In many areas of government, bigger is better, as parks and libraries are proving in several areas in our state. But be careful not to carelessly transfer that theory to public schs. This debate often revolves around numbers, but a more responsible examination would be based on people.
Perceived improvements to infrastructure are very common in the political arena of sch closures, a.k.a., consolidation, as “consultants” typically explain to sch boards how consolidation will spare taxpayers from additional property tax increases to maintain their existing schs, and suggest that larger consolidated schs can also provide better facilities for stdnts.
And in some ways, if a new central sch is built with a larger enrollment where more things can be done for kids, it actually might draw people back into communities – attributed in part to a centralized campus and an updated facilities — which prospective families often base their first impressions of a district upon. Consolidation can also have benefits on curriculum growth and staff effectiveness.
And it’s often suggested districts could stand to save $$$ operationally over time through consolidation. It’s not very efficient to run 2 small elementary schs. It’s going to cost more $$$ to operate them in the long run. Not surprisingly, the rate of savings diminishes as the size of the combined schs increases, reaching a point of diminishing return, and then moving rather quickly to a point at which the sch is so large that it becomes inefficient and administrative costs increase. Consolidation is not a magic bullet to “efficiency.”
But perhaps the most detrimental consequence of consolidation is an overall loss of community ID. Important considerations for districts and communities as consolidation discussions present themselves are (1) citizens may find decisions to elect sch board members to the newly consolidated sch based on changes in district boundaries to be confusing, further adding to a perception of loss of local control; (2) anxiety may increase during board elections, as constituents simultaneously vote for or against representation on the newly reconstituted sch board; (3) local citizens may be concerned that a disparity in representation across the geographic confines of the previous sch may occur on the new sch board.
In summarizing, a balance between costs, achievement, social, and political considerations must be maintained as district leaders explore the impact of consolidation. Questions and concerns that need to be asked and addressed are …
1. Is it more cost effective to reduce the need for more duplication in administration, transportation, and other services, and the affect this has on stdnt performance and ID;
2. And, or is the idea that joining together provides for more opportunities for stdnts;
3. And, or is this district push for consolidation designed to serve a PR purpose during economic difficulties, based on claims that cannot be supported solely by data?
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
