Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In some of the analysis I have read, it seems folks have moved away from emphasizing the dollar savings possible via county-wide consolidation (since it is generally agreed that there is very little - if any - dollar savings in the long run) to an emphasis on the positive social engineering that might be done via consolidation. The theory being that with the consolidation of Nassau County (for example) into one school district there might be a levelling of educational opportunities between, say, Garden City and Hempstead. This would include, but would not be limited to, a more balanced socioeconomic mix in many of the Nassau County School District high schools and a more equitable distribution of funding. This, the theory goes, will result in positive change for the currently disadvantaged students in poorer areas within the county.
(Obviously there are innumerable flaws in this theory and numerous possible objections to its relevance but the fact that the tiny number of 'consolidationists' have moved on to this speaks volumes as to the validity of the old dollar savings argument.)
That sounds like it makes sense, however, try selling this argument to Garden City residents who could give two hoots about Hempstead or other communities like them, will be an uphill battle. Additionally as I have said before, until they figure out a way that family 1, (well managed district with little debt) is not going to take a hit in helping bail out family 2, (debt ridden poorly managed district) it is just not feasible. If that were even doable, you then will have to deal with trying to convince the residents of each district that it is really a better idea to have little to no control over your own district.
I definitely agree that the 'social engineering' argument for county-wide consolidation is totally unconvincing for a critical mass of Nassau taxpayers. For a number of reasons. As is the now-discarded 'dollar savings' argument for county-wide consolidation.
Last edited by Quick Commenter; 05-02-2019 at 06:45 AM..
That sounds like it makes sense, however, try selling this argument to Garden City residents who could give two hoots about Hempstead or other communities like them, will be an uphill battle. Additionally as I have said before, until they figure out a way that family 1, (well managed district with little debt) is not going to take a hit in helping bail out family 2, (debt ridden poorly managed district) it is just not feasible. If that were even doable, you then will have to deal with trying to convince the residents of each district that it is really a better idea to have little to no control over your own district.
I'm 100% against consolidation. And your reasons is exactly why, there has to be a winner and a looser financially. No one on the losing side would be for this.
Wyanadnach is next to HHH schools
Bellmore/Merrick are next to Freeport and Roosevelt schools.
Massapequa is next to Amytville schools
Jericho is next to Westbury schools
Why would the residents of the better districts want to combine, there is no advantage.
I'm 100% against consolidation. And your reasons is exactly why, there has to be a winner and a looser financially. No one on the losing side would be for this.
Wyanadnach is next to HHH schools
Bellmore/Merrick are next to Freeport and Roosevelt schools.
Massapequa is next to Amytville schools
Jericho is next to Westbury schools
Why would the residents of the better districts want to combine, there is no advantage.
Yup, and those other posts about social engineering are just theories. "Equitable" education funding has been a problem for 150+ years everywhere, not just New York. The affluent tend to be better educated so they appreciate and are more willing to support the schools. Poor areas have no choice. There is no fairness. Education in NY and most places is predicated on "property wealth." Hempstead gets about 60% of their Budget in State Aid. Levittown gets maybe 20% and the rest is on the taxpayer. But some upstate areas get much more by % than Hempstead because they are in "low property wealth" areas. Poor areas on LI suffer because they are still in a "high property wealth" region. There are minority areas with good schools. It's a management and tax dependence issue.
What local control REALLY means is everyone retains the right to fight for their slice of the pie. Hire the right admins and your schools prosper and taxes are managed. Hire bums and the opposite happens.
Which brings us back to the original problem, how much are good ones worth vs bums? Consensus on LI is a lot (too much, lol).
Can someone explain how duplicating services over 50 times is more cost efficient?
As already stated, I don't believe that anyone can rationally say that multiple small districts is more cost efficient than one large district. Instead, the costs savings in moving to one large district is greatly exaggerated, and most people, I submit, would rather have the current system than a large county wide school district with a trivial tax cut.
Moreover, your question is grossly misleading. The "services" provided by public schools, from a cost perspective, mostly exist with the teachers. Whether you are educating 100,000 kids in one district, or 100,000 kids in 100 districts, teacher costs are exactly the same. If all of LI magically moved to a single district tomorrow, the amount of teachers would remain exactly the same.
A second "service" that is provided is buildings and grounds. Again, moving to a large district model does almost nothing in terms of saving money on buildings and grounds. You will still have the same amount of kids that need educating, and will need the same amount of space.
Once you get past teachers and schools, what else is left? Not much, in terms of percentage of budget. The administrator argument is greatly overblown. One superintendent can't manage a county-wide school district. You will need a whole bunch of asst superintendents. Yes, administration is where you can save some money, but you will not be eliminating as many positions as you think. For instance, a very small police department may just need a chief and maybe two Sgts. But a huge police department will need a chief, many captains, and many Lts, etc. The cost savings to be achieved in administration is real, but trivial.
You can't just minimize this analysis to "duplicating services over 50 times", as if the teachers, buildings and administrators of one small district can exactly cover all the needs of a district 50 times its size.
Can someone explain how duplicating services over 50 times is more cost efficient?
You assume services are duplicated. There is obvioulsly duplication of administration personnel, but you show no evidence of how much would actually be saved in manpower or dollars. It's easy to throw out some ridiculous claim of turning 100 superintendents into 1, but reality doesn't work that way.
Sizeable potential cost savings may exist by moving from a very small district (500 or less pupils) to a district with approximately 2,000 to 4,000 pupils, both in
19
instructional and administrative costs. Per pupil costs may continue to decline slightly until an enrollment of roughly 6,000, when diseconomies of scale start to set in. One clear distinction between the recent estimates of economies of size compared to those reviewed in Fox (1981) is that they show the cost-minimizing district size to be at a much lower enrollment.
The above, and most other fact-based discussions on the topic revert back to the "Economies of scale in education" paper by Andrews, Duncombe, and Yinger (2002)
From the abstract:
Quote:
The best of the cost function studies suggest that sizeable potential cost savings in instructional and administrative costs may exist by moving from a very small district (500 or fewer pupils) to a district with ca 2000–4000 pupils. The findings from production function studies of schools are less consistent, but there is some evidence that moderately sized elementary schools (300–500 students) and high schools (600–900 students) may optimally balance economies of size with the potential negative effects of large schools.
As hinted at above, once the districts get larger, cost savings dissappear and other negative factors come into play.
According to Newsday: https://projects.newsday.com/schools.../spending/2019
there are ten districts on Long Island with under 500 students. I've seen other studies that point to 1,500 students being the max number for consolidaiton to provide financial benefit - that would bring the number of candidates to 27 districts.
What about all the others? There are districts with 8,000 - 10,000+ students. Living in one of them, I know that we pay much more in school tax than some smaller districts (which, according to your logic, should be less efficient and cost more).
I would add that these studies most likely didn't take into account New York's imbedded corruption and patronage system, which could only make things worse.
So there's your explanation. In light of that, can you explain exactly how consolidation would save any money?
As already stated, I don't believe that anyone can rationally say that multiple small districts is more cost efficient than one large district. Instead, the costs savings in moving to one large district is greatly exaggerated, and most people, I submit, would rather have the current system than a large county wide school district with a trivial tax cut.
Moreover, your question is grossly misleading. The "services" provided by public schools, from a cost perspective, mostly exist with the teachers. Whether you are educating 100,000 kids in one district, or 100,000 kids in 100 districts, teacher costs are exactly the same. If all of LI magically moved to a single district tomorrow, the amount of teachers would remain exactly the same.
A second "service" that is provided is buildings and grounds. Again, moving to a large district model does almost nothing in terms of saving money on buildings and grounds. You will still have the same amount of kids that need educating, and will need the same amount of space.
Once you get past teachers and schools, what else is left? Not much, in terms of percentage of budget. The administrator argument is greatly overblown. One superintendent can't manage a county-wide school district. You will need a whole bunch of asst superintendents. Yes, administration is where you can save some money, but you will not be eliminating as many positions as you think. For instance, a very small police department may just need a chief and maybe two Sgts. But a huge police department will need a chief, many captains, and many Lts, etc. The cost savings to be achieved in administration is real, but trivial.
You can't just minimize this analysis to "duplicating services over 50 times", as if the teachers, buildings and administrators of one small district can exactly cover all the needs of a district 50 times its size.
There are districts with 8,000 - 10,000+ students. Living in one of them, I know that we pay much more in school tax than some smaller districts (which, according to your logic, should be less efficient and cost more).
I would add that these studies most likely didn't take into account New York's imbedded corruption and patronage system, which could only make things worse.
So there's your explanation. In light of that, can you explain exactly how consolidation would save any money?
Very simple the smaller district has a better and more lucrative tax base, most likely commercial. The core factor in districts with lower taxes are they have a large commercial base.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,227 posts, read 17,105,490 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by 987ABC
As already stated, I don't believe that anyone can rationally say that multiple small districts is more cost efficient than one large district. Instead, the costs savings in moving to one large district is greatly exaggerated, and most people, I submit, would rather have the current system than a large county wide school district with a trivial tax cut.
Moreover, your question is grossly misleading. The "services" provided by public schools, from a cost perspective, mostly exist with the teachers. Whether you are educating 100,000 kids in one district, or 100,000 kids in 100 districts, teacher costs are exactly the same. If all of LI magically moved to a single district tomorrow, the amount of teachers would remain exactly the same.
A second "service" that is provided is buildings and grounds. Again, moving to a large district model does almost nothing in terms of saving money on buildings and grounds. You will still have the same amount of kids that need educating, and will need the same amount of space.
Once you get past teachers and schools, what else is left? Not much, in terms of percentage of budget. The administrator argument is greatly overblown. One superintendent can't manage a county-wide school district. You will need a whole bunch of asst superintendents. Yes, administration is where you can save some money, but you will not be eliminating as many positions as you think. For instance, a very small police department may just need a chief and maybe two Sgts. But a huge police department will need a chief, many captains, and many Lts, etc. The cost savings to be achieved in administration is real, but trivial.
You can't just minimize this analysis to "duplicating services over 50 times", as if the teachers, buildings and administrators of one small district can exactly cover all the needs of a district 50 times its size.
But as I was responding to the other poster he presented the example I just used it.
You acknowledge that smaller is not cost more cost effective but most other posters don't nor have I presented any statement that their would be this great savings if you consolidate. Teacher costs are not as finite as you present with so many districts programs are duplicated over and over because each district wants to have it.
In a larger school district under attended schools can receive students from over filled ones and vice versa reducing the need for new buildings. Have 1 or 2 English leads at a school board is far cheaper than having 50+, maintenance crews can support more than they currently do and transportation can be potentially reduced. The school board is more than a Superintendent and a few lead teachers and your right there are assistant Sups for different areas but they have that now in most districts so their positions are multiplied.
As I keep say you have to deal with the union and until someone grows a set and stands up to their outrageous demands nothing will change, just like the MTA, Police and Fire, they are the stumbling block to any relief for citizens.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 26 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,227 posts, read 17,105,490 times
Reputation: 15540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe461
You assume services are duplicated. There is obvioulsly duplication of administration personnel, but you show no evidence of how much would actually be saved in manpower or dollars. It's easy to throw out some ridiculous claim of turning 100 superintendents into 1, but reality doesn't work that way.
The reality is I recommend you look at a districts school board and see what it is comprised up. I looked at Levittown Levittown Public Schools: Contact Levittown Public Schools, look at the number of departments and trust me their is more than 1 person per...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
