First of two parts

A new study has come out looking to the future and predicting vast sums of money will be saved if we consolidate schools, and, furthermore, students will not suffer. It is always interesting in such circumstances to look at what past experience has actually demonstrated with hard results.

First, it is necessary to clarify the difference between “regionalizing” by sharing resources and services, and “consolidating” by closing schools and busing students. Many schools and systems have for years successfully “regionalized” by sharing bulk purchases, teachers and specialists and have realized cost savings with no negative impact on students. This has often been necessary and successful in both large and small schools.

Such success sets the stage for believing the common myth that vast sums of money will be saved by actually consolidating the schools themselves. To many, this seems self-evident. This is the state of mind many slip into when they hear about demographics and declining population. The implicit and unexamined assumption is that we will save money. If you recall, it was also self-evident to our forebears that the sun revolved around the Earth. You could see it every day with your own eyes. It was accepted as fact until Copernicus demonstrated differently with research.

So what does research tell us about what has actually resulted financially from consolidation of schools?

When we can understand current research data in an historical context, both in Maine and nationally, we can comprehend the long-term trend in costs up to the present – a more thorough and accurate picture of reality. The questions are – has consolidating schools saved money recently, and has it ever saved money? What are our chances now?

Here is an abbreviated summary. Many studies reported expected cost savings from economies of scale. What did they actually find? As far back as 1960, W. Z. Hirsch studied 29 school district consolidations in and around St. Louis and found no consistent economies of scale. He reported that it is better to share academic programs.

Mathew Andrews in 1974 studied closures in 49 districts nationwide. Thirty-five districts projected savings. Of the 12 who calculated post-closure savings only four reported savings.

Ten years later in 1984, Richard Valencia reviewed 40 studies on the impact of school closures on costs. He reported that “closing schools reduces per pupil costs very little if at all.”

In a study of 330 districts in Arkansas, R. W. Jewell in 1989 found “no evidence that consolidation reduces expenses, increases test scores, or reduces dropout rates.”

More recently, James Streifel in 1991 studied 19 school district consolidations for fiscal changes after three years. He found no significant differences in per pupil cost between districts that consolidated and those that didn’t.

In a major journalistic series in the Charleston Gazette, Eric Eyre & Scott Finn in 2003 reported on West Virginia’s massive effort with school consolidation over 10 years. The state closed 325 schools expecting “economies of scale.” They substantially increased the number of central office administrators even though number of students decreased by 41,000. Per pupil transportation costs doubled. Savings were not realized. Gov. Bob Wise changed his policy in order to reduce lengthy bus rides and stated that West Virginia has devastated some rural communities by closing small schools. We can learn from them.

The state of Maine had its grand dance with consolidation in the 1960s and ’70s. Through the Sinclair Act we formed many SAD’s. It did not reduce per pupil costs a nickel. Research in 2004 by Gordon Donaldson and team at the University of Maine found that per pupil costs (corrected for inflation) increased by 21 percent from 1930-1950 (20 years before consolidation), increased by 164 percent from 1950-1970 (during Sinclair Act consolidation), and continued to increase by 113 percent from 1970-2000 (20 years after consolidation). This is not to be critical of the Sinclair Act or SAD’s, just to note that costs were not reduced through consolidation.

In Maine’s most recent example, the merger of Rumford and Mexico high schools did not reduce per pupil expenditures according to a report by a former superintendent in that district.

In the current frenzy to save money, we need to be thoughtful and deliberative, look at the preponderance of evidence, take a long-range view and in our anxiety not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” Is our only purpose to save money? And if you did, what would you lose? And would it be worth it? Are we going to try again what has not saved money time after time? Remember – a contemporary definition of “insanity” is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.

In tomorrow’s commentary, we will examine the benefits of small schools and why they should be supported by local taxpayers and state policy.

This commentary was submitted by the following: Les Butler, superintendent of schools, SAD 46; Rep. Rod Carr, Lincoln; Keith Cook, coordinator, Maine Small Schools Coalition; Richard Gould, Greenville; Frank Keenan, superintendent of schools, Easton; Sandra MacArthur, superintendent of schools, SAD 59; Lori Power, M.A. Ed.D.(c), writing specialist, University of New England; and Kevin Ritchie, curriculum coordinator, Lee Academy.