The Research Behind the Rhetoric of School District Consolidation

59th Annual ISBA/IAPSS Fall Conference

September 29, 2008

Terry Spradlin

2

About the Center for Evaluation & Education Policy

• The Center for Evaluation & Education Policy (CEEP) is a

client-focused, self-funded research center associated with the School of Education at Indiana University

• CEEP provides a wide range of evaluation and nonpartisan policy research services to policymakers, governmental entities, and non-profit organizations

• CEEP is continually looking for new opportunities to help inform, influence, and shape the development of P-16 education policy not only in Indiana, but across the nation

3

CEEP Associates focus their broad spectrum of experience and capabilities to produce high impact

within the following "Areas of Excellence":

• Educational Evaluation

oEarly Childhood Education Evaluation

oLiteracy Evaluation

oMath, Science and Technology Evaluation

• Education Policy Research & Technical Assistance

• Health, Human Services & Community Development Evaluation

School District Consolidation

CEEP Reports:“Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation

Collaboration, Cooperation, and Consolidation in Indiana”

July 18, 2007http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V5N5.pdf

“2007 Public Opinion Survey on K-12 Education in Indiana”January 9, 2008

http://www.ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/POS_Ed_IN_20080108.pdf

4

Contents

I. Public Perceptions on Issue

II. Recommendations of the 2007 Local Government Reform Commission

III. Descriptive Data on Public Education in Indiana

IV. School Consolidation Research & Policies

V. Summary of Recent Activities, Programs, and Policy Initiatives in Indiana

VI. Findings and Recommendations

5

I. Public Perceptions on Issue

6

7

(Q9) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the perspective that the consolidation of smaller school districts in Indiana will save tax

dollars?

New Question in 2007

Respondents who believe to some extent that consolidation of school districts in Indiana will save tax dollars:

• All Respondents 49%

• White Residents 50%• Non-White Residents 45%

• High School or Less 44%• Some College 49%• College Grad or More 53%

7

8

(Q10) Would you support or oppose the school district in your community being consolidated with another district if there was only a slight possibility the consolidation would lower your tax

burden?

New Question in 2007

• All Respondents:Support 35% Oppose 59%

• White Residents :Support 33% Oppose 61%

• Minority Residents:Support 45% Oppose 51%

Support Declines with More Education:

• High School or Less 40%• Some College 38%• College Grad or More 28%

8

2008 Public Opinion Survey Questions

1) To what extent do you agree or disagree with the perspective that the consolidation of smaller school districts in Indiana will save tax dollars?

2) To what extent do you agree or disagree that school district consolidation will cause districts to become more efficient?

3) To what extent do you agree or disagree that school district consolidation will enhance student achievement?

4) Would you support or oppose the school district in your community being consolidated with another district?

5) Would you support or oppose the school district in your community being consolidated with another district if there was only a slight possibility the consolidation would lower your tax burden, including the property taxes you pay?

9

II. Recommendations of the 2007 Local Government Reform Commission

10

11

2007 Local Government Reform Commission Recommendations Concerning Schools

(Note: A total of 27 recommendations were issued on December 11, 2007; this Commission is often referred to as the Kernan-Shepard Commission)

Recommendation #11: Reorganize school districts to achieve a minimum student population of 2,000. Establish state standards and a county-based planning process similar to that established in 1959 legislation. “Indiana has too many school districts and administrators…”

Recommendation #12: Require that school corporation bonds be approved by the fiscal body of the municipal or county government containing the greatest proportion of assessed value in the school district

12

2007 Local Government Reform Commission Recommendations Concerning Schools

(continued)Recommendation #13: Prompt joint purchasing by schools

Recommendation #14: Conduct all non-partisan school elections during November in even years

III. Descriptive Data on Public Education in Indiana

13

14

Local Government Unit Trends in Indiana

1952 1962 1972 1982 1992 1997 2002

County 92 92 91 91 91 91 91

Township 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008 1,008

City and Towns 541 547 546 564 566 569 567

School Districts 1,115 884 315 305 294 294 294

Special Districts (including libraries) 293 560 832 897 939 1,236 1,125

15

Descriptive Data

• In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 14th in the nation with the number of public school students at 1,035,074. The average number of students per school was 519, ranking the state 16th in this category. The national average was 498 students per building

• In 2005-06, Indiana ranked 18th (from largest to smallest) in the nation for its number of schools (1,993) and its number of corporations (364 including charter schools and co-ops)

16

Descriptive Data (continued)

• The average number of students per school corporation of 2,843 ranked the state 25th in the nation, just slightly above the national average of 2,824 students per school corporation

• According to the NCES Common Core of Data for the 2005-06 school year, Indiana had fewer teachers, guidance counselors, librarians, school building administrators, school district administrators, and administrative support staff than the national average, but more instructional aides, instructional coordinators/supervisors, and other support staff

17

District Enrollment Size (2007-08)

Corporations Compared to Counties

In Indiana:

• The 10 largest school corporations are in counties where the total population is over 100,000 and the total number of school corps. range from 1 to 16

• In the 2006-07 school year, Lake County had the most school districts with 16, followed by Marion County with 11. Evansville has one school district.

• Marion County had the greatest student population with 133,917 students; the next greatest was Lake County with 85,268.

18

Corporations Compared to Counties (cont.)

• The 10 smallest school corporations are in counties where the total population is lower than 100,000 and the total number of school corps. range from 3 to 7

• 8 of the 10 smallest counties have only one school corporation

• A total of 20 counties had just one school corporation each: Benton, Blackford, Brown, Clay, Crawford, Fayette, Floyd, Franklin, Huntington, Jay, Ohio, Owen, Pike, Rush, Switzerland, Union, Vanderburgh, Vigo, Warren, and Warrick.

• Ohio County had the fewest students with 953; the next lowest was Warren County with 1,331.

19

IV. School Consolidation Research & Policies

20

21

Perceived Benefits and Obstacles to Central Office Consolidation

Benefits ObstaclesEnhanced curricular opportunities Public perception/community

relationships

Shared/combined services, pooling of resources (distribute fixed and administrative costs over an even larger pool of students)

Lack of cost savings estimates and accuracy of financial analysis

Potential cost savings Multiple boards

Savings of time No educational benefit

Better communication opportunity Job loss

22

Texas School Consolidation Policy Study

• Research furnishes little evidence that consolidation controls costs or improves academic achievement (i.e., “bigger isn’t necessarily better”)

• Most studies concur that students perform better in smaller elementary and middle schools. Research on small high schools is inconclusive

*Patterson, C. (February 2006). School District Consolidation and Public School Efficiency: What Does the Research Say? Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Education Policy Studies.

23

Kansas – Policy Paper on School Consolidation

• The benefits of small schools is one of the promising areas of research in education:

o Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have invested more than $750 million in touting the benefits of smaller schools, or “smaller learning communities,” whether in rural or urban settings

o As a result, across the country some school districts are getting smaller rather than larger

*Laplante, J. (December 2005). School Consolidation: An Ineffective Way of Improving Education. Policy Paper. Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

24

Academic Drawbacks to Consolidation

• Brasington (2004) found that doubling school size caused school performance to fall by one percentage point

• Berry (2004) determined that increasing the average size of a school by 100 students was associated with a 3.7% decline in earnings by high school graduates

• In this light, consolidation does not appear to help prepare students for their futures

25

Variables Contributing to High Achievement

• Little evidence that corporation consolidation has a positive on student achievement; some evidence suggests a negative impact on achievement

• Most significant variables that contribute to high student achievement include: smaller class sizes, effective professional development, highly qualified teachers, and a handful of socioeconomic factors -- primarily family income

• These relationships are complex and have a point of diminishing returns (e.g., class size)

26

Financial Impact of Consolidation

• Minimal cost savings. General findings:

o Savings possible by moving from a very small district to a district with 1,000 – 4,000 students (current research); 2,000-6,000 (older research)

o Consolidation can create districts too large that result in increase administrative costs, larger schools, larger class size ratios, and lower student achievement

27

Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)

• Andrew Coulson, at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, has done research on optimal district size in five states (NY, FL, CA, TX, MI)o Results have variedo New York districts are most efficient at 2,280 studentso An optimal size could not ultimately be determined in

Michigan and other states when including student achievement data in analysis

o Coulson concludes: “No correlation or a negative correlation exists with cost efficiency and size…If goal is to save tax revenues, then deconsolidation is a better option.”

o “Smaller districts are doing well academically with good student/teacher relations and parental involvement.”

28

Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)

• Duncombe & Yinger (2001):

o Longitudinal study from 1985-1997 found that consolidation is likely to lower the operating cost of two 300-pupil districts by ≥20%

o Consolidating two districts of 900 students generated savings of 7%-9%

o Consolidating two districts of 1,500 students to have little or no impact on operational costs

Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)

• In a doctoral dissertation, Tim Zimmer, finds that according to one cost model for Indiana, the optimal student enrollment is 1,942 students with a cost of $9,413.93 per student. At 95th percentile the optimal enrollment range identified as 1,000 to 3,000 (when considering both cost and student achievement).

• Diseconomies emerge below and above the optimal.

• Increased enrollment due to consolidation of school districts is likely to have a negative effect on student achievement.

29

Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)

• Although cost savings can be achieved by consolidating smaller corporations, the student population in these corporations is not sufficient to provide a large overall impact (only 33,500 total students in school districts ≤1,000 students).

• A balance between costs, achievement, social, and political considerations must be maintained by a school corporation to maximize the utility of its citizenry.

Tim Zimmer. Doctoral Dissertation. December 2007. Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN.

30

31

Financial Impact of Consolidation (continued)

• Research from Dr. Lowell Rose suggested that there is a statistically insignificant relationship between the size (ADM) of a school corporation and the expenditures per student in that corporation

• In other words, what is spent per pupil is not dependent on the size of a school district

0 10000 20000 30000 40000

ADM

6000

8000

10000

12000

ADM$

Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

32

Unintended Consequences

• Possible unintended consequences of consolidation include:

o Decline in student achievement

o Loss of community identity

o Impact on funding formula

o Changes to AYP and PL 221 category placements

V. Summary of Recent Activities, Programs, and Policy Initiatives in Indiana

33

34

• The Indiana General Assembly delayed funding for the FinMARS Plan until at least 2009; however, it provided $150,000/year for the Indiana School Business Official Leadership Academy

• This academy is to ensure that business and finance officials in each corporation are equipped with adequate analysis, communication, and leadership skills to maximize the efficient use of resources

• Also appropriated $100,000 for school corporation consolidation feasibility studies. A total of four studies underway in Randolph, White, and Delaware Counties

• From July 1 through July 15, 2008, the IDOE accepted grant proposals for studies being conducted during the 2008-09 school year

Legislative Funding (HEA 1001-2007)

35

Consolidation/merged services feasibility study grants for 2008-09:

• Fulton County• Rochester Community Schools (LEA), Caston Community Schools, Tippecanoe Valley School

Corporation• Study merging services • Starke County• Oregon-Davis School Corporation (LEA), North Judson-San Pierre Corporation• Study merging services (i.e., merging central offices and using one superintendent) • Parke County• Turkey Run Comm. School Corporation (LEA), Rockville Comm. School Corporation, Southwest

Parke Community School Corporation• Study feasibility of merging services and consolidation

• Clinton County• Clinton Central School Corporation (LEA), Clinton Prairie School Corporation• Study feasibility of merging services and consolidation

2008-09 Feasibility Studies

VI. Findings and Recommendations

36

37

Findings and Recommendations

1. Consolidation has no proven positive impact on student achievement and may negatively impact student achievement

2. Some research suggests optimal school and school corporation sizes exist (i.e., smaller schools in bigger districts); however, research is inconsistent and inclusive

3. At best, limited research available that indicates meaningful cost savings are realized from consolidation on a systemic basis

4. Thus, consolidation should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis only, not mandated on a wholesale basis (e.g. state of Maine). In particular, consolidation may be beneficial for the smallest school corporations with proper strategic planning. (A case can be made to consolidate districts with less than 1,000 students; less compelling evidence the bigger the target population)

38

5. Encourage corporations to participate in the feasibility study program funded by the Indiana General Assembly

6. Encourage the IGA to fund implementation grants after feasibility studies concluded

7. Implications of consolidation on AYP and PL 221 categories should be addressed

8. Shared services hold considerable promise and should be a point of emphasis

9. School corporations should be given incentives to save by allowing inter-fund transfers of documented savings to GF to provide more money for classroom instruction

Findings and Recommendations

39

Continuum of District Consolidation Strategies

TotalConsolidation

AdministrativeConsolidation

Everything:Districts, schools,services

SharedServices

Administration, Services, not schools

Services

What’s

consolidated?

Research

Verdict? Little evidence of

achievement or savings effects

Limited evidence of benefits for small districts

Evidence of considerable savings

CEEP Contact Information

Terry E. Spradlin, MPAAssociate Director

1900 E. 10th Street

Bloomington, Indiana 47406-7512

812-855-4438

Fax: 812-856-5890

http://ceep.indiana.edu

40