School district restructuring could prove beneficial to all

Everyone agrees that Nevada’s public schools must improve. The multimillion-dollar question is how.

First, let’s be honest and acknowledge that Nevada underfunds public education. According to a Lincy Institute report, base funding for Nevada students in 2012-13 was $1.6 billion short just to provide an adequate level of education. The Nevada Legislature is debating Gov. Brian Sandoval’s proposal to invest an additional $1 billion in K-12 education, and this effort is receiving mixed support. If the proposed funding is passed, it represents a significant down payment to fund K-12 adequately and, more importantly, make a difference in the lives of generations of Nevada’s children.

But beyond additional funds, what can Nevada do to maximize current and future education investments? What if restructuring school districts improved learning outcomes? The Assembly Education Committee heard debate on that very question last week.

Assemblyman David Gardner, R-Las Vegas, introduced AB394, a bill that allows cities to create school precincts. Under the precinct school model, many governance responsibilities that reside with trustees fall to an appointed school board. This bill also creates larger or smaller school districts defined by municipality boundaries. Currently, Nevada districts are county-based and do not allow any locality involvement.

As the director of education programs at The Lincy Institute at UNLV, I testified and cited a brief — “Modernizing Nevada’s Education Structures” — which highlights evidence that school district size matters in relation to student learning outcomes and the cost of K-12 education. The Lincy Institute is neither for nor against AB394. However, my review of school district size underscores the fact that large school districts — when compared with small districts — have negative outcomes on student achievement and cost more.

Members of the committee stated various concerns. Some members believed the bill would create equity gaps for disadvantaged student populations, and that the creation of sub-districts could exacerbate already low achievement scores. These are precisely the types of questions policymakers should raise and seek to minimize with any education policy.

It is also important, however, that lawmakers consider evidence. In Washington state, policymakers wanted to know how the size of school districts and classrooms affect poor children. Research demonstrated that poor children in small school districts and classrooms do better than those in large ones. While many other factors contribute to student outcomes, it is clear that district and classroom size play a significant role.

What about the idea that large school districts achieve economies of scale by centralizing many shared services, departments and expertise? Some believe that small districts will duplicate services and administrative costs. Evidence from a Texas study, using a cost function model, finds that as the size of districts increase past 3,200 students, costs are expected to rise, not fall; large districts lead to a loss of school efficiency; and there are no cost savings from large school districts. Rather, expenditures rise. This is not a criticism of the leadership of large school districts. It is an evidence-based indication that structure matters when it comes to student learning outcomes.

Many individuals testified in support of the bill, arguing that school districts cannot expect different outcomes by doing the same thing under the same structure. Others testified against the bill, warning of potential litigation if inequitable precincts are created. Both sides raise valid concerns.

The studies cited in the Lincy Institute brief explore outcomes of consolidation of school districts, not breaking up large school districts. Many states have introduced bills to create smaller districts based on a desire to improve outcomes, but the movement to deconsolidate districts is a slow one, laden with local political infighting.

Regardless of the outcome of AB394 this legislative session, I hope the bill will encourage Nevadans to have an open conversation about the advantages and disadvantages of district size and whether the existing county-based structure makes sense for Nevada and our students. This conversation is not and should not be an attack on any specific district, board, person or population, but an opportunity to examine the role of district size on student learning and cost.

Policymakers and citizens should look at evidence on district size and discuss whether small districts make sense considering our state’s education outcomes.

Even with existing evidence, no one can predict with 100 percent certainty that creating smaller districts — or precincts as proposed by AB394 — will result in significantly improved outcomes; but we should also not be paralyzed by fear of the unknown. We owe it to our children to invest wisely in public education and to look at structural changes in school districts that can improve the quality of education for all.

Magdalena Martinez is the director of education programs at The Lincy Institute at UNLV. Briefs referenced in this article can be found at: http://www.unlv.edu/lincyinstitute/research-policy-briefs.