Small Schools Report Released

Committee's report revises funding size factor and identifies sizes ranges of schools for further study, but does not target specific schools for closure 

The Poudre School District Small Schools Study Committee meeting since August 2007 recently completed its work and presented a report to the Superintendent of Schools and Cabinet members with findings and recommendations.

(1)   The Committee recommended revising the size factor or adjustment that is used to allocate funds to account for the cost of serving students in smaller schools.

(2)   In addition, the report explains the process used to determine the size of elementary and junior high schools at which closure may be considered, and outlines the way additional evaluation of schools with enrollment in these ranges would be carried out.

Several members of the Committee, Superintendent Jerry Wilson, and Board of Education President Larry Neal met with media representatives Wednesday to share information about the report.

“The committee emphasized we should not solely use costs per student associated with operating schools of various sizes to make decisions about closing schools,” says Kevin Hahn, Ph.D., Assistant Auperintendent of Elementary Schools and Committee chair.  “It’s also programs and achievement related.  It means if schools are in these size ranges, we may want to use the evaluation framework to gain a full understanding of the school’s current context and situation.  Just because enrollments are in these ranges, it doesn’t mean they are being considered for closure.”

David Dilley, a parent who served on the Committee, said “The process was very data driven.  Now there is the data to apply to the district’s mission.  How do we best educate every child and make it equitable for every student?  Is there a size at which education is going to be impacted?  But economics is not the only consideration—the quality of education of our kids has to be tempered by the fiscal realities of the district.  These numbers simply determine where the next discussion starts.”

When asked about the way the process was conducted, Board of Education President Larry Neal said "The Board has an interest in equity, that all students are being educated at the same level.  This gives us some confidence in the data and good planning guidelines.  It lays out the economics very well.  With the coordination by staff and the community involvement, it was really done well."

Below is the summary of the Committee’s objectives and findings and/or recommendations.  To access the full report, click here (829 KB) .

OBJECTIVES:

Recommend cost implications to affect 2008-09 Student-Based Budgeting (SBB), the funding formula that allocates funds to schools each year.   Analyze different size schools for program offerings, scheduling implications, and cost ramifications.  Determine consistencies and what essential classes can be offered through the analysis of prototypical models.

Through SBB, a size factor/adjustment was developed in 2007-08 to account for the increased cost of serving students in schools with smaller enrollments.  The Committee (Appendix A) reviewed the original size factor, which was based on a stair-step approach that resulted in schools on the edge of the enrollment range receiving a highly variable adjustment, depending on changes of only a few students. 

The Committee studied and used three nationally recognized research approaches—evidence based, statistical, and professional judgment panels.  Professional judgment panel members made up of Poudre School District teachers and principals, (Appendix B)  designed schools of varying sizes (prototypical models) taking into account program offerings, essential classes, scheduling implications, and cost ramifications of delivering the Colorado Content Standards to students. 

The work of the professional judgment panels provided Committee members and the district with the necessary information to identify the costs associated with operating schools of various sizes.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

• The Committee forwarded revised size factor recommendations to the SBB Committee to be used in the overall student-based budgeting system (Table 11 & 12).
• The SBB Committee made slight adjustments to the curves to create a final curve to be used for student-based budgeting for the 2008-09 school year (Table 13 & 14). 
• The professional judgment curves will be used to allocate funds to schools for the 2009-10 school year.
• Additionally, the Superintendent’s Cabinet has decided the size factor curves will be applied to existing programs and schools.  Any new programs/schools will be funded at the district average.

OBJECTIVE:

Identify school sizes at which closure may be considered.

The Committee’s final charge was to determine the size range of schools at which closure may be considered.  The Committee asked the question: at what size of school does it become more expensive to operate on a per pupil basis? After conducting this analysis, the Committee determined a programmatic analysis may be warranted, along with additional financial analyses, to evaluate whether or not the size of the school is negatively impacting achievement and is inefficient.  The findings from this analysis will lead the district to possibly consider other options and alternatives for the school and/or may ultimately lead to school consolidation or closure.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

After exclusively examining the financial considerations of school size, the Committee created recommendations for the size of elementary and junior high schools at which further examination may be warranted.  The Committee recommends the district not solely use this information to automatically close schools.  Rather, once a school reaches a particular size range, the district may want to conduct an analysis of the school from both fiscal and programmatic perspectives.

• Elementary schools (grades K-6) may be considered when enrollment declines towards 325 students and are reaching a critical size point of 250 students.
• Junior high schools may be examined as they reach 600 students, with the critical size point around 500 students.

If schools are currently at these sizes or have been identified as trending toward these sizes, additional questions will be used to see if further evaluation is warranted (Page 16).  Answers to these questions may lead to a school being eliminated as needing further evaluation.  The Committee also developed a programmatic analysis framework (Page 16 and Appendix C) to use in the evaluation of identified schools, which will help create a picture of the school’s overall context and performance. 

In summary, the Committee’s recommended evaluation process can be viewed in three steps:

(1)   Identify schools whose size are currently at or are trending towards a point where they become more expensive to operate on a per pupil basis.

(2)   Examine answers to additional fiscal questions to analyze if the school should remain identified for alternatives, options, consolidation and/or closure.

(3)   Use the programmatic evaluation framework to create a full understanding of the schools’ current context, situation, and performance. The Committee recommends a strong emphasis be placed on the achievement section of this framework.

NEXT STEPS:

Now that the Committee has concluded the Small Schools Study, PSD administration will be looking at some of the ways the district can approach talking with members of the school communities about how the size of smaller schools affects students’ education.  While sizes have been identified, it does not mean specific schools are being targeted for closure.