District Administration - July/August 2011 - (Page 71)

gions. The structure of cooperatives can vary widely—from independent, formal entities with their own administration, facilities and resources, paid by fees from participants, membership dues or tax levies, to less formal arrangements, with governing bodies consisting of representatives from participating districts, to singlepurpose interdistrict sharing agreements (Eggers et al., 2005; Sommer, 1990). Cooperatives enable member districts to take advantage of economies of scale. For example, districts in a cooperative may receive better pricing on resources through bulk purchasing. They might also share teachers in hard-to-staff subjects. A talented physics teacher hired by one district could teach students in other member districts through videoconferencing or other online platforms. Likewise, a member district might share a calculus, Mandarin, or Spanish teacher with other districts. Leadership and professional development can be shared and maximized for districts participating in a cooperative. Early childhood teachers from member districts could take advantage of a professional development opportunity by coming together to form a larger group, which might develop into a teacher cohort to ensure ongoing and sustainable professional learning. Some districts even share a superintendent. Cost-Effectiveness Ironically, although a key purpose of cooperatives is to improve cost-effectiveness, little research has been conducted to confirm whether they produce savings for members. In fact, districts themselves may not track savings; a survey of superintendents in Vermont revealed that only 42 percent of respondents evaluated savings from shared services (Vermont State Auditor, 2009). What evidence there is suggests that savings range from modest to substantial. Minnesota’s Southwest and West Central Educational Cooperative Service Units conducted two comprehensive costeffectiveness studies (as cited in Stanley, 2005), in 1989 and 1995. The first found that member districts spent $11,409,798 for collaborative services. Estimates of the costs they would have incurred without the cooperative totaled $16,926,415. The difference of $5,516,617 represents overall estimated savings of 33 percent. Savings improved by the time of the 1995 study, with members spending 36 percent less than they might have otherwise. The Greater Lawrence Educational Collaborative (GLEC), a consortium of 10 school districts in northeastern Massachusetts, compares its rates and fee schedules for special education services to private sector rates for equivalent services. www.DistrictAdministration.com July/August 2011 71 http://www.sallyridescience.com http://www.sallyridescience.com http://www.DistrictAdministration.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of District Administration - July/August 2011

District Administration - July/August 2011
Contents
From the Editor
News Update
Facilities News
Inside the Law
District Profile
Administrator Profile
The Social Media Dilemma
Is Year-Round Schooling on Track?
After 50 Years, Ethnic Studies Still Controversial
Finding the Right Purchasing Solution
Look, Listen, Learn
Research Center
Supervisor’s Opinion
Going Mobile
Superintendent’s Insight
Books
Product Focus
New Products
Online Edge

District Administration - July/August 2011