One of four districts has considered consolidation or dissolution, survey finds

EDUCATION RESOURCES
Educators' Bulletin Board • New Teachers Page • Quality Educator Interactive (QEI) • 'IDEAS' for Your Classroom • Online Courses • NEA Grants • Our Favorite Links • More
EDUCATION NEWS
Headlines • At the Capitol • Collective Bargaining • Great Schools feature articles • Press Room • OnWEAC In Print • Columns • More
ISSUES
School Funding • 'No Child Left Behind' • Vouchers • QEO law • Teacher Licensing • Health Care • National Board Certification • Tax Gimmicks (TABOR) • More
ONLINE SERVICES
OnWEAC Direct • OnWEAC Store • Share Your Photos • Parents Place • Personal financial services • OnWEAC Savers' Club • More
ASSOCIATION LINKS
UniServs & Locals • ESP • WTCS • Student WEA • WEAC-Retired • Professional Development Academy • WEA Credit Union • Member Benefits • WEA Trust • NEA • WEAC Jobs • Contact Us • More
MEMBERS ONLY SITE
OnWEAC Savers' Club • Cyberlobby • Change My Demographic Information • Leadership • Organizational Documents • More
QUICK CLICKS
What is WEAC? • Great Schools • Calendar of Events • Site Map • Contact Us

One of four districts surveyed has considered consolidation or dissolution

More than one-fourth of superintendents participating in a new survey said their school districts are facing such drastic financial problems that they have at least considered the possibility of consolidating with other districts or dissolving completely.

This is the first time in the 13-year history of this annual survey that superintendents were asked whether their districts were contemplating consolidation or dissolution. The survey is conducted jointly by WEAC and the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators to determine the effects of the revenue controls law on the programs and services offered by public schools.

Of those who said their district had considered one or the other, 80% considered consolidation, while 20% have considered dissolution. Under consolidation, two districts mutually consider merging into a single district. Under dissolution, a district simply ceases to exist and surrounding districts are required to divide up the students.

“In many cases, consolidation and dissolution are acts of desperation and surrender,” said WEAC President Stan Johnson. “It is a travesty that the school funding system in this state has reached a stage where so many of our school districts are even considering these drastic options.”

According to the survey, the average district holding such discussions is small in size – 729 students – and has experienced little growth in enrollment since 1993 (0.81%). In contrast, among districts reporting no such talks, the average size is a much larger – 2,006 students – and the district has shown an average increase in enrollment of 9.1% since 1993.

Superintendents representing districts that had discussions about consolidation were asked a series of follow-up questions. More than 90% said the discussions were the result of fiscal problems. However, no one indicated that the district actually had joined with another. Fifty-seven percent reported that no action was taken, while 33% reported they continue to collect information about this option.

When asked about the possible effects of consolidation, superintendents responded as follows:

Level of support in the community: 23% indicated there was a “fair amount” of support for consolidation, contrasted with 45% who answered “very little” and 7% who said “almost none.” Fifteen percent reported that they did not know.
Effects on property taxes: 17% thought consolidation would have a positive effect on property taxes. Forty-one percent said “negative,” while 33% pointed out that the effects would be “neutral.
Effect on the community’s economic health: 12% stated that consolidation would have a “positive” effect on the community’s economic health. This compares with 41% who said “negative” and 36% who thought the effects would be “neutral.”

Superintendents also were asked about the effects of consolidation on four measures of educational quality.

The Effects of Consolidation on Education
	Positive	Negative	Neutral	Don't Know
Effects on extracurricular programs	36%	41%	21%	2%
Effects on parental involvement	7%	39%	42%	12%
Effect on students	36%	26%	19%	19%
Effects on overall educational quality	36%	19%	38%	7%

Only 7% thought that such an action would have positive effects on parental involvement in the schools. On the other three questions, 36% of superintendents (mostly the same ones) thought that consolidation would benefit students, have a positive effect on extra-curriculars, and improve the overall quality of education.

Significant findings from previous studies

Over the past 13 years, this survey has reported dozens of important findings, including:

Last year, superintendents reported that several content areas are being cut or eliminated as a result of the revenue controls. The most vulnerable areas are business education; family and consumer education; foreign languages; music, art, band/orchestra; physical education/health; and technology/vocational education.
Superintendents again and again have said that the long-term effects of the revenue controls on educational quality have been negative. This negative perception is not unexpected because this legislation was enacted in order to reduce and control property taxes; it was not promoted as a way to improve schools.
On several occasions, superintendents report that the revenue controls have caused cuts in programs and services, resulting in conflicts or disagreements between regular and special education teachers over the use of resources. In their written comments, many superintendents criticized the state and national governments for failing to adequately fund special needs programs.
Eight in 10 superintendents report that the revenue controls are harming their district’s overall educational quality.
Ninety percent of superintendents say they want greater flexibility at the local level to exceed the revenue limits.

This year's survey demonstrated cuts in school districts staff, programs and services are continuing and, in some areas accelerating.

Listed below are 10 areas in which there was a gain of 20 percentage points or more from 1998-99 to 2005-06. Initially, districts tended to delay or eliminate facilities improvements or maintenance in order to limit spending. In recent years, however, cuts have occurred in all 27 areas, many of which relate directly to what happens in the classroom. For example, at or near the top of the list below are increased class sizes, teacher layoffs, and layoffs of aides/support staff.

Percent of districts taking actions - largest increases
	1998-1999	1999-2000	2000-2001	2001-2002	2002-2003	2003-2004	2004-2005	2005-2006	Change
Increased class sizes	48	50	56	64	68	68	70	74	+26%
Laid off teachers	32	42	50	67	69	69	70	62	+26%
Offered fewer field trips for students	41	48	60	59	61	64	66	66	+25%
Laid off teacher aides or other support staff	40	45	54	66	71	69	66	63	+23%
Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	52	60	72	71	74	73	72	74	+22%
Increased administrator workload	56	63	66	74	78	79	81	78	+22%
Increased student fees	45	56	59	65	75	73	65	67	+22%
Laid off administrators / supervisors	30	37	42	47	56	49	55	51	+21%
Offered fewer courses	39	45	49	55	57	60	62	60	+21%
Reduced extracurricular programs	34	39	46	48	55	51	53	54	+20%

The complete report on this year's survey is available online (opens a pdf file).

Posted February 28, 2007