Rural school district consolidation is a contentious issue in Oklahoma. In this feature, Erika Wright of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition makes the case against consolidation while Jentre Olsen of Oklahoma State University says that the time for consolidating rural school districts has come.
The Case for Rural District Consolidation
Jentre Olsen
I grew up in a small farming town of 1,300 in rural South Dakota. My high school graduating class had just 36 students, but we were a tight knit group with many of us completing kindergarten through 12th grade together. We were also the last graduating class because my town’s district consolidated the following year. From this firsthand experience, I understand the initial concerns that arise when districts consolidate in rural areas. However, evidence indicates that the benefits of consolidation often far outweigh its disadvantages.
Here in Oklahoma, there are many reasons to consolidate rural school districts, but one of the most important ones is that we simply have too many. There are 509 school districts serving approximately 700,000 public school students, a ratio radically unlike states with similar student enrollments. For example, Utah has 42 school districts for its 674,650 public school students; Louisiana has 72 districts serving 685,600 students; Kentucky has 171 districts for 698,388 students; Alabama has 138 districts for 743,012 students; and South Carolina has 79 school districts for its 751,600 students. I would also point out that district consolidation has been a standard practice in our state for more than one hundred years. In 1914, there were 5,880 school districts in our state. During this period, small rural districts merged with neighboring districts, and small rural schools were often replaced by newer, larger, and better consolidated schools.
In many cases, consolidation is inevitable because of declining populations. A recent study found that between 2010 and 2020, rural America experienced its first ever decade-long population loss. There are some data suggesting that this trend is likely to continue, and rural schools that disregard this reality are only hurting students. In districts that have dwindled in size, recruiting and retaining high quality teachers is difficult, particularly in the case of special education teachers and those that teach STEM subjects, foreign languages, and English as a second language. According to the annual teacher staffing survey administered by the Oklahoma State School Board Association, there were 1,019 teaching vacancies at the start of the 2022-2023 school year, many of them in rural areas. Rural district consolidation could partly alleviate this problem.
Researchers have also found that rural district consolidation in Oklahoma can save money by reducing administrative overhead. While it is true that rural school administrators wear multiple hats serving as teachers, bus drivers, and coaches together with their administrative duties, these heroic efforts are not sustainable and can even contribute to the burnout crises we are seeing in K-12 education today. Instead, district consolidation creates a more efficient allocation of limited human and financial resources, and importantly, it sends more resources to the classroom where they can have their greatest effect.
According to the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Oklahoma performed below national averages in all tested subjects. Although research testing the effects of school consolidation on student achievement is limited, a study of over 200 school closures in Michigan showed that students who attended relatively low-performing schools experienced gains in achievement after moving to new schools. During this period of depressed academic outcomes in Oklahoma, all strategies for improvement should be on the table. If the consolidation of struggling rural school districts has the potential to create better school systems with high quality teachers, that is a change worth pursuing.
Rural school consolidation must be addressed with great sensitivity and on a case-by-case basis. Because rural schools are often the cultural, athletic, and social service hubs in their communities, district consolidation initiatives should involve local stakeholders to identify community needs. Local agencies, parents, churches, and social clubs can develop solutions to transportation and childcare needs after consolidation occurs. For example, in some states, rural schools are paying parents to drive kids to school.
The poor academic performance of Oklahoma’s rural children underscores a need for action, and district consolidation should be part of responding to this problem.
Consolidating Rural School Districts Is a Terrible Idea
Erika Wright
Public schools are the lifeblood of Oklahoma’s rural communities and serve as the cultural glue for the small-town way of life that Oklahomans have valued for generations. From Friday night lights to Future Farmers of America, our rural schools are hubs for community events and are the largest employer in many small towns. According to US Census data, 52% of Oklahoma’s public schools are classified as rural schools. These schools not only play a vital role in rural communities, but they also support the economic health of the entire state. District consolidation threatens all of this.
Evidence of the harm caused by rural district consolidation is all over the state. Driving through rural Oklahoma, you can see the shuttered school buildings in annexed and consolidated districts. These deteriorating structures are among the last vestiges of once thriving communities. Over the past several decades, we have seen the same scenario unfold time and time again. When rural schools close, communities dry up and the economy in that area takes a nosedive.
Some say that rural students will benefit academically from district consolidation. But there is no hard evidence for this claim. In fact, the opposite may be true. Research on Oklahoma schools concluded that increases in district size were associated with test score declines.
Another common refrain is that district consolidation will save large sums of money by reducing administrative expenses. But again, there is very little evidence to substantiate this claim. To the contrary, a 2011 study found that once consolidated, districts hire more mid-level administrators, negating any cost-savings from consolidation. Other research on consolidation also indicates that as time passes, there are no fiscal efficiencies from district consolidation. A 2019 study by pro-consolidation researchers estimated that if Oklahoma decreased its number of districts to 200, the state could save up to $27 million annually. If this estimate is accurate, that sum is less than 1% of the state’s total appropriations for public education. These short-term cost savings are not worth the long-term social and economic costs to rural communities and the state.
After recently annexing a smaller district in the state’s panhandle, Boise City School District now covers over 1,500 square miles – a territory larger than the state of Rhode Island. In southwestern Oklahoma, Hollis is the only district left for an area covering more than 500 square miles. Superintendents of geographically massive districts like these tell me that they have difficulty absorbing higher transportation costs without pulling funds from other areas of their budgets. Most district transportation costs are supported by local ad valorem taxes. The fiscal consequence of substantially increased bus route mileage is grossly underestimated and made worse by current gas prices. On long routes, school vehicles are also subjected to greater wear and tear, increasing costs for vehicle maintenance.
District boundaries expanded by consolidation also create hardship for families. I have heard from rural superintendents that children can sit on a school bus for up to two and a half hours a day. On these very long bus routes, behavioral issues become commonplace. Long bus routes also increase absenteeism so more children lose vital instructional time. If the push for district consolidation grows, many rural parents will undoubtedly enroll their children in virtual schools. While virtual learning has its place, we have learned that quality face-to-face instruction produces stronger outcomes for students. District consolidation will almost certainly increase the number of dangerously isolated children on spotty internet connections with less access to social services that were once available at nearby brick-and-mortar schools.
For many rural students, their local school is where they receive their only meal of the day. They’re also where access to a caring mental health professional is oftentimes a child’s only lifeline. We must protect these important resources. Navigating remote learning during the COVID pandemic has taught us how much we need our local public schools – arguably even more so in rural communities.
The next time you stop in a small town to fill your gas tank or grab a bite to eat, take a drive by the local school. That school is likely a key economic engine that keeps the gas station and restaurant in the town viable. District consolidation just trades trivial short term financial gains for long-term social and economic decay. We simply cannot afford to lose more small towns, schools, or children to such declines.
Author Bios
Jentre Olsen is Professor of Educational Leadership at Oklahoma State University.
Erika Wright is Founder of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition.
