Our state constitution mandates, “The provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia.” Additionally, the constitution limits the number of school districts to 180 (159 county districts plus 21 grandfathered city districts).
As a result, we are locked into the same 180 delivery vehicles — school districts — for education. There is clear and compelling evidence that educational outcomes for students and the cost to deliver education are affected by the size of the school district they attend.
Georgia’s leaders and policymakers should ask if the school district structure hard coded into our state constitution is serving us well. They should be seeking to maximize student achievement and concerned with the return on investment for each dollar of public spending. Are academic results maximized and expenses kept in check with properly sized school districts?
Based on studies from multiple states, we know larger school districts have a negative effect on student achievement and produce higher costs per pupil than smaller districts. The effects on achievement are even more profound for students in poverty.
— In a study from the state of Washington: “Large district size is detrimental to achievement … and it strengthens the negative relationship between school poverty and student achievement.”
— An Ohio study concluded, "after reviewing previously conducted studies and our own analysis on district size and student performance, we conclude that increasing district size has a negative effect on student achievement. Increasing district size produces a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of students who pass the math section of Ohio achievement tests."
— Michigan, 2007: "Based on the model developed for this paper, the most cost-effective size for school districts in Michigan is roughly 2,900 students. Both smaller and larger districts are likely to spend more per pupil, other things being equal."
— Nevada, 2004: “What recent studies strongly suggest is that size does matter, and that students, teachers, parents and taxpayers are all better off where school districts are smaller in size. A surprisingly robust body of academic literature now concludes that negative impacts of large school districts outweigh the positive.”
In Georgia, the 25 districts with the lowest per-pupil costs outperform the districts with the highest per-pupil costs in achievement metrics by 7 percentage points. The top four largest districts, representing 28 percent of all students in the state, are not among the 25 districts with the lowest per-pupil costs. In fact, Georgia’s largest districts are sprinkled throughout the per-pupil-cost distribution. There appears to be no correlation in per-pupil cost and district size.
It is clear that if we are to have a serious discussion about improving the educational lives of Georgia’s children, it must include changing the limitations on the number of districts permitted in this state. This discussion should unite everyone interested in improving achievement, increasing resources for teachers, mitigating the effect of poverty on children, and protecting the taxpayer.
The only people who might oppose the formation of new, smaller school districts are the bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists who have benefited from their control of this power structure.
In the next legislative session, there will be an effort to let Georgia form smaller districts by allowing cities to create new school districts. I view this as one important step in the right direction when dealing with school district size.
It will be interesting to see how the forces of status quo defend against this existential threat. It will be more interesting to see how legislators respond to the facts. Who will stand for students, teachers and taxpayers? And who will stand for the status quo? We’ll find out in January.
About the Author
