I read with interest how Gov. Andrew Cuomo is once again calling on local municipalities and schools to solve the well-described financial crisis by sharing more services or merging with their neighbors. We heard this during his campaign, and now again at the 11th hour of the state budget negotiations.
Municipal and educational leaders have been screaming about their plight in the run-up to our next state budget. They argue they are hamstrung by constraints on local revenues such as the property tax cap and their inability to slow or reduce expenditures due to state mandates and fixed costs resulting in a negative impact on children.
Cuomo has responded that if school districts "are looking for fundamental financial reform, consolidation is one of the obvious ones."
The governor's idea is interesting. But can we count on new consolidations to drive fundamental financial reform?
In 1910, New York had 10,565 school districts. Through consolidation this number dropped to 1,293 in 1960 and then 704 in 2000. Over the past 13 years, the number has only dropped to 697. Easy consolidations have taken place; only contentious ones remain.
Research has identified theoretical savings from school district consolidation, though rarely are those savings fully realized. There are many reasons for this, but one is that the assumption of staff reduction through attrition is much harder in practice. Even if theoretical savings are realized, the savings are likely not enough to compensate for the lost revenue from the tax cap, cuts in state aid, and the dramatic increase in health care, retirement, transportation and special education costs.
Given New York's history of home rule, reorganization requires multiple local votes in each of the participating communities. Holding school boards responsible for school budgets is one thing, but the will of each community is powerful. Our recent history teaches us that getting all participating communities to vote multiple times — as required by law — in favor of consolidation is a challenge. As long as we have home rule, consolidation will be rare.
Even in the face of very tight budgets since 2009, we have seen only one merger realized, and this included only two of the three districts that originally started down the reorganization path.
There is a lack of solid data on the prevalence or impact of shared services in our state. Research from abroad (namely, Australia) teaches us that shared services do not, in fact, lead to a reduction in costs, but do result in enhanced service provision.
Lastly, it is very unclear what happens to local communities if and when they vote to consolidate schools. Research has been limited on these questions, leaving us with assumptions and guesses.
Does the reduced tax burden enhance property values? Or, because a local school is believed to be a key to a vibrant community, would the loss of a school in the community offset any gains made through consolidation? We don't know.
So, is the current call for consolidation likely to result in reform? I am doubtful, but merger remains a viable option for local communities with willing electorates in search of enhancing educational programs.
If we continue to rely on local communities making these decisions, we are unlikely to see many consolidations and certainly unlikely to fundamentally restructure school budgets. If the state were to mandate consolidation, the political pushback would be swift, the budgets are unlikely to be smaller, and the impact on the health of local communities is unknown.
The governor is correct that fundamental financial reform is necessary. Such reform must include fundamental resource reallocation to allow for more balanced educational opportunity across communities. This must include communities large and small, wealthy and poor and not be distracted by the siren of consolidation.
John W. Sipple is a professor at Cornell and director of the New York State Center for Rural Schools.