Springfield vs. Dublin Coffman
Were you spotted tailgating?
Carlisle vs. North College Hill
Consolidation's savings may be fleeting
Small districts appear to have hidden efficiencies, an analysis shows.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
RUSSIA — There's another way that might save education dollars — a strategy more states are trying — but in Ohio it's practically a dirty word.
Consolidation. Michael Moore has heard that one before.
Extras
Photos
Moore is superintendent in Russia, the Dayton area's smallest school district with 460 students. The Shelby County district is one of seven rural districts surrounding the city of Sidney. Six of them have fewer than 1,000 students each.
In fact, one in five of Ohio's 613 school districts is equally small. In other states, incentives or less friendly nudges are prompting small districts to merge in an effort to free up badly needed cash.
"It's one of those things that gets talked about a lot," said Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering.
State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, R-Butler Twp., said consolidation could be the "third rail" in solving school funding woes.
But would merging small districts really bring significant cost savings? A Dayton Daily News analysis says maybe not.
To Moore, savings from consolidation wouldn't be worth it anyway.
"That does get thrown out quite a bit," he said. "But there is something to local control, local school boards and a sense of community."
Close-knit and education-minded Russia is an especially good example, he said.
"We have many people who graduate, go on to college and career elsewhere but still find their way back here," Moore said. "They like the experience they had in school and they want their kids to have that, too."
Since Ohio three years ago began calculating a "performance index score," a measure of achievement across all state tests, Russia has always ranked in the top five of 82 area school districts.
Russia is also one of the lowest spending districts. In 2005-06 it spent $3.5 million, 10 percent less than the next closest Shelby County school district.
Russia spends about $500,000 on administration. If that much could be saved by consolidating each of Ohio's 122 smallest school districts, it could bring in more than $60 million a year.
But some studies have shown larger consolidated districts add administration costs that eat up any savings.
When the Daily News combined the spending of Shelby County's seven rural school districts, the 2005-06 figure came to approximately $38.7 million. Compare that to the spending of Warren County's Lebanon schools — also with just more than 4,900 enrolled — and the cost savings is only $400,000.
Using slightly larger districts tilts the balance the other way. Preble County's five small school districts enroll 6,900 — roughly the same as Kettering. But the combined school spending in Preble County was $51.9 million. Kettering spent $75.2 million — 41 percent more.
Howard Lee, chairman of the North Carolina State Board of Education, said consolidating large numbers of districts saves money by eliminating "high-dollar" jobs, such as superintendent salaries.
But larger districts also have more administrative costs.
"You may be looking at 10 or 11 superintendents in a territory and if you are you can make a case for huge savings when you cut that personnel," Lee said. "But you will still need a fairly strong central office. A lot of those superintendents would end up as assistants in charge of various areas."
Since 1991, North Carolina has aggressively merged districts so that most of its 100 counties have only one school system. But the motivation for mergers there was equal opportunity.
"Several communities had allowed their systems to become racially separated," Lee said. "There would be a poor, black, low performing city system surrounded by a good, white, wealthy school district."
The state forced mergers by funding only one school system per county. North Carolina has since gone from 135 school districts in 1991 to 117 today.
The results, Lee said, were mixed. Academic gains were made when mergers were embraced. Cost savings were modest. But there is potential for big savings, he said.
"I am a big advocate of consolidation," he said. "I think there is an advantage at least of having the schools under a central system serving a larger area and then having that area broken down so communities can have some ownership on the local level. But that requires local school boards to make tough decisions about assignment of students."
Those decisions will include closing effective and efficient small schools, said Marty Strange, policy director for the Rural School and Community Trust.
"I can flatly say that district consolidation is always a prelude to school consolidation," he said. "There is just not enough to be gained from district consolidation alone."
Consolidations will drive up administrative costs, wiping out most savings, Strange said. He pointed to West Virginia, which closed 300 schools in 10 years after a 13 percent drop in enrollment. At the same time, administrative costs jumped 16 percent.
"In small districts, the superintendent is a jack-of-all trades," Strange said. "They do a lot of functions that are done by specialists at larger districts."
Small schools are cost effective, he said.
"On a per-graduate basis, a high school with as few as 100 kids has a lower cost-per-graduate than a school with 1,000 kids," Strange said.
Moore said a merger involving Russia could hurt the quality of education.
"It would change the culture," he said. "Things are different in different communities. You would lose some of that synergy between community and school."
Comments
By Lesley
March 28, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Hey i think this crap is whack… i go to a poor school and i have to sit on the floor. its good for leg muscles.
By Putz
March 20, 2007 7:37 PM | Link to this
Haven’t heard or read anything lately about the upcoming levy. So here is some data for your education.
In the State Audit published for year ending 6-30-1995 Northmont posted $27,484,230.00 dollars in Revenue. (local taxes 14.1 million, State money 12.9 million and fed .4 million).
In the State Audit published for year ending 6-30-2005 Northmont posted $50,790,012 dollars in Revenue. (local taxes 22.2 million, State money 26.2 million and fed 2.5 million).
This represents an increase of $23,305,782.00 million in revenue in ten years. This is a 84.8% increase in revenue.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $27,484,230.00 in 1995 would cost $34,867,312.78 in 2005.
By Rosalie
March 20, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
This article failed to look at why Russia’s costs are so much lower. Their costs are so much lower because they have 0% of their students in poverty and only 7.18% of their students have disabilities. The state averages are 5.49% and 13.15% respectively in FY06. When you have students that are disadvantaged you receive large dollars to assist those students. Special education students cost large dollars, sometimes more than $40,000 per student, per year.
By Sue
March 19, 2007 9:37 PM | Link to this
DocHoliday also stated: …”They cut Bus Service, sports, very much like denying the City of Dayton an increase and seeing Firefighters and Police cut. Blackmail, pure and simple.”… To place firefighters and Police in the same category as school levies is untrue. They have to have their own levies, also due to the lack of STATE funding, but they have nothing to do with school levies. Most people will vote for Senior services, MRDD services, police,and firefighters, but not public schools!
By Sue
March 19, 2007 7:42 PM | Link to this
In response to DocHoliday -
You need to research how Ohio funds it schools. The state pays only 41% of the state’s base cost (the state’s base cost is $5,403 but the state’s average cost is $9,000 per student) So if the state only pays 41% of $5,403 per student, that leaves a lot of money schools have to come up with. The STATE leaves it up to local tax payers to pay in property taxes. Schools are not “blackmailing” anyone. Districts HAVE to cut MILLIONS $ when a levy is not passed!!
By DocHoliday
March 19, 2007 4:27 AM | Link to this
Until we get an itemized list of how the money the schools already have is spent, until we get funding off the backs of homeowners alone, and until we turn out a better product, I WILL NOT FOR ANOTHER LEVY. Let the state take it over. I don’t think they could do a worse job. Notice how the schools respond to Levy’s being voted down? They cut Bus Service, sports, very much like denying the City of Dayton an increase and seeing Firefighters and Police cut. Blackmail, pure and simple.
By Anne
March 18, 2007 11:56 PM | Link to this
Throw out property taxes, and have a state tax for anything anyone buys, and that would include those that depend on state assitance.
By Anne
March 18, 2007 11:50 PM | Link to this
Compare cost per student of Dayton schools and surrounding communities, Dayton is higher. Dayton schools have commercials reminding parent to send their kids to school, during audit times so they don’t lose state money. That’s our taxes people. The difference in Dayton schools and so called richer schools, is the parent make sure the kids go everyday, and not just when audits are done. More money will not help. It starts at home.
By Fred
March 18, 2007 11:02 PM | Link to this
Everyone keeps taking about how to “fund” education. I’ll bet 99% of those reading these articles don’t have a clue as to how every penny is spent at your local school. Lets start with teachers and administrators salaries. Then add their benefits which add anywhere from 30-40% MORE ! I laugh at the first comment by a teacher to suggest raising taxes to pay for schools, expecially when they enjoy benefit packages that us taxpayers will never see.
By lynda
March 18, 2007 8:40 PM | Link to this
As a teacher for the past 18 years in both a poor district and an upper class district,I have seen the unfairness of the property owners being responsible for the funding of schools. The only fair way is to get the funding from increased sales taxes and state income taxes. Also, the increased number of school buildings needed,due to more housing,should be funded completely by a surcharge on each new house.
By Siquomb
March 18, 2007 8:08 PM | Link to this
I wonder about the financial comparisons in this article, such as comparing Preble County districts to Kettering. How carefully were these number compared, was it an apples-to-apples comparison? Did they separate out capital expenses? In other words, only routine operating expenses should be compared, not expenses for building new schools, facilities, etc.
By wrightflyer
March 18, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this
Then the middle districts will (pardon the clichè) find themselves up a creek without a paddle. Then it wouldn’t surprise me if all of the money for the OSFC disappeared and those at the bottom of the list with growing pains will be cheated out completly.
By wrightflyer
March 18, 2007 7:10 PM | Link to this
I find the list for the OSFC to be a joke. It leaves fast growing districts in a bind as they can’t expand their facilities without going to the property owners every five years! It’s just as Minster said with the middle-class districts. What scares me about this amendment is the faact that the supporters refuse to name a fund source. Wouldn’t surprise me that if it passed and they found no funding, the politicians will turn to the wealthy and middle-class districts for their tax dollars.
By robbie
March 18, 2007 5:59 PM | Link to this
What is really sad is that there have only been 8 comments posted on the is very important article. How many posted comments on the article about Colleen Sullivan and Princess Di’s brother? Wake up Ohioans!! The comment made earlier by Mister was right on the mark. The middle class is suffering the most and thank God we have good, professional teachers to help our students out. Furthermore, the personal tangible tax is being phases out which will hurt these middle class districts further.
By Mister
March 18, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
The real group hurt by our school funding system is the middle class. Poor districts get all the handouts, and the very richest districts can pay for whatever they want. The only reason many middle-class districts perform well is that highly qualified teachers want to live and work in those communities, so they will teach even if it means teaching in obsolete buildings with overcrowded classrooms and zero resources. Most middle-class districts can barely keep their heads above water.
By matt
March 18, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Strickland ran for Governor for 2 years before he was elected. I was extremely disappointed to see him not unveil any fundamental changes at this point and I have to conclude that Democrats enjoy playing political games with school funding and aren’t serious about fixes. At least the GOP pumped more money into the system, raised taxes for it, and fixed one of the largest problems: the crumbling facilities.
By Rick
March 18, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
The proposed amendment would be disaster, the fox guarding the hen house. It is the dream of the teacher unions, school boards, and educrats.
By Buford
March 18, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Those who could, or should, have changed the school funding system have chosen not to do so over the past ten years - since the first Ohio Supreme Court decision on property taxes as a primary means of school funding. The result is the various school boards continue to go back to the voters and ask for more money. In Dayton, property owners are at significant disadvantage in such a system - since so many voters are renters and on various forms of public assistance.
By Mick
March 18, 2007 9:17 AM | Link to this
The current method of funding schools may not be ideal, but the proposed constitutional amendment is not the way to “fix” school funding. I have spent a lot of time analyzing the proposed amendment - certainly much more time than many who have jumped on the amendment bandwagon. The language of this amendment will present a lot of problems that its supporters wil not want to talk about. Their campaign is called “Getting It Right”, but they got it way wrong.
By Lindsey
March 18, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this
repulicans are worried about mexicans taking over well maybe they will be smarter than our own kids. we are in this together. it seems as thought republicans always think of themselves only. the kids are the countrys future. the reason people dont care is because the lawmakers dont care. no one cares.
By Walt
March 18, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
School funding issues in Ohio have not been resolved because of the Repbulican dominated legislature operating with no checks~n~balances. The Republicans have been hell-bent on dismantling public education in Ohio for years. November saw the change of executive leadership in state elected offices, we now need to finish the job on the legislative side.
By Michael
March 18, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this
No matter how many times lawmakers say they’ve pumped this money or that money into the system, they still have failed to comply with the court’s order to change the over-reliance on property taxes. That is what makes the system unfair. Going to countywide school districts or some similar system of sharing the wealth in a general geographic area seems more equitable.