|
The consolidation of rural schools in the
United States has been a controversial topic for policy-makers, school
administrators, and rural communities since the l800s. At issue in the
consolidation movement have been concerns of efficiency, economics, student
achievement, school size, and community identity. Throughout the history of
schooling in America, school consolidation has been a way to solve rural
issues in the eyes of policy makers and many education officials. Today,
faced with declining enrollments and financial cutbacks, many rural schools
and communities continue to deal with challenges associated with possible
school reorganizations and consolidations.
This paper, developed by the NREA Consolidation Task Force, provides a
review of the literature on rural school consolidation, defines
consolidation, addresses current research and issues related to
consolidation with respect to school size, economies of scale, and student
achievement, and concludes with proposed recommendations for the NREA
Executive Board.
Factors Leading to Interest in Consolidation
As early as the mid 1800’s, consolidation of schools was thought to provide
students a more thorough education by eliminating small schools in favor of
large ones (Potter, 1987). Legislation providing free public transportation
was passed by the state of Massachusetts in 1869, paving the way for
consolidation of rural schools. The invention of the automobile and paving
of roads allowed students to travel longer distances in shorter amounts of
time, decreasing the need for the many one-room schools built by early
settlers.
The rise of industry in urban areas in the
late nineteenth century contributed to the school consolidation movement.
The prevailing belief during the industrial revolution was that education
could contribute to an optimal social order using organizational techniques
adapted from industry (Orr, 1992). Early school reformers and policy makers
felt that an industrialized society required all schools to look alike, and
began to advocate more of an urban, centralized model of education (Kay,
Hargood, & Russell, 1982). Larger schools were seen as more economical and
efficient, which was defined in terms of economy of scale. As a result of
this thinking, urban and larger schools were adopted as the “one best
model,” and from this context rural schools were judged deficient.
Along with policies advocating an urban “one
best system,” model of education came studies on appropriateness of size.
Conant (1959) determined that in order to offer the best possible college
preparatory curriculum, a high school should have at least 100 students in
its graduating class. Conant stated that the most outstanding problem in
education was the small high school, and that the elimination of small high
schools would result in increased cost-effectiveness and greater curricular
offerings. Many who research trends in school consolidation believe that
Conant’s study and subsequent book The American High School Today,
contributed much to the move toward school consolidation (Smith and DeYoung,
1988; Pittman and Haughwout, 1987; Stockard and Mayberry, 1992; Walberg,
1992; Williams, 1990).
In addition to policy-makers and education
professionals, private businesses, in the interest of financial gain, have
encouraged school consolidation. International Harvester Company, a major
promoter of school consolidation in the 1 930s, produced a catalog with
several pages devoted to its promotion of newly manufactured International
Harvester school buses (White, 1981). These business- government linkages in
support of school consolidation are still evident today. In West Virginia,
the legislature appointed a School Building Authority (SBA), to fund capital
improvements for school districts. In order to gain approval from the SBA
for improvements, districts had to meet mandated enrollment levels set by
the state, which forced consolidation of small schools. Once consolidated,
schools were then given funds for the construction of new schools or
substantial remodeling of existing schools to meet new and larger class size
requirements. The public was not in favor of this “forced” consolidation
approach, and as opposition began to grow, the governor, a proponent of
consolidation and supportive of private industry, responded by appointing a
representative from the construction industry to the SBA board (DeYoung &
IHiowley, 1992; Purdy, 1992).
The political climate in which consolidation
efforts have flourished has also been based on international competitiveness
(DeYoung, 1989; Spring, 1987). Both Sputnik and the Cold War created
increased concerns that small high schools, most of which were rural, were
not developing the kind of human capital needed to promote national security
(Ravitch, 1983). Large schools continued to be touted as the best way to
efficiently and effectively educate the nation’s young people. Believing
that professionals knew better about educating children, experts were more
interested in centralizing control rather than leaving decisions to members
of a local community. “The easiest way to curb the influence of school
trustees in these rural districts was to abolish as many districts as
possible--- or, euphemistically, to consolidate them” (Tyack, 1999, p. 4).
Parents and educators in rural communities who were interested in preparing
students for life rather than educating them as “human capital” to
contribute more to the nation’s well being, were considered backward and not
knowledgeable enough to know what was best for education. Cubberly (1914)
attested that,
the rural school is today in a state of
arrested development, burdened by education traditions, lacking in effective
supervision, controlled largely by rural people, who, too often, do not
realize either their own needs or the possibilities of rural education.
(Cited in Theobald and Nachtigal, 1995, p. 132)
A series of economic downturns in rural
areas contributed further to the emphasis on school consolidation. Rural
economic decline during the decade of 1970-1980 created more migration
toward jobs in urban areas. (Smith, 1974) noted that from 1933 to 1970 the
net migration from farms was more than 30 million people. As a result, rural
public school enrollment declined and the cost of educating rural students
started to rise. Declining enrollments and increased costs resulted in a
financial crisis for many rural school districts. In order to save teacher
jobs and maintain quality curricula, some school districts began voluntarily
consolidating programs and facilities. The farm crisis of the 1980s led to
the loss of family farms, as modern farming techniques depended increasingly
upon profits possible only through large-scale operations. The economic
decline in agriculture created a ripple effect on non-farm economies in
rural communities, again resulting in declining school enrollments and the
loss of more rural graduates to urban areas where work was more plentiful (Lasley,
et al, 1995).
The driving force behind school reform in
the l980s was the Nation at Risk report. As society became more complex,
proponents of educational reform continued to echo previous thoughts that
schools should be producing students who had the skills and values to
contribute to a national, social economic order (DeYoung & Howley, 1992).
The justification for closing or reorganizing rural schools is still
prevalent in the minds of policy-makers and educational professionals today,
and a major concern for many rural communities (DeYoung & Howley, 1992).
Theobald (2002) states,
…consolidation has been a defining
characteristic of educational history throughout the twentieth century. This
characteristic was driven by a powerful assumption, albeit an
unsubstantiated one, concerning the best way to go about the business of
public schooling. And that assumption is that “bigger is better.” Throughout
the century, this unsupported educational policy was vehemently espoused
even though it was demonstrably unkind to communities.”
(Cited in Theobald, 2002).
Though consolidation has been and continues
to be a factor in public education, it has not occurred without concerns for
both the students and communities affected. Studies found that when
community interests were ignored during consolidation proceedings,
educational absenteeism and community disintegration increased. Schools were
no longer seen as contributors to the local community, as the “best and
brightest” students were leaving for higher paying jobs in urban areas
(Henderson & Gomez, 1975). Researchers who attempt to disprove the notion of
“bigger is better” argue that school consolidation actually creates greater
hardships for families as children leave familiar neighborhoods, additional
taxes are levied to support mergers and larger facilities built (Krietlow,
1966; Sher, 1992; DeYoung & Rowley, 1992; Rowley & Eckman, 1997).
Consolidation Defined
Researchers and the public use a
variety of terms to describe the consolidation process. Fitzwater (1953)
defines consolidation as “the merging of two or more attendance areas to
form a larger school” (cited in Peshkin, 1982, p. 4). Reorganization
involves “combining two or more previously independent school districts in
one new and larger school system” (p. 4). In Kansas, efforts to decrease the
number of schools in the 1960s were referred to as unification (House Bill
377). Reorganized school districts were called “unified school districts” as
opposed to consolidated districts or reorganized districts.
Despite the terminology chosen by
researchers or bureaucrats, most community members continue to use the term
“consolidation” when referring to any type of school unification,
reorganization, or merger. Policy-makers and others, including the press
frequently attempt to clarify the differences in the terminology. A news
article in the Protection, Kansas Press in 1964 responded to community
concerns about consolidation by emphasizing that the 1964 vote on
unification would not close any Protection schools, and was a “unification,
not a consolidation (Herd & Wait, 1964). However, thirty-five years later,
residents still spoke of the school district reorganization as a
consolidation. It appears to be the assumed “definition” for most rural
community residents. Regardless of the term defined in the literature, the
perception by many affected by the consolidation or reorganization process
is that “someone wins and someone loses” as a result of the process.
Resistance to Consolidation
The literature on community reaction to consolidation has focused on
community resistance to school mergers or closings. Phrases such as “loss of
community identity” or “loss of community attachment” are common (Peshkin,
1978; Fitchen, 1991; Biere, 1995; Nachtigal, 1982; Luloff and Swanson,
1990). Peshkin’s study of the Mansfield, Illinois community illustrates the
intensity with which many communities guard the identity affirmed by
schools. “Mansfield has a hard enough time now keeping on the map. If they
moved the school, it’d be much harder. People go to things at school now
even if they don’t have kids in school. This is a football town and people
know the kids. I’d hate to see consolidation. I like things the way they
are” (Peshkin, 1978).
Studies on planning for consolidation are
scarce, and deal mainly with planning from an administrator’s point of view.
A 1995 study of Oklahoma superintendents on school consolidation planning
revealed that successful consolidation strategies involved joint student
body activities, a consolidation plan, maintaining all school sites, and
community meetings designed to allow open communication were “vital to the
consolidation process” (Chance & Cummins, 1998). A 1992 case study of a
school district consolidation found that lack of understanding of local
culture resulted in resistance from community members about consolidation
issues (Ward & Rink, 1992). A study of eight communities in North Dakota
that had experienced school consolidations showed that the most important
factor in easing the process of consolidation was holding public meetings
(Sell; Lesitritz; & Thompson, 1996).
The dialogue surrounding school
consolidation has, to some extent, become polarized. At one extreme, state
policy-makers and, to a lesser extent, school officials point to the
inefficiencies and more limited curricula common to small schools. At the
other extreme, community members argue that the loss of the school means the
loss of the community, and the discussion continues to be cast into a
win-lose framework.
Research Questions the Appropriateness of
Consolidation
Researchers of school
consolidation are divided on the merits of the consolidation movement.
Proponents of consolidation believe that curricular and financial advantages
outweigh the negatives of school closings (Nelson, 1985). Critics of
consolidation argue that “under the rubric of school improvement, many
places that once provided school no longer do; for they have been improved
out of existence” (DeYoung & Howley, 1992, p. 3).
Sher (1992) reports that “the majority of
research on school consolidation was done by those wanting to perpetuate the
urban, industrialized mind set, and to convince others to believe that
consolidation was worthy “rather than try to find some objective truth” (Sher,
p. 75). According to Sher and Tompkins (1978), the consolidation movement
was considered successful by some because no one in the literature had
challenged the research that bigger schools gave a more quality education.
“Education professionals genuinely regarded consolidation as a panacea, and
consequently displayed considerable zeal in developing consolidation plans,
marshaling favorable evidence, and lobbying in its behalf with state and
local policymaking bodies” (Sher & Tompkins, p. 1).
Numerous projects have been undertaken to
bring attention to the uniqueness and strengths of rural and small schools.
In the 1950s, the Rocky Mountain Area Project (RMAP) in Colorado was
developed to show that some schools were “necessarily existent” by virtue of
their geographic location (Nachtigal, 1982). Accessing funds from the Ford
Foundation and housed in the Colorado State Department of Education, RMAP
assisted schools that were necessarily existent with teaching strategies,
correspondence classes, and technology. However, funding caused these
schools to adhere to guidelines not necessarily developed from local schools
and communities. Twenty-two states made the idea of necessarily existent
small schools law, but nearly all have ceased to exist because external
funds were removed, personnel changed and the “one best system” model of
schools prevailed.
During the same decade, Columbia University
research showed that small schools had “strengths of smallness” not evident
in large schools (Nachtigal, 1982). The thought was that not only were small
schools necessary, their strengths included a higher number of students
involved in extra curricular activities, higher numbers of students taking
academic courses, more attention by teachers due to lower pupil teacher
ratio, and students who had a close connection to their communities.
Nachtigal says that research is affirming these strengths. Research does not
appear to support the assumption that the quality of school life is better
when small schools consolidate or with larger schools. In fact, one thought
Nachtigal presents is that when consolidation happens, board of education
members are responsible for more constituents than before.
The relationship of the public school to the
community and the role of the school in sustaining the community have also
been a concern for those opposed to consolidation efforts. fivento (1990)
says that the public school is important to the rural community both
socially and economically. Socially, schools in rural areas tend to be the
only source of social activity. Economically, the school many times is the
largest employer in a rural community. The school can also be the focus of
many community activities as well as school activities. Ilvento stresses the
importance of connecting the rural school to the community through the
curriculum, and the need for flexibility in policies to meet local needs.
Although opponents of school consolidation
can be “zealous” in their collection and interpretation of data, studies
over the past twenty years have created a more balanced analysis of school
consolidation. Fox’s 1981 study of educational costs as a function of school
size yielded a U- shaped curve in which both the very small and the very
large schools were the most expensive to operate. Urban school
administrators themselves have turned to creating “schools within schools,”
concluding that large schools create an impersonal climate that contributes
to school failure for some students.
Recent Interest in Consolidation
Despite evidence supporting the advantages of small schools, the situation
for small and rural schools continues to be a topic of concern. Declining
enrollments and budget constraints are forcing remaining rural school
districts and communities to face the possibility of consolidation.
State policy makers and reformers continue
to debate and even promote issues of school consolidation, although
strategies have been developed that, on the surface, allow local choice.
“Although most citizens approved of local control, in the 20th century most
elite reformers did not. These professional leaders wanted to dampen, not
increase, lay participation in democratic decision making” (Tyack, 1999, p.
2). As an example, Purdy (1992) argued that the West Virginia School
Building Authority was a tool used by the legislature to force consolidation
on West Virginia schools.
As states look toward future enrollment
declines, many have reduced the number of rural districts in efforts to meet
challenges associated with projected budget deficits. Manzo (1999) stated
that in Wyoming, which had 48 districts, legislators proposed elimination of
10 more districts in order to deal with budget concerns. Districts in Iowa
have been reduced from 438 to 377 in the past 14 years. According to a
recent report in West Virginia on school consolidation, over 300 schools
have been closed since 1990 (Eyre & Finn, 2002). The Kansas legislature made
a decision to undertake a school district boundary study in 2000 and the
current mood of the legislature in 2005 is to re-examine consolidation
issues. Regardless of the motive, rural school districts continue to be
under scrutiny as to their academic and economic effectiveness.
Recent Studies on School or District Size
Lawrence et al. (2002) indicated that a district should have an enrollment
of 4000 to 5000 students as a maximum. Imerman and Otto (2003) recommended
that school districts should not fall below an enrollment of 750 students.
Most of the studies cited were based on per pupil costs. Augenblick and
Myers (2001) reported that in order to offer a safe and nurturing
environment, an appropriate curriculum, and extracurricular activities, a
district should have an enrollment between 260 and 2,925 students. Other
research reviews suggest a maximum of 300-400 students for elementary
schools and 400-800 for secondary schools. If the study focused on social
and emotional aspects of success, then the research indicated that no school
should be larger than 500. Research by Howley and Bickel (2000) indicated
that the lower the socioeconomic status of the students and/or district,
then the school enrollment should be small. From reviewing the literature,
it appears that there is not an ideal or optimal district or school size
that is universally agreed upon.
Economies of Scale
In studies from 1960 through 2004, there has not been evidence that
consolidation of small districts into larger districts has necessarily
reduced fiscal expenditures per pupil (Hirsch, 1960; Sher and Tompkins,
1977; Valencia, 1984; Jewell, 1989; Kennedy et al., 1989; Eyre and Scott,
2002; Reeves, 2004). The Rural School and Community Trust concluded:
“School consolidation produces less fiscal
benefit and greater fiscal cost than it promises. While some costs,
particularly administrative costs may decline in the short run, they are
replaced by other expenditures, especially transportation and more
specialized staff. The loss of a school also negatively affects the tax base
and fiscal capacity of the district. These costs are often borne
disproportionately by low-income and minority communities.”
Mary Anne Raywid concluded that, “When
viewed on a cost-per-student basis, they (small schools) are somewhat more
expensive. But when examined on the basis of the number of students they
graduate, they are less expensive than either medium-sized or large high
schools.” (1999, p.2, EDO-RC-98-8). Funk et al. (1999) indicated that
dropouts are three times more likely to be unemployed; two and a half more
likely to receive welfare benefits, and over three times more likely to be
in prison than high school graduates with no college. Therefore, “small
schools help increase the number of economically productive adults and cut
government costs.” (The Rural School and Community Trust, 2004).
A study by Lyson (2002) looked at the fiscal
impact and socioeconomic effects of consolidation on communities in New
York, most of which once had a school. He found that towns that lost their
school had a lower social and fiscal capacity compared to towns that
maintained their schools. Other reports have also indicated that when a
community loses a school, the tax base and fiscal capacity of the district
is negatively affected. Most successful consolidations between districts
have maintained a school in each town involved. In many cases, the high
school has been located in one town while the elementary and/or
middle/junior high was located in the town of the second consolidated
district. Therefore, both towns maintain a school which lessens the
socioeconomic and fiscal impact of the consolidation.
Bussing students to and from schools adds
another dimension to the consolidation issue. Lu and Tweeten (1973) found
that achievement scores were reduced by 2.6 points for fourth-grade students
or every hour spent riding a bus. High school students were not affected as
adversely as students in elementary school, losing onlyO.5 points per hour
spent riding a bus.
Eyre and Finn (2002) tell the story of a 4
year-old preschooler who rides the bus for 1 hour and 20 minutes each way-a
total of 2 hours and 40 minutes a day. The child leaves home at 6:30 and
gets home at 4:40 in the afternoon. In the winter the students are leaving
their homes in the dark and returning in the dark.
Jim Lewis (2004) writing for Challenge West
Virginia reported that students and parents observed that consolidated
schools, with their larger enrollment, caused some students to feet
anonymous resulting in students getting lost, falling behind and dropping
out. Those students who are not particularly outgoing, who don’t cause
discipline problems or are particularly outstanding in some area seem to
disappear and fall through the cracks. Others, because of the autonomy,
become anxious, unsure about themselves because of the separation from
family and friends, often do not do well academically, become discipline
problems, and cause them to give up on school and drop out.
Mr. Lewis (2004) further states that closing
of community-based schools has taken a real bite out of extracurricular
activities. The student must endure the long bus ride to school or drive to
school, attend the extracurricular activity, and then either take a late bus
home or drive home, tired and exhausted from the activity. Additionally,
some will not be able to participate because they would not be “good enough”
to make the team, whether it be an athletic activity, band, cheerleader,
acting, or being on a forensic team.
These studies and others have concluded that
one must consider not only the financial implications, but also the
implications of consolidation on student achievement, self- concept,
participation in extracurricular activities, dropout rates, and on the
community itself.
School Size and Student Achievement
Since there is not a universally
agreed upon school or district size, is there evidence that school size does
make a difference? A review of the literature certainly seems to indicate
that small schools and/or districts have advantages over larger schools
and/or districts.
Cotton (1996) built an impressive case for
the advantages of small schools by a quantitative study of the literature.
Her analysis indicated an advantage for small schools in the following
areas: achievement, attitude toward school, social behavior problems,
extracurricular participation, feelings of belongingness, interpersonal
relations, attendance, dropout rate, self-concept, and success in college
among others. Cotton lists eighteen major points as strengths of small
schools in the summary and conclusion of the report. Cotton further stated,
“the states with the largest schools and school districts have the worst
achievement, affective, and social outcomes.”
Research by Cox (2002), Lawrence et at.
(2002) and Howley and Bickel (2000) have all indicated a strong relationship
between school size and student achievement. Rowley (2000) stated that
“Recent literature relating district size to school performance rests almost
entirely on a indirect relationship in which socioeconomic status and size
work jointly to influence school performance.” Therefore, students from less
affluent communities appear to have better achievement in small schools.
Darling-Hamond as early as 1998 concluded that four factors affect student
achievement: smaller school size (300 to 500 students); smaller class size,
especially in elementary schools; challenging curriculum, and more highly
qualified teacher (as cited in Picard, 2003).
Conclusions and Recommendations
After a thorough study of the
history and research on school consolidation, it is the conclusion of the
Consolidation Task Force Committee that NREA continue to support the local
decision making process of rural school districts and oppose arbitrary
consolidation efforts at the state and local levels. NREA will not support
decisions made at the state level that mandate consolidation — this is a
violation of local control. Rural communities should make every possible
effort to maintain a physical school presence, and rural community and
school leaders should take into account every possible variable to decide if
“two are better than one.”
The NREA realizes that in some situations,
consolidation may be inevitable, as in situations where the population has
declined to the point that a quality education cannot be provided to all
students. However, rural schools and communities should work together to
form strong partnerships, examine all possible variables, and make
wellinformed decisions based on all possible data before embarking on the
path toward consolidation. Each district and each school is unique because
of location, culture or size. Before consolidation is considered, districts
should look in depth at the implications of fiscal, educational, and
community advantages and disadvantages. Consolidation should be a decision
by the local school districts. Sher (1988) wrote, “Still, there is no
evidence suggesting a compelling reason for the state to intervene by
encouraging—let alone MANDATING—such mergers.” In summary:
§
The educational and financial
results of state mandated school district consolidations do not meet
legislated expectations.
§
There is no “ideal” size for
schools or districts.
§
“Size” does not guarantee
success — effective schools come in all sizes.
§
Smaller districts have higher
achievement, affective and social outcomes.
§
The larger a district becomes,
the more resources are devoted to secondary or non-essential activities.
§
Local school officials should
be wary of merging several smaller elementary schools, at least if the goal
is improved performance.
§
After a school closure, out
migration, population decline, and neighborhood deterioration are set in
motion, and support for public education diminishes.
§
There is no solid foundation
for the belief that eliminating school districts will improve education,
enhance cost-effectiveness or promote equality.
§
Students from low income areas
have better achievement in small schools.
References
Altman, I. & Low, S. (Eds.), (1992).
Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press.
Anderson, D. (1993). A rural perspective
on school consolidation in Ontario, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
University of Toronto, Toronto.
Augenblick, J., Myers, J. & Silverstein,
3. (2001 ,January 10). A comprehensive study on the organization of
Kansas school districts. Prepared for the Kansas State Board of
Education in response to RFP Number 00241. Augenblick and Myers, Inc.
Axelrod, M. (February 1956). Urban
structure and social participation. American Sociological Review, 21,
13-18.
Beggs, J., Hurlbert, J., & Haines, V.
(1996). Community attachment in a rural setting: A refinement and empirical
test of the systemic model. Rural Sociology 61(3), 407- 426.
Biere, A. (1995). Community change.
In Lasley, et. al’s. Beyond the amber waves of rain. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Bushnell, M. (Fall, 1999). Imagining rural
life: Schooling as a sense of place. Journal ofResearch in Rural
Education, 15 (2), 80-89.
Camus (1955). The myth ofsisyphus.
New York: Vintage Books.
Chance, E., & Cummins, C. (Winter, 1998).
School/community survival: Successful strategies used in rural school
district consolidations. Rural Educator, 20(2) 1-7.
Conant, 3. (1959). The American
high school today: A first report to interested citizens. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Cotton, K. (1999) School size, school
climate, and student performance. School Improvement Research Series.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR. Retrieved from
Northwest Regional Education Laboratory Web site: http://www.nwre1.org/scpdJsirs/l0/c020.html
Cox, D. (January 2002). Big trouble:
Solving education problems means rethinking super-size districts and
schools. Retrieved Jan. 4, 2005 from the Sutherland Institute. Web site:
http://sutherlandinstitute.orglPublications/FocusonUtahl
SmallerDistrictslSmalleroistricts.htm
Crumbaker, D. (1980). Reorganization of
school districts: Late 1950s to present time. Paper presented at Kansas
State University Rural and Small School Conference, Manhattan, KS.
Cubberly, Elwood P. (1914). State and
county educational reorganization. New York: Macmillan.
DeYoung, Alan (1989). Economics and
American education: A historical and critical overview of the impact of
economic theories on schooling in the United States. New York: Longman
Press.
DeYoung, Alan (1995). The flfe and death
of a rural American high school: Farewell Little Kanawha New York:
Garland.
DeYoung, Alan 3., & Irlowley, Craig
B. (1992). The political economy of rural school consolidation.
(Report No. RC-0 18-660). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
347-018)
DeYoung, Alan J., & Kannapel, Patricia J.
(Fall, 1999). The rural school problem in 1999: A review and critique of the
literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), 67-69.
Digest of education statistics. 1997. Table
90. Public school districts & enrollment by size of district. 1988-89 to
1995-96. |
