Legislative Budget and Finance Committee A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Offices: Room 400 • Finance Building • Harrisburg • Tel: (717) 783-1600 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8737 • Harrisburg, PA 17105-8737 Facsimile (717) 787-5487 SENATORS JOHN R. PIPPY Chairman GERALD J. LAVALLE Vice Chairman JAY COSTA, JR. ROBERT M. TOMLINSON Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of ROBERT C. WONDERLING JOHN N. WOZNIAK Consolidating Pennsylvania School Districts REPRESENTATIVES RON RAYMOND Secretary VACANT Treasurer H. SCOTT CONKLIN Conducted Pursuant to SR 208 of 2006 ANTHONY M. DELUCA ROBERT W. GODSHALL DAVID K. LEVDANSKY T. MARK MUSTIO Part 2 of 2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PHILIP R. DURGIN Profiles of Paired Districts CHIEF ANALYST JOHN H. ROWE, JR. June 2007 School Evaluation Services Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of Consolidating Pennsylvania School Districts Part 2 of 2 Profiles of Paired Districts Prepared for the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services 55 Water Street x New York, NY 10041 (212) 438-2045 June 1, 2007 May Copyright © 2007 Standard & Poor’s, a Division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this Report is limited to non commercial purposes for the use in public policy discussions for purposes of studying the cost-effectiveness of consolidating Pennsylvania School Districts. Portions and excerpts of this Report may be disseminated provided that any such portions and excerpts accurately represent the analytical conclusions of Standard & Poor’s and are attributed to Standard & Poor’s. The content of this Report constitutes the opinions of Standard & Poor’s based on information supplied to Standard & Poor’s by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and other sources. Standard & Poor’s makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the consequences or results that may be obtained from the use of this Report and Standard & Poor’s makes no warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use. This Report is separate and independent of any S&P Ratings Services relating to the credit worthiness of bonds or debt obligations. 060107 Page 0 INTRODUCTION TO PART 2 The Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee commissioned Standard & Poor’s to conduct a Comprehensive Study of Consolidating Pennsylvania School Districts. The study is published in two parts. Part 1 includes Statewide Findings, while Part 2 includes Profiles of Paired Districts. One of the central findings in Part 1 is that there is a relationship between per-pupil spending and size of enrollment across the state’s 501 school systems. Districts with fewer than 500 students spend an average of $9,674 per pupil in operating costs (in 2004 dollars). As districts get larger, their per-pupil spending tends to decrease, until it reaches an average of $8,057 among districts with 2,500 – 2,9999 students. However, average per-pupil spending tends to go back up again as enrollments exceed 3,000 students. Drawing from this empirically observed pattern, it appears that district consolidations that result in combine enrollments below 3,000 students would be more likely to save money than consolidations that produce districts with more than 3,000 students. Therefore, if the state wishes to reduce overall educational costs, or to re-invest cost-savings so as to expand educational services, it might reasonably focus on the potential benefits of consolidating relatively high- spending, smaller districts into lower-spending, larger districts with enrollments below 3,000 students. The underlying principle is that per-pupil spending might decrease the closer consolidated districts come to an enrollment of 2,500 – 2,999 students. Although there are 312 districts with enrollments below 3,000 students, not all of them border another district with which they could consolidate without creating a combined enrollment above 3,000 students. Nor are all of them relatively high-spending when compared to similarly-sized districts. As a result, some consolidation scenarios would appear more likely than others to result in a net reduction in per-pupil costs for each of the districts involved (not just for one district at the expense of another). Accordingly, Part 2 of this study focuses on a subset of 88 districts with enrollments below 3,000 students, which have the following characteristics: Their per-pupil spending is above the average amount spent by similarly-sized districts (and, by extension, the average amount spent by districts with 2,500 – 2,999 students). They border a district whose spending is also above the average for their size, with whom they could potentially consolidate without exceeding an enrollment of 3,000 students. These 88 districts are used to create 97 hypothetical “pairings” of school systems that are profiled in Part 2. Some of the 88 districts analyzed in this study are included in more than one paring. The profiles of each pair of districts are provided for further analysis by local and state policymakers. However, Standard & Poor’s analysis of these districts does not constitute a recommendation that they be consolidated. Their data are analyzed for modeling purposes only. June 1, 2007 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS The districts listed in this table of contents include the 88 school systems used to create 97 sets of paired districts. A three-page data profile has been prepared for each pair of districts. Each district involved in a pairing is listed in alphabetical order, along with the page number for each profile in which it is included. Some school districts are included in more than one pairing. School District Name Page Number Allegheny Valley School District Paired with Riverview School District 11 Allegheny-Clarion Valley School District Paired with Cranberry Area School District 14 Paired with Karns City Area School District 17 Paired with Keystone School District 20 Austin Area School District Paired with Galeton Area School District 23 Paired with Smethport Area School District 26 Avonworth School District Paired with Cornell School District 80 Paired with Northgate School District 29 Benton Area School District Paired with East Lycoming School District 32 Paired with Millville Area School District 185 Paired with Northwest Area School District 35 Paired with Sullivan County School District 38 Berlin Brothersvalley School District Paired with Meyersdale Area School District 41 Paired with Rockwood Area School District 251 Paired with Shade-Central City School District 260 Bethlehem-Center School District Paired with Jefferson-Morgan School District 146 Blacklick Valley School District Paired with Central Cambria School District 44 Paired with Northern Cambria School District 47 Paired with Penns Manor Area School District 50 Paired with United School District 53 June 1, 2007 Page 2 Blue Ridge School District Paired with Mountain View School District 56 Brookville Area School District Paired with Clarion-Limestone Area School District 65 Paired with Forest Area School District 104 Paired with North Clarion County School District 197 Paired with Ridgway Area School District 248 Brownsville Area School District Paired with Jefferson-Morgan School District 149 Cambria Heights School District Paired with Glendale School District 122 Paired with Harmony Area School District 131 Paired with Northern Cambria School District 224 Canton Area School District Paired with Sullivan County School District 275 Carmichaels Area School District Paired with Jefferson-Morgan School District 152 Paired with Southeastern Greene School District 266 Central Cambria School District Paired with Blacklick Valley School District 44 Paired with Conemaugh Valley School District 74 Paired with Ferndale Area School District 92 Central Fulton School District Paired with Forbes Road School District 98 Central Greene School District Paired with Southeastern Greene School District 269 Chartiers-Houston School District Paired with Fort Cherry School District 59 Clarion Area School District Paired with Keystone School District 62 Paired with North Clarion County School District 200 Clarion-Limestone Area School District Paired with Brookville Area School District 65 June 1, 2007 Page 3 Conemaugh Township Area School District Paired with North Star School District 68 Paired with Richland School District 71 Paired with Shade-Central City School District 263 Conemaugh Valley School District Paired with Central Cambria School District 74 Paired with Ferndale Area School District 95 Paired with Richland School District 77 Cornell School District Paired with Avonworth School District 80 Paired with Northgate School District 83 Paired with Quaker Valley School District 86 Paired with Sto-Rox School District 89 Cranberry Area School District Paired with Allegheny-Clarion Valley School District 14 Paired with Forest Area School District 107 Paired with Keystone School District 161 Paired with North Clarion County School District 203 Paired with Valley Grove School District 290 East Lycoming School District Paired with Benton Area School District 32 Paired with Millville Area School District 188 Paired with Muncy School District 194 Paired with Sullivan County School District 278 Ferndale Area School District Paired with Central Cambria School District 92 Paired with Conemaugh Valley School District 95 Forbes Road School District Paired with Central Fulton School District 98 Paired with Tussey Mountain School District 101 Forest Area School