Apparently some people in Hamilton have been saying that they think we should go ahead with a merger because, if we don't, the state government will eventually force a merger anyway and the terms might be worse. I believe that this prediction of "forced merger" comes from a confusion, one which I shared back when I started thinking about this almost three years ago. I wrote here that
The state has had thousands of school district mergers over the past century, and probably they all had bad effects but they also had economies of scale: it costs less to educate a thousand kids if you put them into one building rather than keep them in fifty one-room schoolhouses. I believed that. Hey, I still believe that. I would bet that nearly (but not quite) all of our thousands of mergers have been net positives.
So it's understandable that the June 3, 2008 Suozzi Commission Report wanted to
But then we had the merger study and I spent my time on the CAC and it turned out that in our particular case, the economy of scale (fewer teachers) is neatly balanced by the diseconomy of scale (more bus runs); the difference between them is less than 1% of the combined-district yearly budget. And if fuel cost trends continue, the diseconomy of scale will come to dominate the economy of scale. From an economy of scale perspective, from a total costs perspective, this particular proposed merger is a loser and (so far as I can tell) none of its supporters dispute that. The "ability to achieve fiscal savings" mentioned in the Suozzi recommendation just plain isn't there. Maybe that's true of most of the remaining un-merged small districts: maybe that's why they haven't merged for all these years. Or maybe not, but it's certainly true of us.
Therefore, increasing fiscal pressure on the state means decreasing pressure to merge. Except of course for any remaining districts which really can save money by merging; it's possible that those tiny Long Island districts that the NYT talked about will someday fall into that category. Not us, unless transportation costs go down. For us, the relevant parts would be the other ways of saving money in Recommendation 6 and elsewhere.
Why, then, are we still considering merger at all? Well, because of the state incentive aid involved. Spread over fourteen years we would get $20 million; that's big, isn't it? If the state pays it, it's almost 3/4 of one year's expected budget. So you can think of it as a 5% budget savings for fourteen years, and then it's gone. (Or gone earlier, if the state hits a sufficient crisis before then, as now seems quite plausible.) And there's also the fact that by merging with Morrisville we would become a "high needs district" and get more aid, until we don't because the state's financial troubles force aid cuts, as they have before.
The state's financial troubles, which are very real and might get much worse without much warning, are not a reason to merge or to expect forced merger. Those troubles are a reason not to put ourselves into a position of depending more and more on state finances to fix the problem of New York's super-expensive education...twice as much as the average state, with no obvious educational benefit coming from the rules that generate that extra cost.
Or so it seems to me.
update: Forgot to mention that Ken Bausch did most of the work for this post. All the mistakes are mine, as always. -- tjm
My Upstate New York village has had a school for quite a while; it may not have a school for much longer. New York has long had a consolidation "incentives" policy, pushing "central schools" like ours (which serves neighboring villages and the rural area around) into mergers into larger, more central, more remote schools. There is an argument that consolidation saves on overall costs...And if consolidation saves on overall costs, and some of these costs are carried by your state taxes, and New York State is increasingly stretched for money, then surely it makes sense that eventually the state will say "merge, or we stop supporting you at all." Right? That's what economies of scale push you into: it's not that you want to lose your local district's independence, it's just that the economics makes this into the least bad of the available options.
The state has had thousands of school district mergers over the past century, and probably they all had bad effects but they also had economies of scale: it costs less to educate a thousand kids if you put them into one building rather than keep them in fifty one-room schoolhouses. I believed that. Hey, I still believe that. I would bet that nearly (but not quite) all of our thousands of mergers have been net positives.
So it's understandable that the June 3, 2008 Suozzi Commission Report wanted to
11. Give the Commissioner of Education discretionary authority to order consolidation of school districts based on reviews triggered by objective standards, including but not limited to the size of the student population and geography, declining enrollment, limited educational programs, ability to achieve fiscal savings, and high tax burden.... the LGEC report estimated that consolidating school districts in New York State with fewer than 900 students would result in annual savings of $158.5 to $189.2 million.At the time, that went nowhere; six months later the New York Times reported on tiny downstate school districts in Making Sense of School Consolidation on Long Island
Members of the State Legislature long ago made this calculus for many of the state’s districts, and every year they refuse to touch bills calling for consolidation. So there is a feeling in these parts that the Suozzi commission’s recommendations will gather dust on a shelf.And it has gathered dust; the currently applicable governor's "Recommendation 6" of the Education Reform Commission Report.pdf does say
Recommendation 6. Promote increased access to educational opportunities by encouraging school district restructuring through consolidation and regional high schools.but it's a lot more cautious, and more open to other ways of saving money. No forced merger is on the table. Still, it seemed that some way, some how, the dragon of Economy Of Scale would end up eating up the fair maiden and any (Emerald or other) Knights trying to stop it would just have to go spin their windmills. Less money, fewer schools. Right? That's what I sadly thought in 2011.
But then we had the merger study and I spent my time on the CAC and it turned out that in our particular case, the economy of scale (fewer teachers) is neatly balanced by the diseconomy of scale (more bus runs); the difference between them is less than 1% of the combined-district yearly budget. And if fuel cost trends continue, the diseconomy of scale will come to dominate the economy of scale. From an economy of scale perspective, from a total costs perspective, this particular proposed merger is a loser and (so far as I can tell) none of its supporters dispute that. The "ability to achieve fiscal savings" mentioned in the Suozzi recommendation just plain isn't there. Maybe that's true of most of the remaining un-merged small districts: maybe that's why they haven't merged for all these years. Or maybe not, but it's certainly true of us.
Therefore, increasing fiscal pressure on the state means decreasing pressure to merge. Except of course for any remaining districts which really can save money by merging; it's possible that those tiny Long Island districts that the NYT talked about will someday fall into that category. Not us, unless transportation costs go down. For us, the relevant parts would be the other ways of saving money in Recommendation 6 and elsewhere.
Why, then, are we still considering merger at all? Well, because of the state incentive aid involved. Spread over fourteen years we would get $20 million; that's big, isn't it? If the state pays it, it's almost 3/4 of one year's expected budget. So you can think of it as a 5% budget savings for fourteen years, and then it's gone. (Or gone earlier, if the state hits a sufficient crisis before then, as now seems quite plausible.) And there's also the fact that by merging with Morrisville we would become a "high needs district" and get more aid, until we don't because the state's financial troubles force aid cuts, as they have before.
The state's financial troubles, which are very real and might get much worse without much warning, are not a reason to merge or to expect forced merger. Those troubles are a reason not to put ourselves into a position of depending more and more on state finances to fix the problem of New York's super-expensive education...twice as much as the average state, with no obvious educational benefit coming from the rules that generate that extra cost.
Or so it seems to me.
update: Forgot to mention that Ken Bausch did most of the work for this post. All the mistakes are mine, as always. -- tjm
No comments:
Post a Comment