Extensive research over a period of more than 40 years consistently finds that school consolidation has negative economic, social, and educational impacts while damaging community vitality. Merging schools is bad for students, bad for schools, and bad for communities.

A previous post on this site – Are the negative effects of merging schools proven by research and practice? – shared research cited in a 2025 policy brief from Education In Action in Texas. A similar literature review was done by Michael Haynes of the University of Toronto in 2022. This review, published in The Rural Educator, (1) perfectly corroborates the findings of the Education In Action brief, highlighting the negative economic, social and educational impacts of school mergers, as well as the profoundly negative effects on rural communities. Below are several selections from the 2022 Canadian review.

The review holds that school mergers come at a great “cost to the larger economic system in a particular municipality (Corbett & Mulcahy, 2006; Sederberg, 1987). Employment opportunities, stimulation of retail trade and the purchasing needs of large institutions like schools are stimulants to local rural economies (Sederberg, 1987). Furthermore, the removal of students from the community to attend a consolidated school means some local businesses lose a potential source of customers. As well, students may not be available for after-school employment due to long bus rides (Lauzon & Leahy, 2001).” (p65)

“The school-community relationship in rural areas is multi-faceted and provides positive economic and social benefits, with schools being indicators of community prosperity and economic well-being (Lyson, 2002; Oncescu, 2014). Schools in small communities fulfill a variety of functions. In addition to being an educational institution, rural schools act as social and cultural centres, serve as hubs for sports, music and the arts and provide a venue for other community events (Bennett, 2013; Lyson, 2002). Autonomy, vitality and unique identity are traits indicative of a community that has its own school (Lyson, 2002). A publicly funded school in a small community is often the institution with the most far-reaching impacts on citizens’ daily lives as it provides a source of employment, social, cultural and recreational opportunities (Lyson, 2002). As institutions dedicated to youth, schools are vital to the future of rural Canadian communities.” (p 66)

“Small school environments, like those found in many rural areas, seem to provide more favourable academic, pedagogical, and social outcomes, which are well documented in the North American literature (Gruenewald, 2003; Harris, 2014). Students are able to enter into more meaningful and productive relationships with peers and teachers in a smaller school environment that provides higher levels of participation and engagement (Corbett, 2006; Gruenewald, 2003). Students are also more likely to engage in responsible and constructive community action when there is a sense of belonging and community present in the school (Harris, 2014; Lauzon & Leahy, 2001). Enhanced communication, establishment of genuine relationships, and fewer bureaucratic protocols all work to produce greater parent involvement in small schools (Bennett, 2013). Borst (2005).” (p 67)

“Cristall et al. (2020) highlight the direct personal impact that school closure in a rural area can have on students’ mental health and well-being. The loss or disruption of all that is familiar – friends, classmates, teachers, routines, as well as being present daily in the community that is ‘home’, can have a profound impact on students.” (p 67)

The Canajoharie Middle School and the Fort Plain High School are slated to be closed if there is a school merger. No doubt one of the two elementary schools will follow. The question is simple. Are the above documented consequences of school consolidation what we want for our students and our communities?