that develops strong citizens who want to remain in the local community. What a novel idea!

In the conclusion of his essay, Berry states:

"In this difficult time of failed public expectations, when thoughtful people wonder where to look for hope, I keep returning in my own mind to the thought of the renewal of the rural communities. I know that one revived rural community would be more convincing and more encouraging than all the government and university programs of the last fifty years, and I think that it could be the beginning of the renewal of our country, for the renewal of rural communities ultimately implies the renewal of urban ones. But to be authentic, a true encouragement and a true beginning, this would have to be a revival accomplished mainly by the community itself. It would have to be done not from the outside by instruction of visiting experts, but from the inside by the ancient rule of neighborliness, by the love of precious things and by the wish to be at home."

If only those battering our rural communities in the present debate could understand that way of thinking -- a concept that those in rural areas naturally embrace in our everyday lives.

--REK