EDUCATION MUST MEET `BANG-FOR-BUCK' GAUGE

As Missourians prepare for a proliferation of information on the state's need for more school funding, all aimed at a November tax vote, they should also observe closely the actions of education officials in making use of the money now available. Certainly the responsible handling of immediate resources would soothe voters being asked to dig deeper into their pockets. Cost-benefit reviews and curriculum analysis in general, meeting the needs of the public with the greatest dollar efficiency shouldn't be unique to times when money is short.

Accept this case for consideration: A University of Missouri curator, Fred Kummer of St. Louis, has raised a question about the fiscal viability of that institution's veterinary school, the only such academy in the state. Kummer points out that $3.8 million has been added to the school's budget in the last six years to maintain national accreditation and he estimates that the university's annual cost per veterinary student is $58,000. (Others at the university say this estimate is grossly inflated.)

Kummer makes the case, however, that it might be more cost efficient for Missouri to contract with another state and educate future veterinarians in that way. In his own construction business, Kummer pointed out, comparable work that can be done less expensively by others is subcontracted.

While we may not buy into Kummer's analogy (the mechanisms of construction and education being disparate), we applaud him for speaking up with an alternative and well-intended view. A curator or regent is duty-bound to raise "bang-for-the-buck" questions on higher education spending; we are confounded more of these appointees don't embrace this charge. Kummer asked a question a lot of taxpayers might ask, namely, "Is there a better way to spend our money?" We would encourage his curator peers to follow suit on a regular basis.

Our view on this specific issue is that Missouri, a state heavily dependent on agriculture, should not be without a first-rate school of veterinary medicine. While we might open our minds to the arguments that Kummer offers, this is a nonduplicated service that our state educational system can't afford to forfeit.

However, taken as a broader matter of how educational administrators should justify the funding provided to them by taxpayers, and in the context of being asked this November to supply more money to the system, we are anxious to see if higher education officials address the veterinary school issue in a broad-minded and serious way.