Do failing schools benefit from school consolidation?

“YES” SIDE (Terrell) With the continuing economic decline and the increasing pressures for schools to show improvement, many districts are seriously considering the controversial issue of school consolidation. One way many districts are trying to avoid huge consolidations is by creating charter schools. Charter schools are viewed as great solutions because they allow districts to continue to receive public funding while not having to uphold the same rules and regulations as regular public schools. Many proponents view charter schools as a solution to the economic crisis facing public education because they recognize that it allows districts to continue to receive federal and state funding while serving fewer students. With many charter schools promising to challenge students more academically, more advanced students tend to leave public schools in favor of this promise. Charters decrease the quality of education for students who stay behind by bleeding off caring parents and motivated students (Clabaugh, 2009). As public schools lose more funding and the better performing students, the struggle to compete academically by purchasing updated computers and equipment, hiring more experienced faculty and staff, and increasing state and national test scores not only continues, but also increases. With charter schools being controlled by fewer rules and regulations than public schools, much room is left for mistakes in allocations of funding. According to a report by Clabaugh (2009), a Philadelphia charter was discovered to have spent only 38.4 percent of its budget on instruction while the remainder went for niceties such as legal fees, travel, meals, and entertainment. Taxpayers’ money is not always used effectively or appropriately. Without specific budget regulations, the directors of charter schools often find opportunities for fraud or misuse of public funds (Clabaugh, 2009). In cases like that of charter school Citizen 2000 in Phoenix, Arizona, where the director was accused of intentionally inflating attendance figures to garner more state aid and using school accounts to repay personal debts and to make such personal purchases as jewelry and swimming pool supplies, the misuse of funding can go unnoticed for years and eventually force school closures (Schnaiberg, 1997). Thousands to millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money goes down the drain. Students and parents are forced to relocate and find other charter or private schools or are forced to re-attend public schools. Students begin to suffer from discontinuity in their educational services. According to research done by Lacireno-Paquet (2006), evidence points to the fact that many charter schools are highly segregated by race and income, and almost one third of schools with admissions requirements base admissions on the student’s academic record. For example, recognizing that minority students stereotypically come from working families with lower incomes, many charter schools subtly promote segregation by not offering transportation to and from their campuses. With some minority families unable to regularly afford even the low costs of public transportation to and from school each day, unable to afford their own personal car or truck, or even unable to drive their kids to school each day due to a more demanding work schedule, minority students have no way of arriving at charter schools. Thus, significantly depressing the percentage of minority students in charter schools (Lacireno-Pacquet, 2006). The opportunities of disadvantaged students are lost. “NO” SIDE (Brianna) The education of our students is most important. How is one teacher going to focus his/her attention on 30 students (consider this a high school) per class five or six times a day, every day for a week? Let’s be honest with ourselves, he/she won’t be able to, no matter how super human that teacher is. Bigger is not always better. Not for class size and not for school size. People tend to argue the cost effectiveness of consolidating schools, but does the price really matter when it comes to the education of our future? Some still say yes, but think of it this way, in rural districts, the schools have a prominent position in the economic and social development of that community. That one (or few) school is important to that community’s economy. Still concerned about the money? The larger schools have shown to increase transportation costs, raise dropout rates, and lower student involvement in extra-curricular activities, which all have an effect financially A study was conducted in 1998 in New York City on pioneering small schools. The conclusion that was reached mentioned that the small-design schools might have cost more per pupil, but the “cost per graduate” was much lower. This shows that small schools may be cheaper in the long run. Some have tried to counter act the bigger schools by creating smaller “schools” (teams or houses) within those schools. Research does show that within a smaller school the students tend to be more successful because there are more one-on-one options with the teachers. This tends to be especially true of students from low-income families. The students can also get to know their peers better. This evidence is mixed, at best. Some have found positive results when breaking the school into mini-schools. Others have found that they were rather fragile and closed after only a few years. The other teams would become envious of one another. If the smaller school was doing better than the host school, the host school would become resentful and work to undermine others. They found when a smaller school did work, it was typically do to the high degree of independence that was seen. The academic improvement alone should be enough to reconsider the consolidation of schools. However, when it is not, we need to make aware other important factors that the research has shown. The students not only perform better academically, but they graduate at higher levels, are more likely to attend college, and will typically earn a higher salary later in life. Think about the morale of the school. There are more positive attitudes toward learning and the school-related crime and violence dwindles. The teachers are more satisfied with their jobs and are able to identify problems (and can respond effectively). Parents are more likely to become involved in the school. These and many other findings have drawn the attention and support of educators and foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2000, they committed $350 million towards the change of large, comprehensive high schools into smaller more effective learning communities.
SUMMARY REFLECTION (Terrell) This assignment has provided me with an opportunity to reflect on how education changes as finances in education change. I am a firm believer that small schools have many benefits to a student's education. Small class sizes allow me to get to know my students as students and as individuals. We have very good test scores at our school. If we would consolidate, we would become a larger school. I am not putting down large schools, but I don't believe our community wants a large school. Imagine the time some students would have to spend riding the bus to school in a day. I realize that my opinion may be based on an isolated case, which is why I do not totally reject school consolidation. I think it is an issue that must be carefully analyzed by school administrators and legislators. Each school, district, and community is different and thus the appropriateness of school consolidation varies for each.

References

(Terrell)
Clabaugh, G.K. (2009). Deregulation and charter school swindles: when the cat’s away. Education Horizons, 87, 82-87.
Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2006). Charter school enrollments in context: an exploration of organization and policy influences. Peabody Journal of Education, 81, 79-102.
Schnaiberg, L. (1997). Off to market. Education Week, 16. (Brianna)
(http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG05-05Hylden.pdf).
(http://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/crec/topics/consolidation).
(Debra Viadero, Education Week, 2001)
(Jordan Hylden, Harvard University, 2004)