wyoming school funding model recalibration: consolidation ... · important educational...
TRANSCRIPT
Wyoming School Funding Model Recalibration:
Consolidation and Shared Services Study
Robert Schoch and Dr. William Hartman, Education Finance Decisions
ForAugenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.
Presentation to the Select CommitteeCasper, WY
November 2017
Purposes of Study
• The study examines opportunities for cooperatively providing and sharing services between school districts for special education, transportation, and gifted and talented programming
• This analysis includes a review of the literature and a survey to all districts to collect data on current cooperatively provided and/or shared services, barriers that exist to cooperatively providing or sharing services, and the types of incentives that would encourage more of these activities
• The study team evaluates consolidation opportunities to make recommendations regarding what types of districts would be candidates for consolidation and under what conditions
2
Background Information of District
Enrollment, Geographic Area, and Boundaries
• Wyoming comparison with nation
– Number and proportion of districts by enrollment
• Previous consolidation and boundary realignment
• Enrollment and Average Daily Membership (ADM) by District
• Population density and school locations
• Information is presented on maps to demonstrate commonalities and differences
3
0
2
2
2
15
15
5
7
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
1 0 0 , 0 0 0 O R M O R E
1 0 , 0 0 0 -9 9 , 9 9 9
5 , 0 0 0 -9 , 9 9 9
3 , 0 0 0 -4 , 9 9 9
1 , 0 0 0 -2 , 9 9 9
5 0 0 - 9 9 9 3 0 0 - 4 9 9 1 0 0 - 2 9 9 1 - 9 9
NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY DISTRICT SIZE, FY 2011 -2012*
WyomingWisconsinWest VirginiaWashingtonVirginiaVermontUtahU.S. Virgin IslandsTexasTennesseeSouth DakotaSouth CarolinaRhode IslandPuerto RicoPennsylvaniaOregonOklahomaOhioNorth DakotaNorth CarolinaNew YorkNew MexicoNew JerseyNew HampshireNevadaNebraskaMontanaMissouriMississippiMinnesotaMichiganMassachusettsMarylandMaineLouisianaKentucky
Wyoming has a typical distribution of districts by enrollment.
*Most recent year comparable state data were available
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Texa
sC
alif
orn
iaIll
ino
isN
ew
Yo
rkO
hio
Ne
w J
ers
eyM
ich
igan
Okl
aho
ma
Mis
sou
riP
enn
sylv
ania
Wis
con
sin
Mo
nta
na
Iow
aM
inn
eso
taK
ansa
sW
ash
ingt
on
Ind
ian
aV
erm
on
tN
eb
rask
aM
ain
eA
rkan
sas
Mas
sach
use
tts
Ari
zon
aB
ure
au o
f In
dia
n E
du
cati
on
Ore
gon
No
rth
Dak
ota
Ge
org
iaN
ew
Ham
psh
ire
Co
lora
do
Ken
tuck
yC
on
ne
ctic
ut
Sou
th D
ako
taM
issi
ssip
pi
Ten
nes
see
Vir
gin
iaA
lab
ama
Idah
oN
ort
h C
aro
lina
Ne
w M
exi
coSo
uth
Car
olin
aLo
uis
ian
aFl
ori
da
Wes
t V
irgi
nia
Ala
ska
Wyo
min
gU
tah
Rh
od
e Is
lan
dM
aryl
and
Del
awar
eN
eva
da
U.S
. Vir
gin
Isla
nd
sD
istr
ict
of
Co
lum
bia
Haw
aii
Pu
ert
o R
ico
Total School Districts in Each State
5
District boundaries are closely related to county boundaries after consolidation in 1969.
Some districts cross counties, others subdivide counties.
6
Districts across county
boundaries
7
Many small
districts in one county
8
Students/District• Wide range of
students per district
• Some counties with only one district, including large counties
Review of Research Literature
• Definition of consolidation– School district consolidation is the process of combining or
merging multiple school districts to form a single school district
– School consolidation occurs when two school buildings combine their enrollments and one is closed
• In 1939, there were 117,108 school districts nationally• By 1961, the number declined to 20,000 school
districts and this number has remained fairly stable since then
• Consolidation decisions involve balancing economic efficiency and educational effectiveness
10
Economic Efficiency Through
Consolidation
• Potential savings are possible through reduction of one-of-a-kind positions such as superintendents, business managers, curriculum directors, federal program directors, and others
• Additional savings may be possible through quantity purchasing and shared resources
• New York State study indicates 31.5% net cost savings for doubling the enrollment of a 300 student district and 14.4% for a 1,500 student district (Duncombe and Yinger, 2007)
11
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
50 500 5,000
Exp
end
itu
re P
er S
tud
ent
(Exp
end
itu
res
/ A
DM
)
District Size (ADM)
Wyoming School District Size vs. Expenditures Per Student, 2015-16
12*X Axis values are logarithmic to improve data readability
13
Central AdministratorsAs Percentage of Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff (2015-16)
Opportunities for Efficiencies in Support Staffing? 2015-16
14
Economic Efficiency Offset by Costs of
Consolidating
• Offsetting the potential savings of consolidation are a number of potential cost increases including:– Increasing compensation to level of more generous district– Addition of mid-level supervisors– Transition costs: common textbooks and instructional resources– Transportation costs if building closure occurs, which is common– Training on curriculum and instruction, process and procedures,
and common software– Service contract termination– Technology infrastructure and common software– Name change: signage, stationery, athletic and band uniforms
15
Equalizing Compensation
16
Educational Effectiveness Through
Consolidation (or Shared Services)
• Enhance educational opportunities for students and improve academic performance
• More comprehensive course offerings and extracurricular activities
• More professional development options for teachers
• Larger teacher network for collaboration• Specialized instructional support services• Opportunities to share best practices in
promoting attendance and graduation
17
One example of an opportunity to sharespecialized staff?
18
General Research Conclusions
• “Econometric studies of district consolidation tend not to include the value of important educational contingencies such as extracurricular participation rates, parental involvement, and community support.”
• “The contemporary research, as a body and almost to a study, has not recommended consolidation either to save tax dollars or to improve the outcomes or quality of schooling.”
• “Decisions to deconsolidate or consolidate districts are best made on a case-by-case basis” as they are “unlikely to be a reliable way to obtain substantive fiscal or educational improvement.”
• Closely question claims about presumed benefits of consolidation• Avoid statewide mandates for consolidation or minimum sizes for schools and
districts• Consider other measures to improve fiscal efficiency or educational services
– Cooperative purchasing agreements among districts– Combined financial services– Enhanced roles for regional Educational Service Agencies (BOCES)– Distance learning options for advanced subjects in small rural schools
Source: National Education Policy Center, 2011
19
Research Findings Guide this Study
• Avoid oversimplification• Customize the financial and educational program
analysis using detailed guidelines compiled by this report from several sources
• Consider alternatives that yield benefits without the risks of consolidation
• Target efforts to largest savings potential and workable solutions
• Phase the approach to making consolidation decisions– Identify potential partners with broad criteria– Perform a comprehensive analysis of districts: educational
programs, operations, finance, personnel administration
20
Consolidation Model Design
Based on Research
• Allows consolidation of multiple districts• Collects comparative data
– Staffing ratios – student:teacher and student:administrator– Grade level structure– Enrollment change-increase/decrease, grade level differences– Cost per student– Population density
• Calculates cost savings potential– Staffing– Program and service duplication– Quantity purchasing– Future cost avoidance– Offsetting transitional investments needed
• Adds potential school level consolidation savings• Results in low and high range of economic impact• Some components of the model inform sharing opportunities possible
through alternatives to district consolidation
21
Survey Results
• Survey methods: administered online, emailed link to all district superintendents and business officers
• Three reminders via emails and calls - over 70% response rate
• For common shared services, four questions:– Currently shared– Shared in the past– Would consider sharing– Would not share
• Barriers to sharing• Open questions: opportunities and barriers
22
Survey Results
Q1. STAFFING AND RELATED BENEFITS: Single positions, district level
Currently Shared
Shared In The Past
Would Consider Sharing
Would Not Share
Superintendent 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 80.00%
Assistant Superintendent 0.00% 0.00% 38.89% 61.11%
Business Administrator 0.00% 0.00% 19.05% 80.95%
Curriculum Manager 0.00% 0.00% 57.14% 42.86%
Educational Foundation Manager 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 47.06%
Facilities Manager 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%
Federal Programs 0.00% 0.00% 65.00% 35.00%
Food Services Manager 0.00% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62%
Fundraising 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 27.78%
Grant Writing 0.00% 0.00% 77.78% 22.22%
Personnel Manager 0.00% 0.00% 47.37% 52.63%
Public Relations 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 27.78%
Student Services Manager 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%
Transportation Manager 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%
23
Survey Results
Q2. STAFFING AND RELATED BENEFITS: Other positions, district level
Currently Shared
Shared In The Past
Would Consider Sharing
WouldNot Share
Athletic Director 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 70.00%
Cleaning Supervision, Inspection 0.00% 0.00% 63.16% 36.84%
Custodial 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 57.14%
Facilities Maintenance 0.00% 0.00% 57.14% 42.86%
Groundskeeping 4.76% 0.00% 47.62% 47.62%
Guidance Counselors 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 65.00%
Nurses 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 55.00%
Teachers, Computer Programming 0.00% 0.00% 73.68% 26.32%
Teachers, Distance Learning 5.26% 5.26% 78.95% 10.53%
Teachers, Foreign Languages 0.00% 0.00% 70.00% 30.00%
Teachers, Other Specialized 5.00% 0.00% 55.00% 40.00%
Teachers, Physics, Other Sciences 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%
Teachers, Reading Specialists 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%
Teachers, Special Education, Low Incidence 0.00% 5.00% 60.00% 35.00%
Technology Support 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 55.00%
Tutors 0.00% 0.00% 57.89% 42.11%
24
Survey ResultsQ4. SPECIALIZED SERVICES BY EMPLOYEES
Currently Shared
SharedIn The Past
Would Consider Sharing
WouldNot Share
Accounting 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%
Contract Administration 0.00% 0.00% 68.42% 31.58%
Financial Planning 0.00% 0.00% 63.16% 36.84%
Internal Auditing 0.00% 0.00% 68.42% 31.58%
Purchasing and Bidding Services 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%
Tax Collection 5.56% 0.00% 77.78% 16.67%
Curriculum Design and Development 0.00% 0.00% 65.00% 35.00%
Cleaning, Regular 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 65.00%
Cleaning, Specialized 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%
Food Preparation 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Menu Planning 5.00% 5.00% 65.00% 25.00%
Program Compliance 5.00% 5.00% 70.00% 20.00%
Construction Management 10.00% 0.00% 70.00% 20.00%
Energy Management 5.00% 0.00% 75.00% 20.00%
HVAC Maintenance 5.00% 0.00% 75.00% 20.00%
Maintenance Services, Specialized 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%
Painting 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%
Pest Control, Certified 5.26% 0.00% 78.95% 15.79%
Preventative Maintenance 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%
Roofing 10.00% 0.00% 65.00% 25.00% 25
Survey Results
Q8. SPECIALIZED SERVICES BY EMPLOYEES
Currently Shared
SharedIn The Past
Would Consider Sharing
Would Not Share
Hiring 0.00% 9.52% 23.81% 66.67%
Employee Benefits Administration 4.76% 0.00% 57.14% 38.10%
Recruiting 4.76% 4.76% 52.38% 38.10%
Curriculum and Instruction 0.00% 9.52% 61.90% 28.57%
Management and Administration 4.76% 0.00% 52.38% 42.86%
Strategic Planning 0.00% 5.00% 45.00% 50.00%
Program Planning and Evaluation 0.00% 5.00% 55.00% 40.00%
Technology Planning, Instruction 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00%
Technology Planning, Infrastructure 4.76% 0.00% 61.90% 33.33%
Technology Planning, Administration 5.00% 0.00% 60.00% 35.00%
Technology Planning, Productivity 5.00% 0.00% 60.00% 35.00%
Network Support 9.52% 0.00% 47.62% 42.86%
Equipment Repair 9.52% 0.00% 57.14% 33.33%
Training 10.00% 5.00% 75.00% 10.00%
Driver Training 9.52% 4.76% 80.95% 4.76%
Management 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
Specialized Routes 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%
Vehicle Maintenance 4.76% 0.00% 66.67% 28.57%
Bus Route Planning 0.00% 0.00% 71.43% 28.57%
26
Survey Results
Q14. Barriers to sharing an employee include
Answer Choices Responses
Travel distance/time 95.24%
Employment contract restrictions 47.62%
Currently too busy to share 66.67%
Service provided by a contractor 47.62%
Service provided by someone with many other duties 66.67%
Other (please specify) 23.81%
27
Survey Results
Q15. EQUIPMENT SHARING
Currently Shared
Shared In The Past
Would Consider Sharing
Would Not Share
Science Labs 4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 76.19%
Computer Labs 4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 76.19%
Instructional Resources 0.00% 0.00% 47.62% 52.38%
Special Education 4.76% 4.76% 38.10% 52.38%
Boom Lifts 5.26% 5.26% 68.42% 21.05%
Excavators, Backhoes 5.26% 5.26% 68.42% 21.05%
Dump Trucks 5.26% 0.00% 73.68% 21.05%
Vehicle Maintenance - Lifts, Diagnostic 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00%
Mowing 9.52% 0.00% 42.86% 47.62%
Excavating 5.00% 0.00% 65.00% 30.00%
Snow Removal 4.76% 0.00% 42.86% 52.38%
Printing 10.00% 5.00% 65.00% 20.00%
28
Survey Results
Q21. Barriers to sharing equipment include:
Answer Choices Responses
The equipment is rented for brief periods if needed 57.89%
Contractors are used when that equipment is needed 73.68%
Effort required to move equipment 57.89%
Other (please specify) 47.37%
29
Other Survey Comments
• Opportunities to share employees or services– Special education– Online courses– Vocational programs, including agriculture
• Other barriers to sharing– District specific requirements need undivided
attention and expertise– Directions from multiple boards/administrations could
cause conflict– Reporting requirements– Calendar and scheduling conflicts
30
Examples of Sharing for Gifted and
Talented Programs
• Regional professional development, resulting in sharing of lessons and activities
• Traveling science kits, planetariums, robotics labs, science labs
• Circuit rider specialists traveling among school districts• Assemblies• Collaboration projects by students in different schools• Online programs may also provide increased cost-
effectiveness for providing gifted and talented programs – for example, the University of Connecticut’s Renzulli Learning program recommended by Picus and Odden
31
Identifying Characteristics Favorable to
Consolidation
• Optimal size-balancing educational effectiveness and efficiency
• Economies of scale offer savings opportunities• Expanded or improved educational programs and services• Reduce travel time• Address spending variances• Match decreasing and increasing enrollments to avoid
unnecessary investment in facilities
The examples mapped on the following slides are to illustrate these characteristics and do not represent a recommendation to consolidate
32
Balance Resource:
Students Per Certified Teacher
33
Opportunities to Equalize Spending?
34
Travel Time from Population Centers
35
Natural boundaries:
mountain ranges, rivers
36
Consolidation Model
• Allows consolidation of multiple districts• Collects comparative data
– Staffing ratios (student:teacher)– Grade level structure– Enrollment change: increase/decrease, grade level differences– Cost per student
• Economic efficiency– Staffing– Quantity purchasing– Duplication of programs and services– Future cost avoidance– Offsetting transitional investments needed
• Adds potential school level consolidation savings• Results in low and high range of economic impact• Components of model inform sharing opportunities without district
consolidation37
Consolidation Model
• Demonstrate model using two examples
– Two districts consolidated to one
– Four districts consolidated to one, with school level consolidation/closure for one school
38
Continuum of Opportunities
• Many of the savings opportunities and advantages of district consolidation can be achieved by alternatives to district level consolidation including:– Sharing of services between two or more districts– School level consolidation– Expansion of services offered by the BOCES regional education
services agencies– Minor realignment of boundaries
• Examples to compare consolidation and shared services– Foreign language teachers– Payroll services– Gifted and talented education
39
Expanded Regional Education Services
as an Alternative to Consolidation
• Most states have regional educational service agencies providing a wide variety of services
• Selected examples from other states include:– Texas: 20 Regional Education Service Centers offering approximately
400 different instructional, administrative, financial, training, and technology services saving schools over $60 million in 2012
– Connecticut: instructional, administrative, early childhood education, community business and adult education, technology, strategic planning, special education and pupil services, cooperative purchasing, public relations, academic audits, behavioral intervention strategies
– Pennsylvania: distance learning network, healthcare consortiums, administrative software, specialized transportation, training, grant writing, financial benchmarking
– Montana: gifted and talented professional development, resource sharing-equipment and personnel, distance learning training
40
Examples of Statewide
Consolidation Efforts
• Maine– State subsidy penalties if districts meeting criteria do not consolidate– Highly controversial but resulted in significant consolidation
• Pennsylvania, 2006 study – Identified 97 hypothetical pairings and methods where the authors found consolidation
would be possible and desirable– Focused on the potential benefits of consolidating relatively high-spending, smaller
districts into lower-spending, larger districts with enrollments below 3,000 students– Underscored that many key factors in a consolidation decision can be analyzed only on a
case-by-case basis– Even if cost savings could be assured, consolidations would be controversial– In the years following the study, none of the districts identified as potential candidates
for consolidation have proceeded towards consolidation
• Illinois– State aid at level of higher district for four years– Grant to pay teacher salary differential– One-time grant to cover some of negative fund balance– $4,000 per certified staff member, teachers and administrators
41
Recommendations
• Explore consolidation in several cases that have the maximum number of characteristics favorable to consolidation using the detailed approach outlined by other states – Preliminary analysis by Consolidation Model– Detailed analysis by Checklist Approach to identify
opportunities, barriers
• Expand the role of BOCES in providing shared services after review of examples from other states
• Fund pilot programs for shared services
42
Recommendations - Future
• Technological advances could stimulate innovation through visualizing extensive data on maps; Prepare numerous maps and conduct regional summits of experts to envision a collaborative future of shared programs and services for the benefits of students throughout Wyoming
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)– Geocode all students by residential location, school attended, grade
level– Geocode all school buildings by capacity and condition– Compile all available enrollment, staffing, student achievement,
operational, and financial data to allow correlations to be visualized on the map
– Use automated calculation capabilities of GIS to:• Populate existing buildings to capacity with nearest students• Minimize travel time of students to schools• Identify cost avoidance potential of school level consolidation of proximate
schools in different districts
43