One of the lighter moments during three days of testimony in the ongoing legal battle over the St. Louis County School District’s improper promotion of its 2009 referendum came when the district’s own attorney, Steve Knutson, expressed incredulity when Mayor Steve Abrahamson mentioned during cross examination that this strangest-of-all school districts has two distinct and separate parts.

No doubt hoping to discredit the mayor, Knutson made a big show of what he assumed was a mistake in Abrahamson’s testimony. “Do you mean to tell me and this court that the school district is comprised of two separate parts, that aren’t contiguous?” he said in loud and dramatic fashion.

Which prompted a few of us in the room to simultaneously blurt out, “Yeah, that’s right!”

It surprised the judges as well as attorney Knutson to learn this particularly inexplicable fact about the St. Louis County School District. They could certainly be forgiven their surprise, since no other school district in Minnesota, or perhaps in the country, is composed of two parts, separated by many miles of territory assigned to other school districts.

School district officials have regularly pointed to the district’s unusual configuration to explain some of the district’s problems, such as its extraordinarily high administrative costs, and its supposed need to maintain a central office in Virginia, even though it’s located outside the district’s boundaries.

While the district certainly could find ways to restructure its administration to save money, let’s accept, for the sake of argument that the district’s unusual layout contributes to some of its unusually high costs.

And if we do accept that argument, shouldn’t we then take the next logical step, and ask, why it is that the current configuration of the district should be preserved?

It’s often worthwhile to go back to first principles. Those who created the original ISD 710, which later became ISD 2142 after consolidation with Tower-Soudan and Babbitt-Embarrass, argued that by consolidating the administrative functions of a number of small schools, greater financial efficiency could be achieved.

It sounded good, in theory, but in practice the numbers tell a very different story. Far from achieving administrative efficiencies, ISD 2142 spends more per pupil on administration than any district of its size in the state. But even when compared against the smallest districts in the region, it ranks remarkably high. Indeed, districts like Littlefork, South Koochiching, or Cook County, all have fewer than 500 students (Littlefork does very well with just 292 students K-12) and they spend substantially less per student on administration than ISD 2142. If the theory behind ISD 2142 made sense, it’s cost per student would certainly be lower than these neighboring small districts.

Now, this is ground I’ve plowed before and I’m not going to belabor it here. But the question we all should be asking is this: If the district’s current configuration does not provide administrative savings, what is the point of maintaining a structure that even district officials contend is inefficient?

Indeed, there’s a good case to be made for dividing the district along its natural fault line. The south half, which now encompasses the Cherry and South Ridge Schools could become its own independent school district, while the north half could go its own way as well.

There is no question that both halves are perfectly viable financially. Each would have approximately 900 students, which would put both halves roughly in the middle of the pack among Minnesota school districts, in terms of student population. Both would be eligible for some taconite funding as well.

Such a division was proposed by residents of the north back in 2010, in the midst of the furor over the district’s actions surrounding the 2009 referendum. Indeed, it was a reference to that effort by Mayor Abrahamson that got Knutson so animated at the recent hearing.

But if you take the residual post-referendum anger out of the equation, and simply look at the question impartially, there are a number of very valid reasons for a division along these lines, including:

‰ Restoring school district support in the north. While a few years have passed since the 2009 vote, the credibility of the current ISD 2142 remains at rock bottom in the northern half of the district and it isn’t likely to improve anytime soon. A new independent district here could restore confidence and build a more positive relationship between the local schools and neighboring communities in the north.

‰ Local control. If there’s one thing that the 2009 vote demonstrated, it is the stark differences between the north and south halves of the district and the inability of board members to understand, much less appreciate, the very different priorities and perspectives between the two different regions.

That’s not helped by the fact that the district can no longer even hold board meetings at its central office, since school officials were informed that doing so is prohibited by law. As the board shifts its meeting locations from school to school, residents, parents, students, or anyone else who’d like to address the board on a topic may well be required to drive long distances to do so— in some cases as much as 100 miles each way. Those distances diminish greatly in a split school district.

What’s more, each section of the district would have greater representation on newly-configured school boards. No longer would communities be dependent on a single voice on a seven-member board.

‰ Greater administrative efficiency. Splitting the district would inarguably eliminate the need for a Virginia office and the cumbersome bureaucratic system that has so entrenched itself there. School administrators would be located in the schools they are supposed to serve. You wouldn’t need a full-time director of this and a full-time director of that. The superintendent could serve as principal of the same building where he or she works. Other administrators could wear multiple hats as well— that’s how they do things in most smaller and mid-sized school districts these days. It’s how things would be done right now in ISD 2142 if the district were more effectively managed.

The good news is that some of these discussions are occasionally taking place among board members. The board is well aware of the gaping political divide in the district. And the differences aren’t just political. In terms of demographics, economics, tax base, and development patterns, the two halves of the district have very little in common. It’s reasonable to ask why these two very different regions are artificially lumped together in such a strange way.

If the original goal of administrative efficiency is so clearly unmet, there’s no longer any reason to deny the residents and the communities of each region the opportunity to chart their own, independent, educational futures. It’s time, at least, to start the discussion.