Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sorry, Jim, but it just got really personal
Next Post: The cost of state payment delays
Posted in:
* Consolidating school districts is easier said than done, but it does need to happen…
When compared with 14 peer states that each educate at least 1 million students, Illinois, which averages 2,400 students per district, appears to be managing its resources poorly.
Florida averages 40,012 students per district, while Georgia, North Carolina, California and Virginia each serve more than twice the that Illinois districts.
Over 60 percent of the districts in Illinois contain just 14 percent of the state’s overall students. Put another way, the 511 school districts in question serve an average of 526 students.
On the other hand, more than three-fourths of Illinois’ 872 superintendents earn six-figure salaries, and 320 of Illinois school district administrators, mostly district superintendents, are awarded annual incomes of $200,000 or more.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sorry, Jim, but it just got really personal
Next Post: The cost of state payment delays
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My suburban, one-school, 9-12 district has a superintendent and a principal. They never coordinate their calendar, at all, with the K-8 district.
In 30 years, I’ve never heard a reasonable explanation for this situation.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:23 am
Well at least we know where Andy Manar stands on this issue…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYvZfvG2z9k
Comment by Chairman McBroom Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:26 am
To have a patronage based political system one must have the ability to have jobs on the public dole in order to create the patronage.
These kinds of inefficiencies are the legacy of hanging on to the patronage system for as long as possible. Now that patronage is technically illegal as there is more turnover in leadership and elected officials, it will become possible to address the the glaring waste that exists in the state.
Voters, of course, will want to keep their school districts unless an active issue based campaign is waged that demonstrates how much of their previous property tax dollars are wasted padding the pockets of an administrator that could be doing more for less.
Comment by Anon Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:26 am
We need county wide school districts in rural Illinois. My high school and the 4 closest high schools all had between 100 and 250 students. It is not possible for a school that small to best serve its students.
Problem is, it is hard to kill a mascot when the town identifies itself by their high school.
Comment by Enlightened Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:29 am
oftentimes, killing the small town school equates to killing the small town
Comment by Mattman Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:31 am
Does serious consolidation need to happen? Yes. However, the obstacles to it are huge, most notably as others note above the identity that attaches to the local schools, the usual NIMBY syndrome, and the fact that these districts all have administrators, board members, etc. who have a primary concern of self-preservation.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:34 am
I grew up in Carroll County and there were seven high schools in a county that had no stop lights and a total of about 12,000 people. Now there are three high schools, so progress has been made, but the townspeople still bemoan the decisions to consolidate.
Comment by Stooges Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:37 am
I don’t think consolidation of a district requires eliminating schools.
Comment by NoGifts Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:41 am
===Over 60 percent of the districts in Illinois contain just 14 percent of the state’s overall students. Put another way, the 511 school districts in question serve an average of 526 students.===
Local people want local control. I understand that small districts are a challenge. But I really can’t see anything but absolute blood curdling screams if you try putting… say… Dunlap with D150…. Kewanee with Wethersfield…. Good luck with that….
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:42 am
Mascots aside, there are real logistical problems too, like transportation.
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:53 am
=We need county wide school districts in rural Illinois.=
So long as you are comfortable with your kids on a bus for two plus hours each morning and afternoon, especially when winter sets in.
=On the other hand, more than three-fourths of Illinois’ 872 superintendents earn six-figure salaries, and 320 of Illinois school district administrators, mostly district superintendents, are awarded annual incomes of $200,000 or more.=
How do these numbers compare to the average wage for an executive in a similar size firm (based on staff and budget), with a degree beyond a master’s or a doctorate with 20 years plus experience in the private sector?
=When compared with 14 peer states that each educate at least 1 million students, Illinois, which averages 2,400 students per district, appears to be managing its resources poorly.
Florida averages 40,012 students per district, while Georgia, North Carolina, California and Virginia each serve more than twice the that Illinois districts.=
I think the point that is being missed is not what everyone else is doing (Indiana is primarily by county for instance) but what is best practice? Where can efficiencies be found and where do they get lost? Districts of 5,000 plus can be great, but they can also be nearly impossible to move forward due to the shear size and lack of relationships in something so large.
There are many dual districts (K-8 and 9-12 districts) that could easily, and intelligently consolidate.
Many make the mistake of assuming it is school administrators that are the road block to consolidation. That just ain’t so. It is more about the emotional side of it with communities and school board members.
As Enlightened pointed out, “killing a mascot” is hard even when it is clearly in the best interest of kids. I know of multiple consolidations that were blocked even when the superintendents were vocally supportive of the effort, in the end the communities were living in the past and just wouldn’t do it.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:55 am
Like NoGifts said, you can consolidate administrative duties without consolidating the schools. (While there are good arguments for consolidating schools as well, that is a much harder lift).
Comment by SAP Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:56 am
The reality is only the State is going to be able to consolidate districts. One, if your on a Board and there is a district in less financial condition next to you, you can never vote to consolidate and maintain your fiduciary responsibility to the students and tax payers. Two, the savings will not be as much as one might think, as organizations increase in size so to will middle level managers to maintain the structure. There is over 2,000 pages of state statute for schools to follow. Someone needs to continue to check to make sure everyone’s on task. But it would reduce school Boards which might produce better school Boards since in some communities there is a need of leadership.
Comment by frustrated GOP Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:15 pm
Consolidating districts is much easier than consolidating schools.
Consolidate Elementary School Districts and then consolidate Elementary School Districts with the High School Districts where they send students is the easiest two step process for this.
Here’s the catch, it’s not like you are going to eliminate half the cost by combining two districts. If you eliminate a quarter of the cost - that would be a huge win.
You can’t suddenly double your student population and not increase your district level resources.
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:24 pm
Yep Like NoGifts and SAP say district consolidation does not mean schools consolidating. How many other states use counties to set school districts? that would be great. The state must intervene. Not only the boards and superintendents would oppose but the teachers in 9-12 districts where pay is more than the K-8 districts that cover the same territory will oppose. Not to mention the universities that make a good living creating more superintendent candidates. Too much fat on too many plates.
Comment by simple mind Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:39 pm
The biggest hurdle I’ve heard was financial. I moved to a small town, and there was talk of consolidating with the next town over, but it was refused because 1 town’s school was in the black, had savings, while the other town’s district was in the red. The one town refused to take over another town’s debt, basically.
Comment by HangingOn Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Illinois is a backward state. Consolidation should have been done decades ago.
Comment by Ron Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:47 pm
Doing something as simple as consolidating the high school district with its feeder schools can be done without losing schools (a nearby high school has multiple 1-school districts feeding it). But again, it’s easier to complain about taxes and do nothing than it is to accept, gulp, change.
Comment by Shemp Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:58 pm
=Yep Like NoGifts and SAP say district consolidation does not mean schools consolidating. How many other states use counties to set school districts? that would be great. The state must intervene. Not only the boards and superintendents would oppose but the teachers in 9-12 districts where pay is more than the K-8 districts that cover the same territory will oppose. Not to mention the universities that make a good living creating more superintendent candidates. Too much fat on too many plates.=
I think this post summarizes the many misconceptions and lack of understanding of benefits/drawbacks of consolidation.
Consolidating a district, but keeping the same structure (schools and staff) might save one salary of $100,000 to $200,000 at best. Maybe. Big maybe.
The savings comes in staff reductions and building reductions (operational savings) Again the size of the district in terms of geography, enrollment, and staffing are the significant factors. Age of buildings is a big factor as well.
The benefit of losing one salary in a $5 million (small district) to $100 million, if the salary w benefits is $200,000 is at most 4% (worthwhile) to .2% (not even a blip) and you now have fewer people supervising as much as double the staff.
When consolidations occur, the higher salary/benefit package becomes the adopted package. Just a fact of life. And you may think (as I mentioned earlier) admin and staff would oppose, but as a general rule you would be wrong.
And you may want to do a bit of research, superintendent training isn’t very lucrative. There are not very many in the programs.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:59 pm
Serious consideration should be given to the Florida / Nevada model of one school district per county. Same boundaries, different unit of government. Yes, there are difficulties to doing that in Chicagoland, but there are way too many school districts in the rest of the state.
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:22 pm
” the Florida / Nevada model of one school district per county.”
That would work if you capped that at counties under 100K or 250K people.
Trying to do that in Cook or Dupage is just ridiculous.
Comment by Dee Lay Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:30 pm
This is a very emotional topic when done at the local town level; that is why it doesn’t happen until both districts are far in the red (or clearly heading there) and there is no other choice.
The only way it will get done is if the State FORCES consolidation. As others have suggested, start by combining the elementary school districts with the high school district they feed in to. That is the step that will get the least blow-back.
Once you get that done, then and only THEN, can the local district start to look at economies of scale and wage the fight to close unneeded elementary schools.
Having been through the merger of two towns elementary schools (and the closure of one of them), it won’t be pretty … but it needs to happen.
Re one school district per county, have a suggested school population level and let it dictate one or more districts per county.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:31 pm
“So long as you are comfortable with your kids on a bus for two plus hours each morning and afternoon, especially when winter sets in.”
In large rural districts, the kids would be on the bus for more than 2 hours. School district transportation cost would far exceed the cost of the supt’s salary. Therefore, its not cost effective.
Comment by Mama Retired Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:34 pm
== “The only way it will get done is if the State FORCES consolidation. As others have suggested, start by combining the elementary school districts with the high school district they feed in to.” ==
Go to ISBE’s website and pull up the schools. Most of your rural school districts are unit school districts. Its the bigger cities that have a separate district for their elementary and high schools. Getting the locals to agree to consolidate their schools with another town is almost impossible.
Comment by Mama Retired Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:42 pm
Plus it is not cheap to consolidate two schools districts into one. That is another issue…
Comment by Mama Retired Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:44 pm
=In large rural districts=
You mean like the one I am superintendent of?Yes.
To your post- you are correct.
=Once you get that done, then and only THEN, can the local district start to look at economies of scale and wage the fight to close unneeded elementary schools.=
@RNUG- with respect-
I think you need to know this first, and need to know it in detail.
If not, that would be like two businesses merging without understanding the books. That equals bad business decision.
Scale can be good and bad. CPS, U 46, Peoria and other large 10,000 plus districts have urban poverty issues which are hard to overcome, but size is also and issue.
Combining a 4,500 student elementary district and a 1,500 student high school district will likely not lead to closures, staff reductions (licensure issues for one reason) or even reduced admin costs. Because they are likely to adopt the higher high school district salary schedule costs might actually go up since personnel costs count for about 80% of expenses. You could save some operational cost (possibly).
A better example is to consolidate the Pontiac districts where you have a 700 student high school district and 3 or 4 feeder districts. You end up with a district of roughly 2,200 which is not a bad size and decent geographic size as well.
Merging two small enrollment but large geographic districts would not be good for kids.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:46 pm
- JS Mill - Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 11:55 am: “So long as you are comfortable with your kids on a bus for two plus hours … when winter sets in.”
Don’t forget it’s uphill both ways!
JS Mill - Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 12:59 pm: “Consolidating a district, but keeping the same structure (schools and staff) might save one salary of $100,000 to $200,000 at best.”
If you think we can save $200,00 per 872 districts just imagine what the really savings will be. Ha.
That’s me joking but how hard is it to see the good in consolidating Mulberry Grove CUSD #1 and it’s 450 students, 110 in high school, it’s $5.5M budget with either Vandalia 10 miles to the east or with Greenville 10 miles to the west. Both have been shirking for years and the extra students will fit right in.
Comment by Bobby Hill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 1:49 pm
Mama: == “In large rural districts, the kids would be on the bus for more than 2 hours. School district transportation cost would far exceed the cost of the supt’s salary. Therefore, its not cost effective.”==
A couple of years ago, I went back to Ohio to find the farm of one of my Great-great grandfathers. He had 80 acres in north central Ohio that he farmed in the 1850s.
On the farm was the original family frame farmhouse, less than 2,000 sq. ft., now falling down. A tractor driver in the field there told me the farm is now part of a much larger holding.
Down the road, another farm house was a razed pile of sticks waiting to be picked up. I guessed that house site and barn yard would plowed for corn the next spring. I also found the old family church, now shuttered weathered wood in the middle of nowhere.
Point is, rural housing and towns consolidate as farms do. The 860 school districts in this state are a testimony to poor government and neglect to do the work that should have been done decades ago as farms consolidated and rural areas depopulated.
We need to get down to about 60 districts. If each school district was equal in enrollment to, or larger than, Plainfield School District 202 – ADA 26,208 – the fourth largest district in the State, then Illinois could operate with sixty or fewer school districts. Each with all the local control that Painfield 202, or Indian Prairie 204, or Rockford 205 has.
Comment by Anon III Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:04 pm
I served on a school board and did some research into consolidation long ago. I do agree more consolidation needs done to achieve greater economies. I caution though that it is not nearly as easy as it sounds, the savings aren’t as great and the benefits aren’t without costs.
Transportation costs / student on bus times go up significantly. Some studies indicate a higher rate of school violence and undesirable issues in larger districts.
There was a local effort to discuss consolidation several years back. Almost had a civil war among neighbors during process. Probably impossible done locally.
Heard (haven’t verified) that state legislators mandated some long ago, many lost their subsequent elections, and none want to do that again.
Comment by logic not emotion Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:14 pm
Lets not forget that smaller districts can educate their kids for less than $7k per student per year while large districts in the Chicago area can spend up to $20k/student/year. Cost of living is higher but not 3x higher.
Comment by DGD Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:14 pm
60 districts?! Illinois has 102 counties? I agree with consolidation; but I don’t think 60 is anywhere close to a viable number. For example: If my kid has to ride a bus several hours a day, I’m home or private schooling and I’m not financially supporting that consolidated district any more than absolutely legally necessary. Average Daily Attendance will fall and revenues will fall / shift from rural schools to the large metro ones. Is that the desired consequence?
Comment by logic not emotion Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:20 pm
Presently, in my county, there are two school districts. Thirty years ago, there were five (at least that I can remember). It seems to me that people think consolidations aren’t happening at all. I can think of at least six in my general area in the last 10 years. They are happening. And forcing people to consolidate is not the answer.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:24 pm
Suburban districts should be forced to go to unit districts. No need for an area to have an elementary district and a separate high school district. Money could be saved by combining, so there is only one Superintendent, one school board, etc. It might also increase purchasing power because larger quantities of supplies would be ordered.
Comment by Seymourkid Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:24 pm
@Seymourkid- I doubt there is savings to gain by scale increases for consolidating what I. Many cases are already large suburban districts. Not all, but many.
I know, well paid professionals like superintendents are any easy target. Kind of like the education equivalent of “Fire Madigan” but few have even the slightest concept of how it works.
@Anon III- your Ohio story is exactly why consolidating rural districts into 26,000 student districts would be idiotic. You would have the most inefficient districts in History. Thousands of square miles in size with densities of less than 1 students per square mile. Just goofy.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:34 pm
This is a suburban issue, don’t let anyone from the suburbs tell you differently. The number of high school and elementary school districts in the suburbs is out of control.
But because it’s a suburban issue, it probably won’t happen any time soon.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:48 pm
In the ‘burbs, there are lots of separate elementary and high school districts instead of unit districts. In Skokie, for example, with a pop. of 63,000, there are five elementary districts that feed into a sixth high school district. Another example is River Grove, which has two elementary districts for 10,668 residents.
Pennsylvania was able to consolidate from 500 districts to about 100, but it took a mandate.
Comment by anon Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 2:54 pm
@anon- Bigger isn’t necessarily better.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 3:11 pm
One more time for the small-town educrats:
The much overdue task is to consolidate districts, not schools. Consolidation of districts will not happen as long as small-town educrats can suck up GSA to support mascots, bus drivers, one-school superintendents, and suburban tax-islands.
To incentive consolidation of districts, GSA should be conditioned upon small districts – both rural and suburban — finding a date for the consolidation prom.
Comment by Anon III Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 3:38 pm
Dee Lay
In NV Clark County Las Vegas) is right at 2 million, Washoe County (Reno) is over 400 thousand. In FL Miami-Dade is right at 2.7 million, Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) is right at 1.8 million. Might not work in Cook, but perhaps Kane? Lake? McHenry?
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 3:51 pm
I can come up with no reason not to consolidate feeder districts into their associated high school district, creating unit districts. Even if not a single school building is closed or a single mascot is retired, it would seem that the savings in administrative costs alone would justify it.
Comment by CEA Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 4:05 pm
Do any proponents of consolidating a high school district with its underlying grade school districts ever run a cost-benefit analysis?
Or are proponents of the “ignore the facts” and “feel good” variety?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 4:18 pm
JS Mill -
I think I hear you. I also think I did a pretty poor job explaining my idea on the district per county issue. I was trying to get across the idea that x students (pick a number, 5000, 10000, 25000, whatever is efficient and still responsive to the local needs) is what the combined K-12 school district size should be. That would probably keep the larger cities from combining with rural districts. And you, and others, raise a really valid point about the geographic size; that probably needs to be a second parameter.
Hopefully the above makes a little more sense.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 8:21 pm
One way that’s easier structurally would be to consolidate all the elementary districts that feed into a given High School/District. I believe there is a rule that if districts consolidate, the highest salary schedule must be used. With the large disparity between elementary and HS salaries, it would be tough financially for that kind of merge save money.
Comment by St. Crispin Monday, Sep 12, 16 @ 9:18 pm