Transcript Current CEEP Research and Its Impact on Indiana Public Schools

The Research Behind the Rhetoric of
School District Consolidation
59th Annual ISBA/IAPSS Fall Conference
September 29, 2008
Terry Spradlin
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 P16 education policy not only in Indiana, but across the
nation
2
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
3
School District Consolidation
CEEP Reports:
“Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation
Collaboration, Cooperation, and Consolidation in
Indiana”
July 18, 2007
http://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
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
11
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
12
III. Descriptive Data on Public Education in
Indiana
13
Local Government Unit Trends in
Indiana
1952
County
Township
City and Towns
School Districts
Special Districts
(including libraries)
1962
1972
1982
1992
1997
2002
92
92
91
91
91
91
91
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008
541
547
546
564
566
569
567
1,115
884
315
305
294
294
294
293
560
832
897
939
1,236
1,125
14
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)
15
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
16
District Enrollment Size (2007-08)
17
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
Perceived Benefits and Obstacles to
Central Office Consolidation
Benefits
Enhanced curricular opportunities
Obstacles
Public perception/community
relationships
Shared/combined services, pooling Lack of cost savings estimates
of resources (distribute fixed
and accuracy of financial
and administrative costs over
analysis
an even larger pool of students)
Potential cost savings
Multiple boards
Savings of time
No educational benefit
Better communication opportunity Job loss
21
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.
22
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.
23
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
24
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)
25
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
26
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 varied
o New York districts are most efficient at 2,280 students
o 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.”
27
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
28
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 $9,413.93 per student. At 95th percentile
the optimal enrollment range identified as 1,000 to 3,000 (when
considering both cost and student achievement).
• Diseconomies emerge below and above the optimal.
• Increased enrollment due to consolidation of school districts is
likely to have a negative effect on student achievement.
29
Financial Impact of Consolidation (cont.)
• Although cost savings can be achieved by consolidating smaller
corporations, the student population in these corporations is not
sufficient to provide a large overall impact (only 33,500 total
students in school districts ≤1,000 students).
• A balance between costs, achievement, social, and political
considerations must be maintained by a school corporation to
maximize the utility of its citizenry.
Tim Zimmer. Doctoral Dissertation. December 2007. Purdue University: West
Lafayette, IN.
30
Financial Impact of Consolidation
(continued)
• In other words, what is
spent per pupil is not
dependent on the size of a
school district
1 20 0 0


Spearman’s rho = -.19, p < .001

1 00 0 0

ADM$
• 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


8 00 0
6 00 0




   
 


 


 



















 



 
   










 
  














   
















  

 




 





    
    



 

0


1 00 0 0










2 00 0 0
3 00 0 0
4 00 0 0
ADM
31
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
32
V. Summary of Recent Activities, Programs, and Policy
Initiatives in Indiana
33
Legislative Funding (HEA 1001-2007)
• 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
34
2008-09 Feasibility Studies
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
35
VI. Findings and Recommendations
36
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)
37
Findings and Recommendations
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
38
Continuum of District Consolidation
Strategies
Shared
Services
What’s
consolidated?
Administrative
Consolidation
Everything:
Districts, schools,
services
Administration,
Services, not
schools
Services
Research
Verdict?
Total
Consolidation
Little evidence of
achievement or
savings effects
Limited evidence
of benefits for
small districts
Evidence of
considerable
savings
39
CEEP Contact Information
Terry E. Spradlin, MPA
Associate Director
1900 E. 10th Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47406-7512
812-855-4438
Fax: 812-856-5890
http://ceep.indiana.edu
40