RSA 2013 Sipple

Linking School & Community Vitality: Shared Services to School Closure

John W. Sipple, PhDAssociate ProfessorNYS Center for Rural Schools (NYRuralSchools.org)Community and Regional Development InstituteCornell University

Rural Schools Association of NYS, July 2013

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

New Site – Preview

• http://NYRuralSchools.org/w/

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

Key Tensions & Actions

Short-Term Long-Term

School-basedBig

Community-based Also Big

Ability to Pay19

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

Median Income Wealth/Pupil

NYCBig 4Small CityHN RuralAve NeedLow Need

Ability to Levy Tax19

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Median Property Wealth/Pupil

NYCBig 4Small CityHN RuralAve NeedLow Need

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.

Rural Villages in NYS

Small with school

Small without school

Large with school

Large without school

199020002010

Population 500 or less

Population 501 to 2,500

Population 2,500+ (urban)

2010 PlacesTotal: 1,189

272 245

2000 2010

exclude 32 outliers (based on village’s median house value)

705 846

Lyson Redux1990 2000 2010

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

Median House value (1990 $)

SM-SchoolSM-No SchoolLG-SchoolLG-No School

Lyson Redux1990 2000 2010

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Household Income (1990 $)

SM-SchoolSM-No SchoolLG-SchoolLG-No School

HH Inc2000

HH Inc2010

PerCap Inc2000

PerCap Inc2010

H Value2000

H Value2010

Large + +School +School X Size -

<39 - - - - - -W Child + + + + + +% White - - - - -White collar + + + + + +Self Employ + + + + + +No Commute

R2 .79 .60 .73 .57 .71 .51

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)

Teacher Labor MarketsKilleen, Loeb & Williams (2013)

What’s Next?

!! ! !!!

!!!! !

!!!! !!!

! !!! !

!! !! !!

!!! ! !

!!!! !

!!!!! !

!!!!!!

! ! !!!

! !! !!

!! !! !!!

! !! ! !!!

!! !!!!!

!!! !!!

! !! !

!!!! !!!

!!! !! !!

! !!! !

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!! !!!

! ! !!

! !!!!

!!!!!!!!

!! !!!

!!!! !!

! ! !!!

!!! !!

!!!!! !!

! !! ! ! !

!!!! !

!! !!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! !

!!!! !!!

!!!!!!

! !! ! !

!! ! !

!!!!!!

! ! !!!

!! !! !!

! !! ! !!!

! ! ! !!!

!!!! !!!

!!! !! !!

! !!! !

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

! ! !!

!!! !!

! ! !!

!!! !!

! ! !!

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 WarnerResearchers: George Homsy, David Kay

Shared Service Study Partners

Cities

Counties

Towns Villages Supts

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

Informal understanding

MOU / Inter-Municipal Agreement

Joint ownership, production, or purchase

Contracting with another government

Creation of a special district / authority

How Formal is the Arrangement ?

More Informal

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%

Outcome of sharing Instructional Staff?

Informal Agreement Cost Savings Improved

QualityImproved

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%

HN RuralMedical

care beyond the school

After school programs/ac

tivitiesSummer

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/community college

3% 3% 2% 19% 13%

community group/Non-profit

21% 32% 7% 0% 7%

Private sector 24% 3% 2% 2% 10%

Payroll/accounts payable

Cafeteria services

Transportation services (Buses, garage, maintenance)

Tax collection Security/SRO/police

Health insurance

Joint purchasing

Library/computer lab

Gymnasium/pool/auditorium/indoor space

Field/playground/outdoor space

Youth recreation

Childcare/Even start/Pre-school

Community transportation

Adult education (ESL, GED, etc.)

Facilities

Other Services

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 4.2HN Rural 4.8 3.8 4.0 3.1 3.6 4.1Ave Need 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.4 3.8Low Need 4.7 4.2 4.4 2.5 3.0 3.3

Community expectations

Maintaining service quality

Past experience with sharing

Business community support

Unable to provide important services without sharing

Enriching educational opportunity

Importance of Obstacles

Planning and design of sharing agreement

Availability of willing partners

Similarity among partners

Compatible data and budget systems

Combining multiple funding sources

State rules/ legal regulations

Elected official opposition/politics

Liability concerns

Personality conflicts

Restrictive labor aggreements

Job loss/local employment impact

Local control/ community identity

sted f

ed Serv

limina

ted Serv

er fee

Sell A

er Ban

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Low Need Average Need High Need Rural Small City

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

RSA 2013 Sipple

school small

school lgschool lg

school large

school numberofvillage

smschool sm

school community vitality

school closure john

school district consolidation

Education

13 - The RSA - RSA

RSA Monthly Online Fraud Report -- May 2013

Web Application Firewall (WAF) RSA ® Conference 2013.

RSA Europe 2013 OWASP Training

Akamai CSO Andy Ellis Keynotes RSA Conference 2013

Pizza Roulette - OWASP SNI 2 RSA 2048 RSA 2048 RSA 2048 RSA....

RSA AUS RSA AUS RSA ESP RSA - NELO Summer...

Présentation RSA 2013

RSA Flood Control Inventions · 2013 RSA contracted by...

Akamai Technologies - Overview RSA ® Conference 2013.

RSA Monthly Online Fraud Report - June 2013

Akamai Kona Security Solutions - RSA Conference 2013

SUPRAMAX RSA · 2019. 12. 31. · SUPRAMAX RSA ๏ The...

OKLAHOMA RSA TODAY 2013-14

RSA Monthly Online Fraud Report -- August 2013

St. lawrence sipple