Consolidation May Not Cut School Costs 
By Robert Maynard 

The March 7^th Editorial from the Caledonia Record, linked to in this edition of TrueNorthRadio.com, raises questions about "a monster education/property tax bill gestating in Montpelier's legislative belly". Although not explicitly labeled as such, many of the questions are related to the scheme of "consolidation". Basically the notion is that Vermont’s school system is too "inefficient" and "costly" and the solution to this problem is to "consolidate" our school system into fewer districts. For a history of how this idea keeps popping up, I recommend a June 2006 Commentary by the Ethan Allen Institute’s John McClaughry entitled "The Perils of Consolidation". http://www.ethanallen.org/home.html

McClaughry is not the only one to warn against school consolidation, nor are Vermont’s political leadership the only ones to be lured by the siren song of increased efficiency and lower cost via school consolidation. As a result of research on school size a report entitled Dollars and Sense: The Cost-Effectiveness of Small Schools, was published in September 2002 by the KnowledgeWorks Foundation. This has been followed up by "Dollars & Sernse II" The authors of the report note that "Many decision-makers ... are reluctant to embrace small schools for fear they are not economical and place an unnecessarily heavy burden on taxpayers," The report shows "there are many economic arguments in support of small schools and that it is fiscally responsible to spend school construction dollars on small school facilities."

In fact, according the Heartland Institute, a review of the research shows that investing in smaller rather than larger schools is a wise move when the cost per graduate is taken into account.

In making the case that small schools are not cost-prohibitive, the report identifies educational and social benefits of small schools and contrasts these with the negative effects large schools have on students, teachers, and members of the community.

They go on to point out that as a consequence of school district consolidation between 1950 and 1975, the number of public schools in the U.S. has declined dramatically over the past half century, and the size of the average school increased from just over 100 students to well over 600. Many high schools now enroll more than 1,000 students.

Although the trend towards larger and larger schools continues to this day, it has not been driven by studies showing the benefits of larger schools. In fact, it has been more than three decades since a study was published recommending larger schools, according to Indiana University researcher Tom Gregory. What drives the creation of larger schools, the report suggests, are the following state policies:

• minimum enrollment qualifications for state funding of school facilities;

• excessive acreage requirements, which tend to push officials to consolidate smaller schools;

• policies that discourage renovation and maintenance of older schools by triggering new construction when renovation costs exceed a certain level.

Studies have shown small schools can operate more flexibly and more responsively than large schools because there is less formal bureaucracy. Students and teachers in small schools know each other better, there are higher levels of teacher satisfaction, and community members are more involved with the schools.

"There is less violence in small schools, less vandalism, a heightened sense of belonging, and better attendance," the report states. "Students earn higher grade point averages, and more participate in extracurricular activities."

One of the most important characteristics of small schools is that their dropout rates tend to be lower than those for large schools. Besides having a profound effect on the lives of the students, lower dropout rates have a profound effect on the cost-effectiveness of small versus large schools.

For example, when reseachers at New York University's Institute for Education and Social Policy examined 1995-96 data for 128 high schools, they found schools with fewer than 600 students spent $7,628 annually per student, while larger schools spent only $6,218.

But when the researchers took dropout rates into account, they discovered the cost per graduate at the small schools was slightly lower than the per-graduate cost at the larger schools.

Other researchers also have reported higher graduation rates in smaller schools, including those serving poor students, and higher percentages of graduates going on to post-secondary education.

"Large schools are expensive to individuals, their communities, and the nation because there are many hidden costs," the report concludes. It urges communities and policymakers to "treasure their small schools" and protect them with sound policies and financial support.

In light of this drive towards consolidation, it is instructive to note the response of some of our political leadership to a Fordham Foundation Report of last year on the student achievement gap and reform efforts aimed at fixing that gap.  Vermont got an "F" and ranked dead last at 50. One of the reforms advocated by the Foundation was establishing Charter Schools to provide competition and accountability. Witness the following from the report:

‘Though charter schools have successfully raised achievement scores of low-income and minority children in many states, Vermont’s leaders are steadfastly opposed to them. Legislators on both sides of the aisle interviewed for this story agree: Vermont doesn’t need them because, they insist, the schools aren’t failing and small-town dynamics ensure ongoing accountability. "Establishing charter schools … within large urban school districts might be called reform" in some states, says former Rep. George Cross, chair of the state’s House Education Committee. But in Vermont, this isn’t necessary. "Local control and democratically conducted elections [of school board members] on an annual basis," he contends, ensure accountability for each school’s performance.’

Which is it? Does our system of "local control" provide us with an edge in accountability, or is it inefficient and in need of "consolidation"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Robert Maynard is an Editor of TrueNorthRadio.com