School Consolidation: What School Administrators Need to Know 315Certainly the high visibility, the cost of schools, and the critical mission of schools
justifies the examination of their effectiveness and merit; however, it’s difficult to understand
how schools are viewed as dispensable. In a report presented to the National Rural Education
Association Executive Committee, Purcell and Shackelford (2005) pointed out, “Most people
would never support the removal of other important primary institutions such as the
economic, political, emergency services, religious or media organizations from our
communities, and we feel the rural school community support function is equally important to
the performance of a viable community” (p. 1).
Research on Consolidation
Educators, as do researchers, disagree on the merits of consolidation. However, to support
the consolidation process, one must first agree with the premise that “bigger is better.” As
large schools have recently worked toward the smaller “school within a school” concept, it
casts doubt on the one size–one large size–fits all approach to education.
The traditional argument of cost savings is also rebutted. Researchers for the Rural
School and Community Trust (2006) reviewed numerous studies from 1960-2004 and
concluded that consolidation had not necessarily reduced fiscal expenditures. High costs
associated with consolidation were usually the construction of new facilities and
transportation. School consolidation produced less fiscal benefit and greater fiscal cost than it
promised. While some costs, particularly administrative costs, may have declined in the short
run, they were replaced by other expenditures, especially transportation and specialized staff.
Loss of a school also negatively affected the tax base and fiscal capacity of the district.
These costs were often borne disproportionately by low-income and minority communities.
Even if a higher per pupil cost was associated with small rural schools, it needed to be
examined against the costs of higher dropout rates in medium and large high schools.
An excellent example of the lack of research supporting consolidation comes from the
Center for Rural Pennsylvania, which is a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania general
assembly. The Center was seeking to learn if the size of Pennsylvania’s rural districts
affected student academic performance and administrative and financial efficiency. The study
of rural districts only, not a comparison of rural and urban, was especially appropriate as the
school consolidation process resulted in small rural districts merging to form a larger, but still
small rural district. Did larger rural districts fare better than smaller rural districts?
Researchers examined background characteristics, fiscal management, administrative
capacity, and student academic achievement to determine if there were significant differences.
While differences did exist, they were not significant. There was no evidence to support the
concepts of economy of scale, increased administrative efficiency through consolidation and
higher academic achievement or more curriculum offerings in bigger districts. The report
summary was , “Overall, the research did not find any evidence to support the notion that
bigger districts are better districts, in terms of cost, administration or academic achievement,
in rural Pennsylvania” (p. 5).
Supporters and opponents of school consolidation can both produce research to support
their point of view. However, the research now is more balanced and must be studied by both
sides. According to Purcell and Shackleford (2005), Theobald (2002) stated:
...consolidation has been a defining characteristic of educational history throughout
the twentieth century. This characteristic was driven by a powerful assumption, albeit
an unsubstantiated one, concerning the best way to go about the business of public