South Dakota has the third-lowest average number of students per school district in the U.S. According to 2014 data compiled by Mike Maciag of Governing (48 states and D.C.; Vermont and New Hampshire omitted), only Montana and North Dakota have fewer students per district. At 869, South Dakota is one of only four states averaging fewer than 1,000 students per district. The national per-district average nationwide is 3,659.
The largest per-district enrollments are 44,942 in the District of Columbia, which is one school district; 46,237 in Florida, which has 67 county-wide districts; and 186,825 in Hawaii, which manages 66,000 more students than South Dakota in a single statewide school district.
South Dakota also has the second-lowest enrollment per school building, 191. Montana is lowest, at 176 kids per school building. The highest per-school student counts are in Hawaii (644), Nevada (684), and Georgia (732).
Maciag notes that single-district Hawaii spends only 15.0% of its state budget on K-12 education, compared to an average across all states of 19.8%. That difference might suggest that consolidating schools into a statewide district might save money. Yet South Dakota spends only 14.0% of its state budget on K-12 education. (We’re fifth-stingiest on that account: only West Virginia, Wyoming, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island put smaller chunks of their state budgets toward K-12 schools.)
Consolidating schools and school districts does not appear to have much effect on how much states pay their teachers. I throw these numbers into a spreadsheet (because this is what I do for breakfast) and find no significant correlation between average teacher pay and average district enrollment or average school building enrollment. There is a weak positive correlation between average school building enrollment and the percentage of their budgets that states spend on K-12 education, which seems odd: more students packed into fewer buildings should mean states could spend less on education.
Nor is there any apparent correlation between number of districts and schools and total spending per student. Getting just a little messy and looking at AY 2013 data, we see that South Dakota invested $8,880 in teaching each K-12 student in all 151 school districts. Florida, with 67 school districts, spent about $300 less per student, but single-district Hawaii spent $2,500 more, and the District of Columbia spent $5,500 more.
The lack of correlation between district consolidation and K-12 expenses makes sense. Teacher salaries are the biggest cost (ahem—investment!) in school budgets. Whether you have 1,000 kids in five buildings or one, you still need a certain number of teachers to teach all the necessary subjects effectively. Any savings from getting rid of small school districts and maybe consolidating a handful of English and math positions may be cancelled out (and rightly so!) by having enough kids in one district or one building to justify hiring a shop teacher, a business teacher, a German teacher, and other teachers who can offer elective classes.
We’ve been talking for months about how the Governor’s teacher-pay-raise plan pressures small South Dakota schools to consolidate. If that is the intent behind the new K-12 funding formula, we should keep in mind that national data show little sign that consolidation will really save us money.
Well, you’ve hit one reason for a lack of correlation. A wise administrator will take money saved from consolidation or increasing building size to hire teachers to improve the breadth of the education. That’s, after all, what the parents and students will expect, and that’s generally what happens.
However, there is another possibility for the lack of correlation: the heterogeneous nature of the schools districts would make any meaningful correlation virtually impossible. This is the same issue ALEC faces when they do their “studies” trying to correlate state funding of education to standardized test scores. I wonder if you narrow the population down to districts in Upper Midwest States or neighboring states if there might be a correlation that pops up.
It should be note that while Montana & North Dakota have have fewer students per district they pay teachers more than we do.
I thought by reducing fat cat administrators there would be big savings? What happened to that hypothesis?
How is SD second lowest at 191 Per school building to Montana lowest at 196 students per school building?
Donald, interesting suggestion. When I look at the regional level (SD + 6 neighbors), I find the following rankings:
Minnesota has the highest number of students per district and students per school building. They offer the second-highest teacher pay, spend the largest percentage of their state budget on K-12, and spend the second-most per student.
Montana has the lowest number of students per district and students per school building. They are at 4th in teacher pay and K-12 % of state budgte and 3rd for spending per student.
Thoughts?
Can’t be, Lanny! That’s me typing poorly. Montana has 176 kids per building. 176. I have corrected the original post and regret the confusion caused by my sloppiness!