Administrative Costs per Pupil Compared to District Size in Utah 2013-2014

These most recent statistics compiled from the Utah Taxpayers Association "School Spending Report: Fiscal Year 2013-2014," April 2015 verifies the conclusions of my previous study comparing administrative costs per student to size of district (with the possible change of the number from 1000 to 2000 in student population). This graph shows that while the smallest districts (under 2000) do have higher administrative costs, as stated on the original study: "Administrative costs bear little, if any, correlation to size of districts over 1,000 students".

Administrative costs, rather than a function of size, are a reflection of decisions made by local boards of education or administrators. Usually the more money they accept from federal government programs, the more they spend in administrative costs per pupil due to government requirements.

The main point is: the assumption that bigger is less expensive with administrative costs is simply not true unless comparing to a district that is very small (like below 2000 students). It is certainly not a reason to avoid dividing a big district into a few community-sized districts. Dividing would not, by itself, cause administrative costs to rise. If they rose it would be for other reasons, such as a community's desires for another program, etc.

To be more specific, Cache School District has the lowest costs and is about the size that a Lehi School District would be. Alpine (72,419) is 2nd, but Tooele (14,107), South Sanpete (3462), Logan (5987), and Iron (8685) all have less administrative costs per pupil than Jordan or Davis SD. Box Elder (11,131) and tiny Juab (2287) are lower than Granite, Salt Lake, and Nebo.

District	Student Population	Admin $/student
Cache	16038	$ 491.00
Alpine	72419	$ 521.00
Tooele	14107	$ 540.00
So. Sanpete	3462	$ 555.00
Logan	5987	$ 556.00
Iron	8685	$ 578.00
Jordan	52855	$ 594.00
Davis	68573	$ 595.00
Box Elder	11131	$ 596.00
Washington	27099	$ 614.00
Juab	2287	$ 619.00
Granite	68106	$ 623.00
Salt Lake	23965	$ 637.00
Morgan	2632	$ 652.00
Nebo	31230	$ 658.00
Weber	31028	$ 658.00
Sevier	4585	$ 676.00
Uintah	7591	$ 697.00
Murray	6435	$ 745.00
Duchesne	5021	$ 747.00
Wasatch	5786	$ 757.00
Ogden	12489	$ 759.00
Millard	2841	$ 799.00
Provo	14799	$ 813.00
Canyons	33674	$ 901.00
No. Summit	990	$ 972.00
So. Summit	1495	$ 979.00
Carbon	3369	$ 1,102.00
San Juan	3020	$ 1,106.00
Grand	1455	$ 1,128.00
Beaver	1579	$ 1,159.00
Park City	4630	$ 1,315.00
Kane	1212	$ 1,360.00
Emery	2310	$ 1,370.00
Wayne	501	$ 1,512.00
Garfield	930	$ 1,554.00
Tintic	250	$ 2,026.00
Rich	479	$ 2,325.00
Piute	304	$ 2,380.00
Daggett	194	$ 2,825.00

California 2011 study of their smaller school districts

California published a study on whether to consolidate its smaller school districts it did in 2011. It looked at costs and benefits. There were some interesting findings.

1. They found among other things that medium-sized districts did better in student performance than the large or very small sized districts.
2. While very small districts cost much more, districts of over 1000 students were considered as economical as large districts.
3. Most communities preferred their own school district and did not want to consolidate.
4. They determined that there would not be substantial savings financially for consolidating nor would there be improvements in student performances.
5. In the end, they recommended not forcing consolidation, but rather to eliminate disincentives for consolidating for districts under 100 students (which I agree with).

This video is almost 10 minutes long, concise, and worth watching.

Consolidation Research in Seattle, Washington

Here is an interesting gathering of research on the results of consolidation that pertains directly to the need to divide districts that are too large: http://www.cppsofseattle.org/consolidationresearch.pdf

The results show that:

1. School consolidation does not save money.
2. School consolidation does not increase academic achievement.
3. School consolidation is detrimental to the social and economic well-being of the community.