Monday, October 26, 2009

Regionalization/Consolidation Update

As a continued discussion of my previous blog post - Maryland is a POOR Example of Successful Consolidation, the NAEP released the 2009 Grades 4 and 8 state comparisons for Mathematics (www.nationsreportcard.gov). Not surprising, New Jersey outperformed Maryland in both grade levels. New Jersey ranked 5th in 4th Grade Mathematics with a 247 Average Scale Score. Massachusetts (252), New Hampshire (251), Minnesota (249) and Vermont (248) scored higher. New Jersey tied for third with North Dakota and Vermont in 8th Grade Mathematics with a 293 Average Scale Score. Massachusetts (299) and Minnesota (294) scored higher.

Why regionalize New Jersey's public schools? Research indicates that it is not a cost savings measure. California and Pennsylvania regionalized their school districts? How did it turn out for them? "California public schools, which in the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have fallen to 48th in many surveys of student achievement. Some have disputed Proposition 13's direct role in the move to state financing of public schools, because schools financed mostly by property taxes were declared unconstitutional in Serrano vs. Priest, and Proposition 13 was then passed partially as a result of that case. California's spending per pupil was the same as the national average until about 1985, when it began dropping, which led to another referendum, Proposition 98, that requires a certain percentage of the state's budget to be directed towards education" (Wikipedia, 2009). Regarding Pennsylvania's regionalization experience, read The Pennsylvania Experience.

Your thoughts?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

In talking about regionalization and consolidation, has any thought been giving to having a K-5 district and send the Harding public school students to Madison Jr. School and High School? We would then pay tuition like we do for Madison HS. Some small districts in NJ l operate a K-5 school and send their students to a neighboring town for MS and HS. They can then also share some administrative staff with a neighboring town since it a one school district.
As a HTS middle school parent and educator, more choice becomes important in the middle school years more than a small environment which works well in a K-5 setting.

More choice meaning larger student body, more sports and clubs, and a larger pool of teachers that teach the students. In the study the BOE is doing on regionalization, is any thought and research being given to investigating a K-5 only district? How would it affect our school expenditures, would it lower our costs?

HTS parent

Anonymous said...

With the BOE study on regionalization/consolidation, has any thought been giving to establishing an elementary only district with the public school students going to Madison Jr. School and High School? There are many districts in NJ that are only a one school district and the district shares some of their adminstrative positions with neighboring districts. This may be a cost cutting measure as well.

Also, the small school environment works well for K-5, but not always for middle school. Students in MS need more choice: more students to choose from for friends, more activities, and a larger teacher body where students have different teachers throughout middle school.

Are the people conducting the study looking at this option?

HTS middle school parent

Superintendent's Corner said...

Thanks for your posting! The Consolidation Study Team is not looking at a K-5 configuration, nor would the state approve such a change in grade configuration. Rich Marasco, lead researcher in our consolidation/regionalization study, indicated that “removing 110 or so 6-8 students would only add to your costs, complicate staffing, reduce Harding control and, make you even more vulnerable to consolidation.”

Our consolidation study looked at the academic, athletic and extracurricular offerings as a comparison between Harding and the three districts. Although it would appear that there are more sports and clubs in the other districts, Harding actually offers a comparable athletic, academic and extracurricular program. Under a middle school consolidated model, fewer Harding students would have an opportunity to be involved. Fewer students would start on sport teams and fewer would have leads in the play, ect. With more students also comes more competition for positions and opportunities. I would argue that small schools provide more opportunities for students to be involved.

Furthermore, although it may appear that cutting administration saves money, the District would have to add transportation costs to send Harding middle school students into Madison. Transportation costs are the main reason why Pennsylvania’s model was unsuccessful. I recommend the report Dollars & Sense: The Cost Effectiveness of Small Schools (http://www.earlycolleges.org/Downloads/reslib79.pdf). This year, as indicated in my 11/19/09 posting, the District maintained an excess surplus of $146,066.51 that will offset the tax levy for next year. That was more than my salary!

I will post the Consolidation/Regionalization report on the District website upon completion of the study. I strongly believe that small schools have less overhead, stronger community relationships, more parental involvement, more local autonomy, lower administrative costs, lower rates of vandalism, more opportunities for kids, and more attention to students. I recommend Jimerson’s The Hobbit Effect: Why Small Works in Public Schools (http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/PDFS/RSCT_hobbit-effect.pdf). It is a quick and relevant read.