Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

School consolidation vs. decentralization: Trends, issues, and questions


The author examines two opposing administrative/policy trends that have simultaneously influenced the size and shape of American school districts. First,consolidation of school districts has dramatically reduced the number of districts from 130,000 in 1930 to 15,500 in 1990. State officials have viewed this as cost-effective approach and a way of reducing overlapping services and expenses. Local school and community people have seen this trend as a means of undercutting their local identity and pride. Second,decentralization has usually taken place in an urban school setting and involves reducing the size of the school district by dividing it into smaller units. This trend reached its peak in 1980, when 91% of the school districts with 100,000 or more students (n=22) reported some form of decentralization. By the 1990s, both school trends had slowed down; nevertheless, 20 questions are delineated for school administrators and school board members to consider in the event they wish to consolidate or decentralize.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Butler, Richard J., and Monk, David H. (1985, Summer). The cost of schooling in New York State.Journal of Human Resources :361–380.

  2. Community control decentralization models (1988).Educational Reform: Promises and Pitfalls Proceedings of a Conference on Urban Education. Chicago: Chicago Urban League.

  3. Guthrie, James (1979, Fall). Organizational scale and school success.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis :17–27.

  4. Fuerst, Jim S. (1989). School decentralization has poor track record.Chicago Sun Times, 22 April, p. 20.

  5. Fymier, Jack (1984).One Hundred Good Schools. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.

  6. Jewell, Robert W. (1989, February). School and district size relationships.Education and Urban Society :140–153.

  7. Levine, Daniel U., and Havighurst, Robert J. (1989).Society and Education, 7th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

  8. Ornstein, Allan C. (1980, December). Decentralization and community participation policy of big school systems.Phi Delta Kappan :225–257.

  9. Ornstein, Allan C. (1981a, Fall). Administrative decentralization and community outlook.Educational Forum :45–54.

  10. Ornstein Allan C. (1981b, November). Decentralization—Is it working?Elementary School Principal :24–27.

  11. Ornstein, Allan C. (1989a, April). Controversy over size continues.School Administrator :42–43.

  12. Ornstein, Allan C. (1989b, December). School district and school size: An evolving controversy.Clearing House :156–158.

  13. Pipho, Chris (1987, September). Rural education.Phi Delta Kappan :6–7.

  14. Rogers, David, and Chung, Norman H. (1983).110 Livingston Street Revisited. New York: New York University Press.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Allan C. Ornstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ornstein, A.C. School consolidation vs. decentralization: Trends, issues, and questions. Urban Rev 25, 167–174 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01137797

Download citation


  • School District
  • Education Research
  • Board Member
  • State Official
  • School Setting