As enrollments drop, city after city is facing pressure to close half-empty schools. Fewer kids means fewer dollars. Consolidating two schools saves money because it means paying for one less principal, librarian, nurse, PE teacher, counselor, reading coach, clerk, custodian … you get the idea. Low-enrollment schools end up on the chopping block because they’re the ones that typically cost more per pupil.
But there is another way to cut costs without closing underenrolled schools.
First, it’s worth noting that small schools needn’t cost more per pupil. Our school spending and outcomes data include examples of small schools all across the country that operate on per-pupil costs comparable to their larger peers — some even delivering solid student outcomes.
But here’s the catch: These financially viable small schools are staffed very differently than larger schools.
There’s a 55-student school near Yosemite that spends about $13,000 a student — well under the state average. How do they make it work? One teacher teaches grades two, three, and four. There’s no designated nurse, counselor, or PE teacher, and rather than offer traditional athletics, students learn to ski and hike.
A quick glance at the many different financially viable small schools across different states reveals that staff often wear multiple hats. The principal is also the Spanish teacher, or the counselor also teaches math.
Also common are multi-level classrooms. When my kids attended a small rural high school, physics was combined with AP Physics, which meant both my 10th and 12th graders were in the same class, but with different homework.
Sometimes schools give kids electives via online options, send students to other schools for sports, or forgo some of these services altogether. Some have no subs (merging classes in the case of an absence). Sometimes the schools partner with a community group or lean on parents to help in the library or coach sports.
Done well, smallness can be an asset, even with the more limited services and staff. Whereas a counselor might be critical in a larger school to ensure that a student has someone to talk to, with fewer students in a small school, relationships come easier. Teachers may have more bandwidth to assist a struggling student.
What isn’t financially viable? A school with the full complement of typical school staff but fewer kids. These aren’t purposely designed small schools, rather they’re underenrolled large schools (sometimes called “zombie schools”). Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, has a slew of tiny schools spending over $30,000 per pupil. Such schools vary in performance, but all sustain their higher per-pupil price tag by drawing down funds meant for students in the rest of the district. In the end, no one wins.
Recommended for you
With so much aversion from parents to closing schools (witness, for example, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, Oakland, Pittsburgh or Denver) we might expect more districts to adopt these nontraditional staffing models as a way to save costs and keep families happy.
In some cities, it’s the charter schools that are offering just that: smaller nontraditional programs that make it work without extra subsidies.
Some will argue that nontraditional schools (including charters) won’t work for every student. Districts must take all comers, including English learners, families needing extra supports, those wanting a full athletics program, specialty autism services, and so on. That said, the idea here is that larger districts needn’t offer those services in every school, provided they’re available elsewhere in the district.
But it’s these larger districts that are the most wedded to the uniform staffing structure. It’s so deeply embedded in job titles and union rules, as well as program specifications and more.
Tolerating small nontraditional schools would mean letting go of some of that rigidity and accepting the idea that schools can be successful without all those fixed inputs. And it might mean reducing some staff who believe their roles are protected when enshrined in a staffing formula. On the flip side, if the school in question has higher outcomes, and the choice is to close it or redesign its staffing structure to transform it into a more intentionally small school, parents and students may accept that trade if it means preserving the school community.
It would also mean changing budgeting practices so that what gets allocated is a fair share of the dollars per pupil — in contrast with allocations based on standardized staffing prescriptions.
The last decade saw a big push for inputs-based models, including “every school needs a counselor” or “every school needs a nurse.” As enrollments continue to fall, these inflexible one-size-fits-all allocations stand in the way of keeping small schools open.
None of this is to say that every school should remain open. Many will inevitably close. But for some of those that deliver solid outcomes for their students, perhaps now is the right time to rethink the typical schooling model.
Marguerite Roza is director of the Edunomics Lab and research professor at Georgetown University, where she leads the McCourt School of Public Policy’s Certificate in Education Finance. The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. It was originally published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, but reprinted by edsource.org.
(4) comments
Nobody in their right mind would send their kids to public school - with lunatics like this - who I wouldn't even trust to clean my bathroom. This author is a lunatic. Stop writing and stop pushing your lunatic vibes on us.
There is another interesting sentence in here:
"There’s a 55-student school near Yosemite that spends about $13,000 a student — well under the state average."
$13,000 per student spending would be way above California average, but my guess is she is talking about funding, not spending.
People around education in California always mix up school funding and school spending. The per-student spending is based on what the classroom looks like. With large classrooms and low teacher salaries most districts in the Bay Area hardly reach per-student spending of $8,000 per year. Even really good districts are still only around $10,000.
Now the per-student funding is much higher. They all pretend to be poor, but easily have $15,000, $21,000, even $25,000 per-student funding. The difference between the funding and the spending is the mismanagement we see in handling their real estate. All school districts seem to have too many buildings. This happens when you don't pay property taxes - which is a mistake that should be rectified.
There is lots of dirty money in the real estate business. And trustees always seem to be more interested (and educated) about that side of the business, but less informed about education and funding.
Two types of schools are essentially the ones ruining the California education system:
- Magnet Schools
- Middle Schools
Both types of school are invented or created for the purpose of "school integration" and yet the districts using them are mostly using them in a way to foster and increase school segregation. Every single "failing school" district has a high ratio of good schools (those neighborhood elementary schools starting with a K-) and the amount of schools that come with extra high cost.
So small, rural neighborhood schools aren't the financial problem at all. It's the urban student that is touching 5 different building, 5 different principals, 3 different district superintendents to make it through 13 years of education. The cost to educate that kid far outlasts the available funding.
Even when these urban districts finally close some schools, they keep the school buildings and the cost to maintain them and the interest debt they signed up for when asking voters for outsized bond measures.
Thank you, Ms. Roza, for your guest perspective and proposed alternatives to closing half-empty schools. However, the issue is not just related to half-empty schools but the schools themselves. There are continued costs related to maintenance and upkeep, and potential upgrades, to these underenrolled schools. If we “carve” out only those buildings necessary for “small schools” then it may be economically feasible but to keep the entire school maintained and upkept will require ongoing funding and that math doesn’t work. I’d recommend applying your program to physical schools, also.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.