Public School Consolidation: History, Policy, and Impacts

Introduction

The American public school system was revolutionized during the middle of the twentieth century in a rather conspicuous way. The school system in many parts of the United States consisted of small entities run by communities as recently as the 1930s. Most of these institutions employed only a single teacher. In the subsequent four decades, the number of schools in the United States decreased by over 100,000. Approximately two-thirds of existing schools were integrated under the school consolidation program (Berry, 2006). The average school size increased fivefold in a short span of time, and school districts increasingly became professional entities overseen by trained administrators. Some of these bureaucracies were responsible for hundreds of thousands of students.

Consolidation and closure of schools is a long-term process due to its complexity. Owing to social and cultural policy differences, consolidation resulted in a number of varying characteristics across different school districts. Depending on the implementation approach, consolidation may be divided into several types: amalgamation, crossover, annexation, or centralization-decentralization.

Definition of Consolidation

Researchers apply a range of terms to describe consolidation. At its core, it refers to the merging of a number of attendance areas to constitute a larger school entity (Fitzwater, 1953). In this view, reorganization refers to the process of combining two or more previously independent school districts into a new and larger school arrangement (p. 4). Kansas, for example, chose to describe its consolidated schools as "unified," referring to the reorganized entities as unified school districts rather than reorganized or consolidated districts.

Although terminology varies among researchers and bureaucrats, most communities still refer to the process as school consolidation. The media, policymakers, and other stakeholders have consistently tried to remind the public of terminological distinctions. For instance, a 1964 Kansas news article responded to community concerns by clarifying that the vote to unify schools would not close existing schools, and that the action was "unification," not "consolidation" (Bard, Gardener & Wieland, 2006). However, this distinction seemed to have little lasting effect — thirty-four years later, the process was still widely referred to as consolidation by a large segment of the population. Thus, the term consolidation remains the assumed definition for most rural community members, carrying with it the implication that someone loses in the process while another gains.

Background and Historical Context

The process of consolidation was inspired by the desire to professionalize education in the nineteenth century (Tyack, 1974). In the view of forward-looking administrative experts, placing the authority to run schools in the hands of professionals was the only way to eliminate the corruption witnessed in city schools and the parochial approach found in rural ones. Cities were the first to experience consolidation. The progressive strategy aimed to place schools under professional superintendents in order to eliminate political interference. School reformers subsequently turned their attention to rural schools, decrying their inefficient and unprofessional management. These reformers drew on the model of modern corporations in their effort to establish professionalism in school administration.

Ellwood P. Cubberley (1922), one of the leading reformers of the twentieth century, emphasized four points in favor of merging schools. First, he argued that larger schools would allow for easier centralized administration, requiring fewer administrators, teachers, and support staff. Second, since little distinction in educational achievement existed under the prevailing system, centralized schools would enable more specialized instruction, with teachers focusing on specific subject areas and grade levels. Third, he contended that consolidation provided an opportunity to maximize resource utilization for the benefit of larger numbers of students and teachers at a lower cost. In essence, his central argument was that consolidated schools exploited economies of scale in instruction, administration, and facilities.

Conclusion

Although consolidation is a thorny matter, districts armed with the relevant facts regarding cost evaluations find it easier to reorganize when the strategy suits them. That notwithstanding, the interests of learners must always be the central consideration in any consolidation decision.

References

Tyack, David (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Howard University Press.

Cubberley, E. P. (1922). Rural life and education: A study of the rural-school problem as a phase of the rural-life problem. Houghton Mifflin.

Berry, C. (2006). School consolidation and inequality. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 49–75.

Fitzwater, C. O. (1953). Selected characteristics of reorganized school districts (No. 3). US Government Printing Office.

Bard, J., Gardener, C., & Wieland, R. (2006). Rural school consolidation: History, research summary, conclusions, and recommendations. Rural Educator, 27(2), 40–48.

Xianzuo, F. (2013). The reasons, motivation, and selection of approach to the consolidation of primary and secondary schools in rural areas. Chinese Education & Society, 46(5), 9.

Hongyong, J., & Fenfen, Z. (2013). An exploration and analysis of the modes of rural school consolidation in China. Chinese Education & Society, 46(5), 21.

Self, T. L. (2001). Evaluation of a single school district consolidation in Ohio. American Secondary Education, 30(1), 71.