CommonTerry: Volume Ninety-One | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Dr. Terry Stoops, who is the Director of Education Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

Enrollment Changes Have Consequences

    Earlier this week, the N.C. Department of Public Instruction published the final 2015-16 student counts for all district and charter schools. I used Average Daily Membership (ADM) data to determine which districts had the largest changes in enrollment over the last five school years.

    As one would expect, Wake County and Charlotte-Mecklenburg had the largest numerical increases, adding 10,690 and 8,428 students, respectively. Cabarrus, Union, and Johnston counties rounded out the top five gainers. At the other end of the spectrum, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Buncombe, Nash-Rocky Mount, and Halifax lost the largest number of students.

    Given variations in the size of districts in North Carolina, however, simple numerical changes can be misleading. Percentage change is a much more useful measure. Asheville City Schools had the largest percentage change in enrollment (+10.5 percent), followed by Mooresville Graded School District (+8.5 percent) and Pender County Schools (+8.0 percent). Cabarrus and Wake counties were not far behind.

    The six districts with the largest decreases are located in the northeast region of the state. Halifax County Schools lost nearly one-quarter of their student enrollment over the last five school years. Northampton, Edgecombe, Bertie, Martin, and Weldon City Schools all had double-digit percentage decreases.

    These enrollment trends are critical.

    Districts with growing student populations often encounter multiple challenges. They must build new schools, expand transportation services, hire additional personnel, and procure instructional materials and technology to cover legally mandated services for incoming students. While growing districts receive federal and state funds that offset a portion of these costs, county commissions may struggle to accommodate demands by school boards for a larger share of local tax revenue. Displeased and disenfranchised taxpayers may also spurn efforts by elected officials to borrow millions of dollars for school facility projects, raise taxes, or reduce spending on other locally funded services.



    On the other hand, shrinking districts may lose state and federal funding tied to enrollment, as well as local dollars tied to residents. While these districts also have fewer students to educate, the loss of revenue makes it increasingly difficult for district officials to attend to fixed costs, such as school buildings and school buses. In addition, these districts may struggle to support supplementary instruction, enrichment programs, and extracurricular activities.

    Policy responses to enrollment changes vary. Clearly, there is no silver bullet. One option is to modify the funding formula to ensure that districts with consistent and sizable enrollment decreases receive sufficient dollars for fixed costs. But such a policy would be a disservice to growing districts. After all, they could also make a strong case that they should also receive a targeted allotment to address facilities or infrastructure needs.

    Elected officials may also mandate that districts consolidate schools or merge with a city system or a neighboring county district. Those options appear to be fiscally and educationally sensible for some districts. According to state law, those decisions are within the purview of local governments. Incentivizing districts to consolidate schools or merge with others would be the only viable option for state lawmakers. Even that is unlikely to work - consolidations and mergers are widely unpopular.