Wyoming School Funding Model Recalibration:

Consolidation and Shared Services Study

Robert Schoch and Dr. William Hartman, Education Finance Decisions

ForAugenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.

Presentation to the Select CommitteeCasper, WY

November 2017

Purposes of Study

• The study examines opportunities for cooperatively providing and sharing services between school districts for special education, transportation, and gifted and talented programming

• This analysis includes a review of the literature and a survey to all districts to collect data on current cooperatively provided and/or shared services, barriers that exist to cooperatively providing or sharing services, and the types of incentives that would encourage more of these activities

• The study team evaluates consolidation opportunities to make recommendations regarding what types of districts would be candidates for consolidation and under what conditions

2

Background Information of District

Enrollment, Geographic Area, and Boundaries

• Wyoming comparison with nation

– Number and proportion of districts by enrollment

• Previous consolidation and boundary realignment

• Enrollment and Average Daily Membership (ADM) by District

• Population density and school locations

• Information is presented on maps to demonstrate commonalities and differences

3

0

2

2

2

15

15

5

7

0

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 O R M O R E

1 0 , 0 0 0 -9 9 , 9 9 9

5 , 0 0 0 -9 , 9 9 9

3 , 0 0 0 -4 , 9 9 9

1 , 0 0 0 -2 , 9 9 9

5 0 0 - 9 9 9 3 0 0 - 4 9 9 1 0 0 - 2 9 9 1 - 9 9

NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY DISTRICT SIZE, FY 2011 -2012*

WyomingWisconsinWest VirginiaWashingtonVirginiaVermontUtahU.S. Virgin IslandsTexasTennesseeSouth DakotaSouth CarolinaRhode IslandPuerto RicoPennsylvaniaOregonOklahomaOhioNorth DakotaNorth CarolinaNew YorkNew MexicoNew JerseyNew HampshireNevadaNebraskaMontanaMissouriMississippiMinnesotaMichiganMassachusettsMarylandMaineLouisianaKentucky

Wyoming has a typical distribution of districts by enrollment.

*Most recent year comparable state data were available

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Texa

sC

alif

orn

iaIll

ino

isN

ew

Yo

rkO

hio

Ne

w J

ers

eyM

ich

igan

Okl

aho

ma

Mis

sou

riP

enn

sylv

ania

Wis

con

sin

Mo

nta

na

Iow

aM

inn

eso

taK

ansa

sW

ash

ingt

on

Ind

ian

aV

erm

on

tN

eb

rask

aM

ain

eA

rkan

sas

Mas

sach

use

tts

Ari

zon

aB

ure

au o

f In

dia

n E

du

cati

on

Ore

gon

No

rth

Dak

ota

Ge

org

iaN

ew

Ham

psh

ire

Co

lora

do

Ken

tuck

yC

on

ne

ctic

ut

Sou

th D

ako

taM

issi

ssip

pi

Ten

nes

see

Vir

gin

iaA

lab

ama

Idah

oN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Ne

w M

exi

coSo

uth

Car

olin

aLo

uis

ian

aFl

ori

da

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Ala

ska

Wyo

min

gU

tah

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dM

aryl

and

Del

awar

eN

eva

da

U.S

. Vir

gin

Isla

nd

sD

istr

ict

of

Co

lum

bia

Haw

aii

Pu

ert

o R

ico

Total School Districts in Each State

5

District boundaries are closely related to county boundaries after consolidation in 1969.

Some districts cross counties, others subdivide counties.

6

Districts across county

boundaries

7

Many small

districts in one county

8

Students/District• Wide range of

students per district

• Some counties with only one district, including large counties

Review of Research Literature

• Definition of consolidation– School district consolidation is the process of combining or

merging multiple school districts to form a single school district

– School consolidation occurs when two school buildings combine their enrollments and one is closed

• In 1939, there were 117,108 school districts nationally• By 1961, the number declined to 20,000 school

districts and this number has remained fairly stable since then

• Consolidation decisions involve balancing economic efficiency and educational effectiveness

10

Economic Efficiency Through

Consolidation

• Potential savings are possible through reduction of one-of-a-kind positions such as superintendents, business managers, curriculum directors, federal program directors, and others

• Additional savings may be possible through quantity purchasing and shared resources

• New York State study indicates 31.5% net cost savings for doubling the enrollment of a 300 student district and 14.4% for a 1,500 student district (Duncombe and Yinger, 2007)

11

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

50 500 5,000

Exp

end

itu

re P

er S

tud

ent

(Exp

end

itu

res

/ A

DM

)

District Size (ADM)

Wyoming School District Size vs. Expenditures Per Student, 2015-16

12*X Axis values are logarithmic to improve data readability

13

Central AdministratorsAs Percentage of Total Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff (2015-16)

Opportunities for Efficiencies in Support Staffing? 2015-16

14

Economic Efficiency Offset by Costs of

Consolidating

• Offsetting the potential savings of consolidation are a number of potential cost increases including:– Increasing compensation to level of more generous district– Addition of mid-level supervisors– Transition costs: common textbooks and instructional resources– Transportation costs if building closure occurs, which is common– Training on curriculum and instruction, process and procedures,

and common software– Service contract termination– Technology infrastructure and common software– Name change: signage, stationery, athletic and band uniforms

15

Equalizing Compensation

16

Educational Effectiveness Through

Consolidation (or Shared Services)

• Enhance educational opportunities for students and improve academic performance

• More comprehensive course offerings and extracurricular activities

• More professional development options for teachers

• Larger teacher network for collaboration• Specialized instructional support services• Opportunities to share best practices in

promoting attendance and graduation

17

One example of an opportunity to sharespecialized staff?

18

General Research Conclusions

• “Econometric studies of district consolidation tend not to include the value of important educational contingencies such as extracurricular participation rates, parental involvement, and community support.”

• “The contemporary research, as a body and almost to a study, has not recommended consolidation either to save tax dollars or to improve the outcomes or quality of schooling.”

• “Decisions to deconsolidate or consolidate districts are best made on a case-by-case basis” as they are “unlikely to be a reliable way to obtain substantive fiscal or educational improvement.”

• Closely question claims about presumed benefits of consolidation• Avoid statewide mandates for consolidation or minimum sizes for schools and

districts• Consider other measures to improve fiscal efficiency or educational services

– Cooperative purchasing agreements among districts– Combined financial services– Enhanced roles for regional Educational Service Agencies (BOCES)– Distance learning options for advanced subjects in small rural schools

Source: National Education Policy Center, 2011

19

Research Findings Guide this Study

• Avoid oversimplification• Customize the financial and educational program

analysis using detailed guidelines compiled by this report from several sources

• Consider alternatives that yield benefits without the risks of consolidation

• Target efforts to largest savings potential and workable solutions

• Phase the approach to making consolidation decisions– Identify potential partners with broad criteria– Perform a comprehensive analysis of districts: educational

programs, operations, finance, personnel administration

20

Consolidation Model Design

Based on Research

• Allows consolidation of multiple districts• Collects comparative data

– Staffing ratios – student:teacher and student:administrator– Grade level structure– Enrollment change-increase/decrease, grade level differences– Cost per student– Population density

• Calculates cost savings potential– Staffing– Program and service duplication– Quantity purchasing– Future cost avoidance– Offsetting transitional investments needed

• Adds potential school level consolidation savings• Results in low and high range of economic impact• Some components of the model inform sharing opportunities possible

through alternatives to district consolidation

21

Survey Results

• Survey methods: administered online, emailed link to all district superintendents and business officers

• Three reminders via emails and calls - over 70% response rate

• For common shared services, four questions:– Currently shared– Shared in the past– Would consider sharing– Would not share

• Barriers to sharing• Open questions: opportunities and barriers

22

Survey Results

Q1. STAFFING AND RELATED BENEFITS: Single positions, district level

Currently Shared

Shared In The Past

Would Consider Sharing

Would Not Share

Superintendent 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 80.00%

Assistant Superintendent 0.00% 0.00% 38.89% 61.11%

Business Administrator 0.00% 0.00% 19.05% 80.95%

Curriculum Manager 0.00% 0.00% 57.14% 42.86%

Educational Foundation Manager 0.00% 0.00% 52.94% 47.06%

Facilities Manager 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%

Federal Programs 0.00% 0.00% 65.00% 35.00%

Food Services Manager 0.00% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62%

Fundraising 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 27.78%

Grant Writing 0.00% 0.00% 77.78% 22.22%

Personnel Manager 0.00% 0.00% 47.37% 52.63%

Public Relations 0.00% 0.00% 72.22% 27.78%

Student Services Manager 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%

Transportation Manager 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%

23

Survey Results

Q2. STAFFING AND RELATED BENEFITS: Other positions, district level

Currently Shared

Shared In The Past

Would Consider Sharing

WouldNot Share

Athletic Director 0.00% 0.00% 30.00% 70.00%

Cleaning Supervision, Inspection 0.00% 0.00% 63.16% 36.84%

Custodial 0.00% 0.00% 42.86% 57.14%

Facilities Maintenance 0.00% 0.00% 57.14% 42.86%

Groundskeeping 4.76% 0.00% 47.62% 47.62%

Guidance Counselors 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 65.00%

Nurses 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 55.00%

Teachers, Computer Programming 0.00% 0.00% 73.68% 26.32%

Teachers, Distance Learning 5.26% 5.26% 78.95% 10.53%

Teachers, Foreign Languages 0.00% 0.00% 70.00% 30.00%

Teachers, Other Specialized 5.00% 0.00% 55.00% 40.00%

Teachers, Physics, Other Sciences 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%

Teachers, Reading Specialists 0.00% 0.00% 55.00% 45.00%

Teachers, Special Education, Low Incidence 0.00% 5.00% 60.00% 35.00%

Technology Support 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 55.00%

Tutors 0.00% 0.00% 57.89% 42.11%

24

Survey ResultsQ4. SPECIALIZED SERVICES BY EMPLOYEES

Currently Shared

SharedIn The Past

Would Consider Sharing

WouldNot Share

Accounting 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%

Contract Administration 0.00% 0.00% 68.42% 31.58%

Financial Planning 0.00% 0.00% 63.16% 36.84%

Internal Auditing 0.00% 0.00% 68.42% 31.58%

Purchasing and Bidding Services 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%

Tax Collection 5.56% 0.00% 77.78% 16.67%

Curriculum Design and Development 0.00% 0.00% 65.00% 35.00%

Cleaning, Regular 0.00% 0.00% 35.00% 65.00%

Cleaning, Specialized 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00%

Food Preparation 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 60.00%

Menu Planning 5.00% 5.00% 65.00% 25.00%

Program Compliance 5.00% 5.00% 70.00% 20.00%

Construction Management 10.00% 0.00% 70.00% 20.00%

Energy Management 5.00% 0.00% 75.00% 20.00%

HVAC Maintenance 5.00% 0.00% 75.00% 20.00%

Maintenance Services, Specialized 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%

Painting 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%

Pest Control, Certified 5.26% 0.00% 78.95% 15.79%

Preventative Maintenance 5.00% 0.00% 70.00% 25.00%

Roofing 10.00% 0.00% 65.00% 25.00% 25

Survey Results

Q8. SPECIALIZED SERVICES BY EMPLOYEES

Currently Shared

SharedIn The Past

Would Consider Sharing

Would Not Share

Hiring 0.00% 9.52% 23.81% 66.67%

Employee Benefits Administration 4.76% 0.00% 57.14% 38.10%

Recruiting 4.76% 4.76% 52.38% 38.10%

Curriculum and Instruction 0.00% 9.52% 61.90% 28.57%

Management and Administration 4.76% 0.00% 52.38% 42.86%

Strategic Planning 0.00% 5.00% 45.00% 50.00%

Program Planning and Evaluation 0.00% 5.00% 55.00% 40.00%

Technology Planning, Instruction 0.00% 0.00% 60.00% 40.00%

Technology Planning, Infrastructure 4.76% 0.00% 61.90% 33.33%

Technology Planning, Administration 5.00% 0.00% 60.00% 35.00%

Technology Planning, Productivity 5.00% 0.00% 60.00% 35.00%

Network Support 9.52% 0.00% 47.62% 42.86%

Equipment Repair 9.52% 0.00% 57.14% 33.33%

Training 10.00% 5.00% 75.00% 10.00%

Driver Training 9.52% 4.76% 80.95% 4.76%

Management 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%

Specialized Routes 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%

Vehicle Maintenance 4.76% 0.00% 66.67% 28.57%

Bus Route Planning 0.00% 0.00% 71.43% 28.57%

26

Survey Results

Q14. Barriers to sharing an employee include

Answer Choices Responses

Travel distance/time 95.24%

Employment contract restrictions 47.62%

Currently too busy to share 66.67%

Service provided by a contractor 47.62%

Service provided by someone with many other duties 66.67%

Other (please specify) 23.81%

27

Survey Results

Q15. EQUIPMENT SHARING

Currently Shared

Shared In The Past

Would Consider Sharing

Would Not Share

Science Labs 4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 76.19%

Computer Labs 4.76% 0.00% 19.05% 76.19%

Instructional Resources 0.00% 0.00% 47.62% 52.38%

Special Education 4.76% 4.76% 38.10% 52.38%

Boom Lifts 5.26% 5.26% 68.42% 21.05%

Excavators, Backhoes 5.26% 5.26% 68.42% 21.05%

Dump Trucks 5.26% 0.00% 73.68% 21.05%

Vehicle Maintenance - Lifts, Diagnostic 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 25.00%

Mowing 9.52% 0.00% 42.86% 47.62%

Excavating 5.00% 0.00% 65.00% 30.00%

Snow Removal 4.76% 0.00% 42.86% 52.38%

Printing 10.00% 5.00% 65.00% 20.00%

28

Survey Results

Q21. Barriers to sharing equipment include:

Answer Choices Responses

The equipment is rented for brief periods if needed 57.89%

Contractors are used when that equipment is needed 73.68%

Effort required to move equipment 57.89%

Other (please specify) 47.37%

29

Other Survey Comments

• Opportunities to share employees or services– Special education– Online courses– Vocational programs, including agriculture

• Other barriers to sharing– District specific requirements need undivided

attention and expertise– Directions from multiple boards/administrations could

cause conflict– Reporting requirements– Calendar and scheduling conflicts

30

Examples of Sharing for Gifted and

Talented Programs

• Regional professional development, resulting in sharing of lessons and activities

• Traveling science kits, planetariums, robotics labs, science labs

• Circuit rider specialists traveling among school districts• Assemblies• Collaboration projects by students in different schools• Online programs may also provide increased cost-

effectiveness for providing gifted and talented programs – for example, the University of Connecticut’s Renzulli Learning program recommended by Picus and Odden

31

Identifying Characteristics Favorable to

Consolidation

• Optimal size-balancing educational effectiveness and efficiency

• Economies of scale offer savings opportunities• Expanded or improved educational programs and services• Reduce travel time• Address spending variances• Match decreasing and increasing enrollments to avoid

unnecessary investment in facilities

The examples mapped on the following slides are to illustrate these characteristics and do not represent a recommendation to consolidate

32

Balance Resource:

Students Per Certified Teacher

33

Opportunities to Equalize Spending?

34

Travel Time from Population Centers

35

Natural boundaries:

mountain ranges, rivers

36

Consolidation Model

• Allows consolidation of multiple districts• Collects comparative data

– Staffing ratios (student:teacher)– Grade level structure– Enrollment change: increase/decrease, grade level differences– Cost per student

• Economic efficiency– Staffing– Quantity purchasing– Duplication of programs and services– Future cost avoidance– Offsetting transitional investments needed

• Adds potential school level consolidation savings• Results in low and high range of economic impact• Components of model inform sharing opportunities without district

consolidation37

Consolidation Model

• Demonstrate model using two examples

– Two districts consolidated to one

– Four districts consolidated to one, with school level consolidation/closure for one school

38

Continuum of Opportunities

• Many of the savings opportunities and advantages of district consolidation can be achieved by alternatives to district level consolidation including:– Sharing of services between two or more districts– School level consolidation– Expansion of services offered by the BOCES regional education

services agencies– Minor realignment of boundaries

• Examples to compare consolidation and shared services– Foreign language teachers– Payroll services– Gifted and talented education

39

Expanded Regional Education Services

as an Alternative to Consolidation

• Most states have regional educational service agencies providing a wide variety of services

• Selected examples from other states include:– Texas: 20 Regional Education Service Centers offering approximately

400 different instructional, administrative, financial, training, and technology services saving schools over $60 million in 2012

– Connecticut: instructional, administrative, early childhood education, community business and adult education, technology, strategic planning, special education and pupil services, cooperative purchasing, public relations, academic audits, behavioral intervention strategies

– Pennsylvania: distance learning network, healthcare consortiums, administrative software, specialized transportation, training, grant writing, financial benchmarking

– Montana: gifted and talented professional development, resource sharing-equipment and personnel, distance learning training

40

Examples of Statewide

Consolidation Efforts

• Maine– State subsidy penalties if districts meeting criteria do not consolidate– Highly controversial but resulted in significant consolidation

• Pennsylvania, 2006 study – Identified 97 hypothetical pairings and methods where the authors found consolidation

would be possible and desirable– Focused on the potential benefits of consolidating relatively high-spending, smaller

districts into lower-spending, larger districts with enrollments below 3,000 students– Underscored that many key factors in a consolidation decision can be analyzed only on a

case-by-case basis– Even if cost savings could be assured, consolidations would be controversial– In the years following the study, none of the districts identified as potential candidates

for consolidation have proceeded towards consolidation

• Illinois– State aid at level of higher district for four years– Grant to pay teacher salary differential– One-time grant to cover some of negative fund balance– $4,000 per certified staff member, teachers and administrators

41

Recommendations

• Explore consolidation in several cases that have the maximum number of characteristics favorable to consolidation using the detailed approach outlined by other states – Preliminary analysis by Consolidation Model– Detailed analysis by Checklist Approach to identify

opportunities, barriers

• Expand the role of BOCES in providing shared services after review of examples from other states

• Fund pilot programs for shared services

42

Recommendations - Future

• Technological advances could stimulate innovation through visualizing extensive data on maps; Prepare numerous maps and conduct regional summits of experts to envision a collaborative future of shared programs and services for the benefits of students throughout Wyoming

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS)– Geocode all students by residential location, school attended, grade

level– Geocode all school buildings by capacity and condition– Compile all available enrollment, staffing, student achievement,

operational, and financial data to allow correlations to be visualized on the map

– Use automated calculation capabilities of GIS to:• Populate existing buildings to capacity with nearest students• Minimize travel time of students to schools• Identify cost avoidance potential of school level consolidation of proximate

schools in different districts

43