This was maybe 5-6 years ago. I remember Emerson-Hubbard and Pender had been cooping track for a few years. I believe they were the Raptors. Pender approached Emerson-Hubbard only a few weeks before the deadline and asked to do a football coop when they realized there numbers were low and were going to have a difficulttime fielding a team in the next cycle. Emerson-Hubbard turned it down. Then two montgs later Emerson-Hubbard realized they would be short on numbers for girls sports the next school year and approached Pender about cooping all sports, including boys. Pender turned it down. Some of these schools have no foresight.
Hampton and Henderson exploring co-op
- Thread starter northeastNebraska
- Start date
In a way, cooperatives are a business. Some business deals are easy, some are not. There are multiple different types of cooperatives. Probably the easiest type is when school A has a program and school B does not. School A agrees to accept students from school B on their teams and they continue to practice at school A, play under school A's name, and wear school A's uniforms. School A is responsible for travel arrangements to and from games, entrance fees, referee bills, etc... Its easy. They were going to pay that stuff anyway, having school B along for the ride doesn't change that.
Its also super easy when both schools have a program and one is sound and the other is not. The school that has the sound program doesn't need the other program to survive... so they can make demands. If school B doesn't like they can go find someone else.
Where it gets a lot harder is when school A and school B have existing programs AND both programs are struggling in one way or another....participation numbers, success, finances, etc. The reality is they need each other for long term sustainability, but usually one of the partners wants to be the alpha. The logical thing to do is keep everything proportionate. If one school contributes 65% of the players then that school should be responsible for 65% of the costs, 65% of the travel, 65% of the spectator supervision....in return they should host 65% of practices, 65% of games, and keep 65% of profits. Where I think schools get hung up is when they both want to keep some form of an identity. I've never understood the need for a new name and new uniforms. Just keep the names and wear existing uniforms. In this case, maybe you wear Hampton uniforms when you play in Hampton and Heartland uniforms when you play in Henderson. Split it 50/50 on the road. Save on cost. Make sure the cooperative is going to work before you go spending $3,000-$5,000 on new uniforms for 1 sport.
***I think the most important thing to remember about cooperatives is that they are NOT meant to be long-term, though they can be if both schools are happy in the arrangement. They are meant to help each school build their numbers within the program back up to a point they can live on their own again. Cooperatives are not supposed to be a step towards consolidation. They are meant to be the opposite, and they can easily act that way if you do the cooperative right. If people go into it thinking its the first step towards consolidation then they might as well skip the cooperative and go right to consolidating. Consolidation should be the LAST resort.
Its also super easy when both schools have a program and one is sound and the other is not. The school that has the sound program doesn't need the other program to survive... so they can make demands. If school B doesn't like they can go find someone else.
Where it gets a lot harder is when school A and school B have existing programs AND both programs are struggling in one way or another....participation numbers, success, finances, etc. The reality is they need each other for long term sustainability, but usually one of the partners wants to be the alpha. The logical thing to do is keep everything proportionate. If one school contributes 65% of the players then that school should be responsible for 65% of the costs, 65% of the travel, 65% of the spectator supervision....in return they should host 65% of practices, 65% of games, and keep 65% of profits. Where I think schools get hung up is when they both want to keep some form of an identity. I've never understood the need for a new name and new uniforms. Just keep the names and wear existing uniforms. In this case, maybe you wear Hampton uniforms when you play in Hampton and Heartland uniforms when you play in Henderson. Split it 50/50 on the road. Save on cost. Make sure the cooperative is going to work before you go spending $3,000-$5,000 on new uniforms for 1 sport.
***I think the most important thing to remember about cooperatives is that they are NOT meant to be long-term, though they can be if both schools are happy in the arrangement. They are meant to help each school build their numbers within the program back up to a point they can live on their own again. Cooperatives are not supposed to be a step towards consolidation. They are meant to be the opposite, and they can easily act that way if you do the cooperative right. If people go into it thinking its the first step towards consolidation then they might as well skip the cooperative and go right to consolidating. Consolidation should be the LAST resort.
Last edited:
Talking to a Giltner school board member sounds like they were all on board and ready to go. Left the ball in Harvards court
Was it meant to be long term for EMF? or Summerland? or Shelby-Rising City? Because they are thriving together and I bet 95% of the kids in those districts are happier that they are together than if they were alone. We are not seeing schools start a co-op, leave the co-op after 5-6 years and be successful.
It CAN be a step towards consolidation because if numbers are small in the elementary, the co-op can lead to to more buy-in from the families and build towards consolidation. Consolidation isn't a bad thing, especially with the current shift of population to the the far eastern part of the state.
Last edited:
Consolidation is absolutely a bad thing. Closing a school closes a town. The shift in population to the eastern part of the state is irrelevant. Smaller class sizes are better. I think everyone in the education profession would agree with that.
I also think if you asked Ewing or Shelby or Friend or any of the communities involved in the cooperatives you mentioned above if they would prefer to survive on their own or be dependent on a cooperative they would all say they would prefer to survive on their own. Fact is they need each other right now, so the cooperative works. Maybe that changes down the road and numbers warrant the cooperative dissolves.
I also think if you asked Ewing or Shelby or Friend or any of the communities involved in the cooperatives you mentioned above if they would prefer to survive on their own or be dependent on a cooperative they would all say they would prefer to survive on their own. Fact is they need each other right now, so the cooperative works. Maybe that changes down the road and numbers warrant the cooperative dissolves.
I know in Giltner's situation they are 60+ percent option students right now. As I agree with you in some situations "you close the school you close the town" it would not be that in all of the places.
That’s so wild, on paper they are in better shape to even if it’s only marginally….im not sure what future numbers look like but for now they would of even qualified for 8 man playoffs still(I do realize that’s the mid cycle number) ive followed Nebraska high school sports for 20 years and cant say I’ve ever heard of the Harvard school district before seeing them in this thread
I think the small class sizes is ok to argue to a certain extent, bur at some point there is going to be reminiscing returns. Staff will be cut, and then options will dwindle. Schools aren’t going to be staffed for 30 kids per grade when there are 10.
I don’t think consolidation is a solution for everything, but I’m also not going to say it’s the worst possible outcome. Consolidation means you still have a connection to a school. It’s much better than just letting your school die.
Each situation is unique, and some solutions are not always applicable to every problem.
I disagree with consolidation being a bad thing. Small towns are usually dying before the school closes which is the reason enrollment numbers for schools in those small towns keep decreasing.
I think the increased push of career/technical education in high schools has added power in keeping kids home in the communities they grow up in. Used to be unthinkable for an educator to encourage a kid NOT to go to college. Reality is college isn't or everyone, and in some cases I'd go so far to say its a sham. More high schools are encouraging kids to be welders, diesel mechanics, farmers, electricians, etc... I don't have data on this, but I'd say those kids are more likely to stay local after graduation than kids that go on to college. The social shaming of kids that don't go to college is going away, which is a step in the right direction.
I'll just leave these two pieces of literature here.
This paragraph hits the nail on the head
"The best hope for sustaining rural community schools lies in halting or reversing the decline in the rural population. Rural school consolidations and rural population decline are linked in a vicious circle: the rural population declines, so schools are consolidated. Consolidated schools weaken the bonds between rural youth and their home towns, making it more likely that they will migrate elsewhere as adults – and the population declines even further. There are numerous factors contributing to the decline of the rural population, but chief among them are the death of economic opportunities and, as Wendell Berry put it in his typically pithy way, the fact that “the child is not educated to return home and be of use to the place and community; he or she is educated to leave home and earn money in a provisional future that has nothing to do with place or community” (Berry, 1990, p. 163, emphasis in original29). To reverse this trend, revitalization of the local economy in rural communities is needed. Also needed is a rethinking of some of our educational practices – How might we educate people to stay in their communities, rather than educating them to leave?
I'll just leave these two pieces of literature here.
This paragraph hits the nail on the head
"The best hope for sustaining rural community schools lies in halting or reversing the decline in the rural population. Rural school consolidations and rural population decline are linked in a vicious circle: the rural population declines, so schools are consolidated. Consolidated schools weaken the bonds between rural youth and their home towns, making it more likely that they will migrate elsewhere as adults – and the population declines even further. There are numerous factors contributing to the decline of the rural population, but chief among them are the death of economic opportunities and, as Wendell Berry put it in his typically pithy way, the fact that “the child is not educated to return home and be of use to the place and community; he or she is educated to leave home and earn money in a provisional future that has nothing to do with place or community” (Berry, 1990, p. 163, emphasis in original29). To reverse this trend, revitalization of the local economy in rural communities is needed. Also needed is a rethinking of some of our educational practices – How might we educate people to stay in their communities, rather than educating them to leave?
Totally agree on the push for Tech education. It's very important. It's great to see growth at the community college level, it's no longer "embarrassing" to go to a community college like it was perceived to be in the 2000's when I was in high school.
BUT there are some towns that just aren't going to make it. Thus their school will struggle to make it. Not every small town can survive and keep a school. Some can make it. Pender is figuring it out, Hartington seems to have it figured out, Humphrey is growing, Yutan, etc. That is great!
Some may want to move back "home" but maybe instead if moving to Bancroft, they move to West Point. Instead of moving to back to Brady, they want to raise their kids in Gothenburg. Ord instead of Scotia, etc. The Ord's, Gothenburg's, West Point's will benefit because they have the C1-C2 schools with good student to teacher ratios, more offerings, better overall staff, and teams with healthy rosters. Culture matters.
Agreed on the point of Tech/Trade degrees. Their popularity will allow some rural towns to keep its graduates. Students who are successfully obtaining 4 year degrees and graduate/doctorate level degrees, will sparingly return to those towns though. The exception would be towns that thrive due to their close proximity to large urban areas. Bennington, Yutan, Wahoo, Malcolm, Ashland, Valley, Firth, & Waverly, are all experiencing growth and a "return" of families because they don't actually have to work in those communities. They can commute to Omaha/Lincoln for work but also enjoy the benefits of small town living. Some rural communities will thrive and even see a resurgence. But they will need to probably exist within 40 minutes of a large urban area. You will see a spray of successful rural communities centered around Kearney, GI, Norfolk, Omaha, and Lincoln. It is what Gretna, Elkhorn, Papillion, and La Vista used to be. Our population density projection is just not favorable to most of rural Nebraska. Specifically west and north of Kearney. The growth will be east of Kearney and along I-80, especially between and around Lincoln/Omaha. If I'm a small town outside of that zone, I'd start to look at some creative long term strategic planning to make your community appealing.