Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
RSA 2013 Sipple
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

RSA 2013 Sipple

464

Published on

Presentation given by Prof. John Sipple at the 2013 Rural Schools Association Conference in Cooperstown NY.

Presentation given by Prof. John Sipple at the 2013 Rural Schools Association Conference in Cooperstown NY.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
464
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The purpose of this survey is to understand shared service delivery municipalities and school districts in New York State – the scope, nature, motivators and barriers to service sharing.
  • Who got a survey? (Good. I won’t ask who filled it out.) Sent to multiple people in each community to ensure response. This is the first anyone has seen of the results. Raw, but informative.
  • We asked how formal is the arrangement. I want to stop and ask each of you… what do these terms mean to you? Provide an example.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Linking School & Community Vitality: Shared Services to School Closure John W. Sipple, PhD Associate Professor NYS Center for Rural Schools (NYRuralSchools.org) Community and Regional Development Institute Cornell University Rural Schools Association of NYS, July 2013
    • 2. My Goals • Introduce new website (NYRuralSchools.org/w) • More Interactive and Integrated • More Relevant Resources and Research • New Research • Impact of Schools on Community Vitality • Shared Services (Municipal & Schools) • Demonstrate New Tools
    • 3. New Site – Preview • http://NYRuralSchools.org/w/
    • 4. Central Questions/Themes • Schools Communities? • Communities Schools? • When did Schools and Communities become separate? • Information is better than guessing. • Short- vs. Long Term planning/decisions
    • 5. Key Tensions & Actions Short-Term Long-Term School-based Big Community- based Also Big
    • 6. Ability to Pay $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Median Income Wealth/Pupil NYC Big 4 Small City HN Rural Ave Need Low Need
    • 7. Ability to Levy Tax $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Median Property Wealth/Pupil NYC Big 4 Small City HN Rural Ave Need Low Need
    • 8. Lyson Hypothesis • A school is vital to the survival of rural communities. • Viable villages generally contain schools: dying and dead ones either lack them or do not have them for long. • The capacity to maintain a school is a continuing indicator of a community's wellbeing. • School district consolidation has deleterious effects on small rural communities.
    • 9. Rural Villages in NYS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Small with school Small without school Large with school Large without school Numberofvillage 1990 2000 2010
    • 10. Population 500 or less Population 501 to 2,500 Population 2,500+ (urban) 2010 Places Total: 1,189 73 66 272 245 2000 2010 exclude 32 outliers (based on village’s median house value) 705 846
    • 11. Lyson Redux 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 1990 2000 2010 Median House value (1990 $) SM-School SM-No School LG-School LG-No School
    • 12. Lyson Redux 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1990 2000 2010 Household Income (1990 $) SM-School SM-No School LG-School LG-No School
    • 13. HH Inc 2000 HH Inc 2010 PerCap Inc 2000 PerCap Inc 2010 H Value 2000 H Value 2010 Large + + School + School X Size - <39 - - - - - - W Child + + + + + + % White - - - - - White collar + + + + + + Self Employ + + + + + + No Commute R2 .79 .60 .73 .57 .71 .51
    • 14. Take aways… • We find more nuanced relationships between the presence of schools and community vitality • Stabilizing/Constraining impact of schools • Once controlling for other factors, the presence of schools only impacts HH Income (less so for large). • Once controlling for other factors, larger villages are more prosperous • Further studies • Does distance from village center to school matter. • Panel analysis (1990-2010)
    • 15. Teacher Labor Markets Killeen, Loeb & Williams (2013)
    • 16. What’s Next?
    • 17. !!! !! ! !! !!! ! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !! ! ! !! !! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! ! !!! !! !! !! ! ! !! ! !
    • 18. ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !
    • 19. Cornell University • Dept. of Development Sociology • Dept. of City and Regional Planning New York Conference of Mayors New York State Association of Towns New York State Association of Counties New York State Council of School Superintendents American Planning Association, New York Chapter PI’s: John W. Sipple, Mildred Warner Researchers: George Homsy, David Kay Shared Service Study Partners
    • 20. Cities Counties Town s Villages Supt s Total Total – NYS 62 57 932 556 695 2260 Number of responses 49 44 494 359 245 1191 Response rate 79% 77% 53% 65% 35% 53% Response Rate
    • 21. 22% 39% 7% 26% 6% Informal understanding MOU / Inter-Municipal Agreement Joint ownership, production, or purchase Contracting with another government How Formal is the Arrangement ? More Informal
    • 22. Do you Share? Instructional staff Curricular materials Special education Instructional technology Small City 62% 23% 71% 50% High Need Rural 65% 57% 89% 80% Average Need 62% 60% 87% 73% Low Need 35% 42% 85% 64%
    • 23. Outcome of sharing Instructional Staff? Informal Agreement Cost Savings Improved Quality Improved Student Performance Small City 13% 100% 50% 50% High Need Rural 15% 79% 54% 33% Average Need 11% 68% 58% 25% Low Need 8% 83% 75% 42% Curricular Materials? Small City 0% 100% 100% 67% High Need Rural 17% 81% 61% 56% Average Need 26% 70% 64% 52% Low Need 39% 92% 77% 54%
    • 24. HN Rural Medical care beyond the school nurse After school programs/ac tivities Summer school Distance learning/ online coursework Student internships Yes: Share 23% 39% 64% 62% 30% Yes: no Share 21% 39% 14% 8% 11% Another district(s) 6% 13% 26% 22% 0% BOCES 6% 13% 69% 76% 50% University/co mmunity college 3% 3% 2% 19% 13% community group/Non- profit 21% 32% 7% 0% 7% Private sector 24% 3% 2% 2% 10%
    • 25. Payroll/ac counts payable Cafeteria services Transportation services (Buses, garage, maintenance) Tax collection Security/SRO/ police Health insurance Joint purchasing Library/compu ter lab Gymnasium/p ool/auditorium /indoor space Field/playgrou nd/outdoor space Youth recreation Childcare/E ven start/Pre- school Community transportation Adult education (ESL, GED, etc.) Facilities Other Services
    • 26. Importance of Motivators Cost Savings Local leadership/ trust Gaining bargaining power in the market Staff transitions State programs to incentivize sharing Regional equality in service delivery Small City 4.8 4.4 4.4 3.5 3.4 4.2 HN Rural 4.8 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.6 4.1 Ave Need 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8 Low Need 4.7 4.2 4.4 2.5 3.0 3.3 Communit y expectatio ns Maintaining service quality Past experience with sharing Business community support Unable to provide important services without sharing Enriching educatio nal opportun ity Small City 3.5 4.3 3.7 3.7 4.1 4.7 HN Rural 3.2 4.5 3.6 3.1 4.3 4.6 Ave Need 3.2 4.4 3.5 3.2 4.0 4.6 Low Need 3.3 4.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 4.4
    • 27. Importance of Obstacles Planning and design of sharing agreement Availability of willing partners Similarity among partners Compatibl e data and budget systems Combining multiple funding sources State rules/ legal regulations Small City 4.2 4.6 3.3 3.4 3.6 4.0 HN Rural 3.8 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.9 Ave Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 Low Need 4.0 4.4 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.7 Elected official opposition/ politics Liability concerns Personality conflicts Restrictive labor aggreeme nts Job loss/local employmen t impact Local control/ community identity Small City 2.5 3.4 2.8 4.4 3.4 3.2 HN Rural 2.7 3.5 2.5 3.9 3.5 3.7 Ave Need 2.9 3.4 2.6 3.8 3.5 3.7 Low Need 2.5 3.4 2.1 3.3 2.9 3.3
    • 28. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Low Need Average Need High Need Rural Small City
    • 29. My Goals • Introduce new website (NYRuralSchools.org/w) • More Interactive and Integrated • More Relevant Resources and Research • New Research • Impact of Schools on Community Vitality • Shared Services (Municipal & Schools) • Demonstrate New Tools

    ×