1

School/District Consolidation

Inspiration

The inspiration for this paper simply comes from my background and

experiences. The school I attended and the town I lived in has solely survived on the

small population. New staff to the school were highly criticized and critiqued every day

of their introductory year. Productivity and success for the students was a must and all

staff maintained that high quota. So why, if a school has tough standards that prove to be

successful, would any school want to join another competing school district? Since a

career in education is almost inevitable, I should research what benefits may come from

working at a small, rural school compared to the inner city. My paper will be a reflection

of that theme. Does funding of small schools and districts take away from the larger

school districts?

Summary

Acclimating yourself to the new culture and environment might be very tough,

especially in certain areas. So how do you handle the change from rural schools to city

schools, or vice versa? How will these cities and schools react to looming budget

situations and need or lack of funding? I plan to cover the topics of cost efficiency, as

well as district standards, as they relate to local and state funding.

I hope to shed some light on the pros and cons of small, rural schools and

districts. I believe that each argument can be attacked from many angles based on

2

research done with student/teacher performance and cost efficiency. I also think it is

worthwhile to talk about community reactions to consolidation of small schools.

Relevance to other states

To start, conventional wisdom in educational policy and administration assumes that

small-district consolidation improves the conditions of education, including cost savings.

The study will contribute with information about cost saving goals not related to policy

goals. Secondly, consolidation proposals typically rely on arguments about cost and

efficiency, but these two concepts are not interchangeable, they are two separate

concepts. Finally, the process of reform, equalization, and recession are conditions that

Kentucky is not suffering from at the time of the study. So this study analysis creates a

structure that examines the utility of consolidation policy in other circumstances.

Studies and Methods Used

Development of Consolidated Districts

The information and controversy that surrounds consolidated schools can be best

explained by one main movement whose main supporter was James Conant. In the

1950’s, his stance on school consolidation swept the nation as the primary solution to

education’s leading problems. In an article by Cutshall (2003), James’s book, The

American High School Today, asserted that the first priority of many states should be the

elimination of the small High School by district reorganization. He firmly believed that

consolidation of high schools into larger comprehensive schools would allow students to

find more advanced-level opportunities. His views were well represented because a

period of 50 years saw the average U.S. school district rise from 217 to 2,617 students

3

and the average size rise from 127 schools to 653 schools. James Conant’s work and

lobbying set a new tone in public education.

Gathering Data

The main research article I will be using in my paper was a quantitative study

done on analyzing a specific school finance policy in Kentucky regarding whether the

state should pursue district consolidation. The reason for the study was a concern by

then-Governor Brereton Jones who felt the state operated too many school districts and

could save money and gain efficiency by consolidation of school districts. (Adams &

Foster, 2002)

Adams & Foster established their research question based on this very belief of

the former governor. These researchers thought the central policy question to be, “should

small school districts be consolidated to save state educational costs.”(p.838) Adams &

Foster (2002) later allude to a more descriptive analysis of their research in that, “we

wanted to know whether, controlling for size on the cost side of the correlation, a

relationship existed between district size and the formula for factors that determine state

costs.” (p.839)

The data source used for the obtained results has a direct relationship to cost

efficiency and state spending. The Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, an entity

of the state legislature, provided the necessary data. This data included final calculations

for the Support Education Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK) program and Tier 1, which are

both central components of the school funding formula for the 1992-1993 school year.

(Adams & Foster, 2002) The SEEK formula, plus various categorical aid, make up for

the state educational spending in school districts, or the general state costs. For

4

credibility, Adams & Foster (2002) used state-level data in the calculations and used

average daily attendance (ADA) as a measure of district size. Measures of state

educational costs are listed below:

1. The adjusted 1992-1993 state SEEK funding = adjusted at-risk figures + adjusted

home/hospital education + adjusted exceptional children + adjusted transportation + local

contribution + adjusted Tier 1 + vocational educational deduction + and the adjusted hold

harmless - adjusted base prorata.

2. State categorical aid = total state revenue receipts - adjusted 1992-1993 state SEEK

funding.

3. State educational costs = adjusted 1992-1993 state SEEK funding + state categorical

aid.

The total amount of these two formulas is used to give the state a direct number in

regards to state educational costs. Adams & Foster (2002) report that this information

basically arrives at the conclusion that it costs Kentucky $2,420 per pupil for all the

schools in the numerous operating school districts.

Other procedures worth mentioning in this methodology explanation are the

variables the researchers had to account for. Such items included the number of districts

measured, the size of the district, and all the adjustments that were made on the SEEK

formula. For at-risk and exceptional children variable, the state funded less than 100%

percent of its calculated costs. The SEEK program requires a local contribution of 30 per

$100 of assessed property wealth. The hold harmless provision guarantees that districts

will receive no less revenue in one year than they did in the prior year and the base

prorata figure involves a budget cut to education.

5

Analytical Procedures:

The last step in the methodology explanation was the analytical procedures the

researchers used to make sense of their information. They examined the number, type,

and size of school districts in the state and compared these characteristics to other states,

research findings, and standards of practice. (Adams & Foster, 2002) The focus at the

state level was consistent because policy makers were questioning the allocation of state

funds through the state funding formula and not the district efficiency of their

expenditures.

Within the realm of funding allocation, it is essential to explore the size cost

question directly. “We first calculated correlations between school district sizes and (1)

state educational costs and (2) district percentages of the determinants of state

educational costs, such as formula adjustments for at-risk, exceptional children, and

transportation; also between state educational costs and local educational costs.” (Adams

& Foster, p.838) To help control for district size, the researchers used district

percentages of the determinants of state cost rather than the dollar amounts.

The last area to clarify is the adjusted figures used in the funding formulas.

Different district sizes had to be accounted for, so the researchers devised five size

categories (<800 ADA, 801-1,500 ADA, 1,501-3,307 ADA, 3,308-10,000 ADA, and

>10,000 ADA). “The adjusted figures allow one to assess variation in the state costs

across district sizes while controlling for per-pupil wealth.” (Adams & Foster, p.838)

Researchers used the multiple regression analysis to calculate adjusted figures for state

spending. The type of regressors used by Adams & Foster (2002), included a series of

dummy variables that indicated different size categories and wealth. The coefficients of

6

these regressors allowed adjusted state costs to be made across district size categories.

“The adjusted state cost numbers captures the pattern of costs one would observe if all

districts possessed the same wealth.”(Adam & Foster, p.839) This particular approach is

important because the research shows why property wealth becomes an important part of

the size-cost calculations for the state of Kentucky.

Findings

Adams & Foster (2002) conclude that the majority of the unified school districts

in Kentucky provide educational services in grades K through 12 within a specified

geographic area utilizing a single governing board and single administrative staff.

Speaking in terms of national comparison, Kentucky ranked 18th in 1992-1993 in terms of

average district size. Going one step further, the vast majority of these districts, 70%,

served fewer than 3,000 students. This direct finding can be negative to a state like

Kentucky, and others in the nation (Ohio, West Virginia, Georgia), because of its reliance

of minimum district size for state funding. Cutshall (2003) reported that some states

require specific minimum enrollments, as is the case with Kentucky, for a district to

qualify for school facilities. Policies in such states, Cutshall (2003) reports, that require

certain acreage representation for existing and new schools also pressure districts to close

small facilities and build consolidated schools in outlying areas.

Conventional wisdom concludes that bigger districts are cheaper and better, but is

not supported with corroborating evidence. Two different studies, conducted 10 years

apart from each other each reach the same conclusion. When researching literature on

adequate school district size, “there is no strong research base for continuing to

encourage school and district consolidation.” (Adams & Foster, p. 841) Some districts

7

that have done consolidation reform have started to lie at a standstill. The financial risks

behind that pursuit of class-size reduction are very pronounced. Kennedy (2003) found

that, “nearly every state is struggling to maintain education spending levels, let alone find

new revenue for more facilities and personnel.”(p.16) Kennedy (2003) continues his

argument on school consolidation with a report by the CSR Research Consortium on

class-size in California. “The program has been enormously popular with teachers and

parents, but it has been expensive, and some have questioned whether it is worth the

cost.” (p.16) Further research on stopping the trend of decentralizing schools has not

come without its protestors. Galles & Sexton (1995) report that, “by the time evidence

had begun to accumulate against larger school districts, however, a substantial set of

interest groups had been created which strongly opposed stopping or reversing the

centralization trend.” (p.244)

The findings from this Kentucky study do come to several conclusions that

answer the research question of cost for small districts. “One can conclude that

variations in state educational costs in Kentucky are the primary result of differences in

school district property wealth, not district size.” (Adams & Foster, p.11) Findings from

this study also question whether the current three-year school finance reform was

appropriate. Variations in the state’s educational costs occurred just as the state had

intended, on the basis of property wealth and not on cost-efficiency beliefs.

Cost saving measures for the state are important and have a large impact on new

finance policies that are created, but what about student achievement and performance.

Studies show that there can be inverse relationships between size and academic quality,

higher absenteeism in the larger settings, severed connections between school and

8

communities, and problematic support for consolidation’s efficiency ideas. This also

poses problems getting highly qualified teachers. Ashford (2002) states that you really

have to find people with a commitment to a rural way of life. “Younger people won’t

want to move to very isolated communities with small populations.”(p.6) In an article

written by Cutshall (2003), smaller schools can also be effective in that there is an

increase in teacher collaboration and team teaching, greater flexibility and responsiveness

to student needs, and the personal connections that make the smaller schools work.

Conclusion

Can Kentucky save their high state educational costs by consolidating small

school districts? The findings in this study indicate that, no, the state cannot save money

by consolidating small school districts. But why is this the answer. Adam & Foster

(2002) believe that state educational costs are driven by school district property wealth,

not district size. District wealth can vary the amount of money that is poured into SEEK,

but these amounts are associated in variations to state educational costs across school

districts. “On the narrower issue of state educational costs, Kentucky policy makers must

look elsewhere than school district reorganization to achieve meaningful results.”

(Adams & Foster, p.844)

I believe that this Kentucky study bears significance on other states and their

finance reform. It doesn’t seem logical to me to cut down effective, positive promoting

schools just on the basis of cost efficiency. It is duly noted in several studies that class

size is indicative of student achievement and community involvement. Why would

individual states ruin what has been such a positive experience for so many students?

9

Finance reform and state spending are controversial topics in their own right and deserve

much consideration each year, but why make changes that will ruin successful internal

workings.

A good example of school consolidation gone wrong is represented with New

York’s school system. A report by Galles & Sexton (1995) writes that, “big city school

districts, such as in New York and Los Angeles, now serve over 600,000 students.”

(p.241) How can student achievement be measured and recorded with so many students

to cover? In the same article by Galles & Sexton (1995), they provide the argument that

accumulated evidence concludes that, except for consolidations of very small districts,

there are no economies of sale (lower costs or greater values provided per student for

larger numbers of students) to local education. They go on to suggest that, “periods

strongly indicate that it is time to undo the overly centralized system that has been

constructed, if taxpayers are to get their money’s worth and students are to be adequately

served.” (p.241)

I have to mention some changes that have been made towards the decentralizing

of large school districts. Wasley (2002) reports, “The U.S. Department of Education has

committed $125 million to fund small-school initiatives.”(p.6) Wasley (2002) finds

further evidence that James Conant’s ancient way of thinking in relation to district size is

starting a turn towards being obsolete. Her article states that several states have decided

to change their massive reform of past plans and move towards the small school

collaborative, which are designed to support the comprehensive schools to the smaller

learning communities. Wasley’s (2002) list includes: New Visions for Learning in New

10

York, the Small Schools Workshop in Chicago, the Small Schools Project in Seattle, and

the Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools in Oakland.

References

Adams, J.E., & Foster, E.M. (2002). District Size and State Educational Costs: ShouldConsolidation Follow School Finance Reform? Journal of Educational Finance 27, (3)833-855

Ashford, E. (2002). “No Child” Left Behind Rural Kids, Too. The Education Digest 68,(4) 16-21.

Cutshall, S. (2003). Is Smaller Better? When It Comes To Schools, Size Does Matter.Techniques (Association for Career and Technical Education) 78, (3) 22-25.

Galles, G., & Sexton, R. L. (1995). Diseconomies of school district size. The Journal ofSocial, Political, and Economic Studies 20, 241-245.

Kennedy, M. (2003). Sizing Up Smaller Classes. American School & Society 75, (6)16-20.

Wasley, P. (2002). Small Classes, Small Schools: The Time Is Now. EducationalLeadership 59, (5) 6-11.