2009 Ohio State football
Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > March > 18 > Entry
When more might actually be cheaper
The math seems real simple.
Ohio has 88 counties and 613 school districts. That’s an average of seven districts per county even though most of those counties are small and many are sparsely populated.
It would HAVE to be a money saver to consolidate most of those districts. Even if Ohio couldn’t get down one school district per county, suppose it could reduce to, say, 200 school districts. Eliminating the duplication of services of having 400 extra school districts would HAVE to save the state money.
Maybe the savings could even be great enough to solve Ohio’s school funding problems? I’m not the only one who thought that way.
But when we got into the numbers, it was remarkable how flimsy the case for consolidation became.
When we were planning Sunday’s package on school funding my colleague William Hershey and I started with a simple approach. We wanted to look back at the 10 years since the first court ruling, explain the proposed constitutional amendment and the legislature’s response.
That’s when editor John Erickson challenged us. What other ideas were out there, he asked. Were there other solutions to school funding? Perhaps something that’s been tried in another state?
Hershey and I agreed that there is frequent talk among legislators about the idea of consolidating school districts, something that’s been increasingly tried in other states. Erickson was sold and off we went to explore if this could work in Ohio.
What we found, frankly, suprised me. I expected that consolidation almost certainly would save significant money. The question would be whether that move would be a smart idea educationally. Or so I thought.
As you can see in the story, the numbers just didn’t add up. When we combined the spending of very small school districts, there was a modest savings when compared to a school district of roughly the same enrollment. But not a huge savings.
And as we looked at small counties that were just slightly larger, the better those counties looked when their spending was compared to larger school districts of about the same enrollment.
I decided to talk to Russia (pronounced Ru-shee here in Ohio), the Miami Valley’s tiniest school district but also one of its best scoring and lowest spending. Superintendent Michael Moore said Russia has done everything it can to keep expenses down. It makes purchases and shares services with other districts already through the Shelby County Educational Service Center. And it is very careful with its spending. There’s not much more to the administration beyond Moore and the school principals.
If you read the story, you’ll see the numbers for yourself. As districts consolidate, they tend to add more administrators, rather than pare down. I found that surprising, and fascinating.
But I’m wondering if there are other views out there. If you believe in consolidation and think it would be a good idea, I’d like to hear from you. Post a comment and try to persuade me that it could still save money.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: My Favorite Posts, School Funding
Comments
By Dave
March 21, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
My nephew graduated (in the early 80s) from a vo-tech high school in the northwest corner of the state, which was a joint venture between the schools of 4 counties (to keep costs reasonable). It worked pretty well, but the additional transit time cut deeply into the number and type of courses students could take.By Oldprof
March 20, 2007 10:11 PM | Link to this
If you’re going to consolidate, why stop at counties—do the whole state! But look, everyone can agree that there are too many administrators—so Scott, why not next time you look into administrative bloat? Compare the proportion of principals, vice principals, assistant managers and curriculum leaders, etc., now to what Dayton (and others) had in 1960 and 1980. Track how many special government initiatives tie their funding to the hiring of still more administrators. Figure out what some of those administrators actually do. Let me get you started—I started my college education at a school roughly identical to the one I teach in now. My school back then had a president, his secretary, a few people in registration with a manager, and a secretary who handled all of student activities and financial aid. My workplace now has a president, four or five VPs, three deans, four or five associate deans, a financial aid staff of five, coordinators of tutoring center, student activities, transfer, disabilities, and more and more and more…any wonder why tuition is high?By Charterschool Hater
March 20, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
While I am not a school teacher the comment about teachers believing they have an entitlement I think is way off base. Teachers and indeed all school employees only want what we all want. That is financial security for themselves and their families. I believe consolidation of schools is a good thing. Maybe if the Dayton Schools were consolidated under some other superintedent and board, more money would be wisley spent on the people and services that directly impact students performance. I am still trying to figure out what an office full of staff in the Dps superintendent’s office has to do with educating a student. That goes for 4 transportation supervisors and 2 assistant manage/directors. By the way what is the difference between a director and an assistant manager? While were at it, what does 2 dispatchers and 3 routers have to do with educating students? I know you need some of these people but we are asking for a levy here. Austerity is the word of the day and the transportation department is having none of it. That speaks nothing of the teachers aide union president working in a un-needed position of a parent liason who runs around town in a tax payer paid van going to Cub Foods and other places on our dime. While we are at it, the sister department of transportation has two former transporation assitant manager/manager who could not cut it in transporation gobbling a large salary. Where I come from, if you can’t cut the mustard, you get out. Maybe if the Dayton Schools merged with say Kettering or Oakwood there wouldn’t be this waste, duplcation, or creation of positions to reward a union official. The superintendent and the people in charge of transportation and operations should be made to explain themselves to the tax paying public. WHY WASTE OUR MONEY?? But remember they can’t even educate students well. What makes you think that they can manage our money any better. Dayton Public Schools want a levy? Not gonna happen!! I VOTE NO!!By sshome
March 20, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
I think schools need to be community based to minimize travel times for the kids. You example of Russia is a good example of what can be accomplished with shared services. If schools truly started to share services (janitorial, transportation, technology etc) including adminstrators it will not only reduce costs but will encourage consolidations and collaborations at an organic level versus being manadated by the state.By Rick
March 19, 2007 7:20 PM | Link to this
Larry, I could not agree with you more. When many rural districts consolidated, they lost a sense of community. We in Dayton experienced a similar situation with busing.By david
March 19, 2007 6:39 PM | Link to this
The small districts tend to use the county school offices for support services. When the cost of these is included for each of the small districts, consolidating small disticts would definitely be a cost saving procedure. The problem is the one superintendent has several friends to put into offices that pay a large salary and the one superintendent has to be paid more since it’s a larger district and they soon end up looking like Dayton City. An example of three small districts would be Jefferson, Valley View and New Lebanon that could be consolidated and don’t bloat administration and have an ideal sized larger school and save the state lots of money.By Lee Dixon
March 19, 2007 6:22 PM | Link to this
Many school districts in Indiana consolidated in the 1960’s. I think it generally worked, although there was a lot of anxiety. However, each decision was determined by the voters in the area, not by state edict. I think most people in Florida would agree that large, impersonal, countywide school districts are a mistake. Nobody seems to trust school boards other than those in rural counties. When you can’t meet a school board member in the grocery, or at church, or at numerous other local venues, your district is too big. Florida’s problem is how to unravel countywide school districts… the fight to avoid high poverty areas would be tremendous.By SchoolSupporter
March 19, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
One more thing… Those small district superintendents are genuine Sheriff Taylor types, and schools are central to their communities. The story you ought not miss is the Madison, WI Reading First scandal, reported by kderosa. Since U Wisconsin is the sort of ed school many Ohio ed deans might aspire to emulate, it�s important to know that politically motivated reading curriculum denies a fundamental right to schoolchildren in their own backyard. If you want to save some money in public K12, get the ed schools on board.By SchoolSupporter
March 19, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Scott, I thought you’d lost your mind. Thanks for clarifying that it just ain’t so. Ask Talawanda how they feel about consolidation. The district (and most parents and students) like the consolidated district, but a few years ago, the Oxford township and city attempted to secede. In an odd way, this demonstrates your point: the townships outside of Oxford keep Talawanda’s costs down by voting down levies. But the scale of economy arguments don’t hold up. Moreover, there’s no reason to consolidate many small poor districts to make one larger poor district. Since Ohio’s regional delivery system already addresses economies of scale, consolidation simply makes it harder for individuals to be heard and for superintendents to lead. If you figure out how to consolidate Beachwood and Belpre, now that would help. BTW, some of the folks in Oxford wanted to deconsolidate so Oxford could vote more money for schools to fund the programs that new teachers learn about at Miami University. An interesting question for education deans is whether their programs reflect the educational cost effectiveness expected by legislators.By Happy Homeschooler
March 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
I think that possibly combining some services, but not actual buildings may work. You mentioned the Shelby Educational Services- when I lived in Preble county, they did the same type of thing. (They may still be doing it). They had one service center, they shared various therapists between the schools, etc. As far as actually consolidating buildings, that would just extend the school day for those poor kids by making them travel farther to and from school. Some kids already spend an hour each way on the school bus, and they really don’t need their day extended any more. It’s hard enough for kids to have time to relax after trying to do homework and extra-curriculars in the evenings. They need time to just be kids.By Mary
March 19, 2007 8:35 AM | Link to this
Consolidation could either save or spend more money depending on attitude and how it is done. This is how I think consolidation has been misused to drive up costs, instead of saving. Size and impersonal environment tends to create specialists and inefficient bureaucrats, rather than enabling doers. Largeness or size is used to justify higher salaries for superintendents, principals, and add administrative support staff even though they are essentially performing similar functions to smaller districts. Our local high school of around 2000 has a principal and 3 or 4 assistant principals. So has size or consolidation saved staff? Does not seem like it has. So the tax payer is paying for more staff and higher salaries among staff because we are a large district. Then it becomes an attitude throughout the district even though the hours, and function are essentially the same. Then we have to have higher falutin athletic directors focussed on Division I sports teams and who do not have any assigned school day functions. We also have gifted intervention specialists to work with regular classroom teachers without gifted ed credentials. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just hire teachers with the right credentials in the self-contained classroom. There are many other examples. It is not just size that creates the inefficiences, but how we approach the job and the concepts of consolidation and efficiency.By Sherman Dorn
March 19, 2007 6:47 AM | Link to this
Forgot to add: nice legwork on the article!By Sherman Dorn
March 19, 2007 6:43 AM | Link to this
You did talk to Craig and Aimee Howley about this, right? They’re some of the nation’s foremost researchers on rural school consolidation and district size, and they’re at Ohio University.By Larry
March 19, 2007 5:07 AM | Link to this
While there will be some savings with consolidation. The amount saved will not be as great as anticipated. The costs associated with consolidated districts are big; additional bussing, additional non-learning time for student being transported, less community support and involvement in education as the reality of “networking” from county line to county line becomes into play. Imagine a PTO functioning where parents 25 miles apart must come together. What is missing is that educators, primarily as result union influence, have developed an entitlement attitude. Little or no effort is made to control costs or explore effective methods to increase educational efficiences. How can the same teacher impact more students? Distant learning is the buzz word - but has not proven to be effective tool in delivering a good product.